Reply With QuoteWhat I would say to that vocal minority is this: If you advocate for hiring someone based on their skin color, I have no use for you. Sorry to be so blunt, but there's really no other way to say it.
Otzelberger has been hanging out for two weeks, and they're finally bringing him in for an interview? How the hell is this considered "moving fast?!"
If Tracy Webster priced him out of a job here, that's fine by me. However, I highly doubt Otzelberger would require $500K/year like Nagy did as he's never been a head coach.
What I would say to that vocal minority is this: If you advocate for hiring someone based on their skin color, I have no use for you. Sorry to be so blunt, but there's really no other way to say it.
if we hire TJO will you have no use for him if he decides to hire some assistants "based on" their skin color? Because I 100% guarantee you that he will make sure to have at least one black assistant.
Reducing complex decision analysis to one factor is little more than a straw man argument.
"There's a long drive ... It's gonna be, I believe!Originally Posted by uwm97
"The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!"
The point I'm trying to make, Fran, is I'm not interested in bypassing a better, more qualified candidate because of social or political reasons. I have no problem with and would advocate giving a fair opportunity to candidates of any race, but I would never choose to hire an employee for that reason. Some in the community, including on this board (and perhaps yourself?), are suggesting just that.
My point is simply that in any complex decision there is always a matrix of factors. I believe that race is one appropriate factor. That is not the same as saying that it is the only factor or the deciding factor. But it's okay if it's the tipping point factor -- because any appropriate factor can be.
I have stated my preference for an AA head coach, and my reason for that preference. But that presumes that coach is otherwise qualified.
And let's be honest -- "qualified" is a relative term here. The way this process is going it would take a lunatic to pretend that ANY particular candidate presented to us is clearly the "one guy" who will take us to the promised land. We'll be lucky if we're not just taking the first guy willing to say he'll actually take the job. So if we hire Joe Black instead of Larry White I will have little patience for anybody arguing that we blew it because of some unjustified racial preference. That will be the least of it.
THIS we can agree on. To be clear, I would never look back and say we should've hired Larry White because of his skin tone. There would be no way to ever prove something like that, if I even was so racist as to say or think it.
With that said, I have advocated for Otz in any discussion regarding an opening in Milwaukee. In my expert opinion, he's the best fit for the job.
JG, trust me, I'm not calling anyone "racist." I just think we are all susceptible to not seeing the deep nuance in this issue because people at the far ends of the spectrum apply a reductionist analysis and try to push everyone with absolute positions. It isn't all black or white, if you'll excuse the pun.
And as for Otz (or, to be fair, any candidate from certain programs), if we write into the contract that he would take quarterly independently administered polygraphs as to his recruiting practices I'm sure I could get comfortable with him.
Call it the Bruce rule.
If TJ is picking up all this steam I'm reading about, is there a reason he wan't give an interview until now? It makes zero sense to me.
Posting Permissions