Great if they're the best qualified people for that particular job, that's cool but as in any job or profession, I just don't get hiring people of a certain gender, colour or persuasion just to tick boxes.

 

Did you research them to figure out what their deal was, or was it so important that you got this groundbreaking idea out there in the world quickly?

 

Why do you think that's what is happening?

"Most Qualified" is a pretty nebulous term that may mean different things to different people. Grier's preferred qualifications may not be the same as Spielman or Ireland for instance. It's a very subjective take, and one that only ever pops up when it comes to non white people.

 

WARNING - This thread has the potential to get political. If it does descend into mud-sling territory it will be shutdown.

 

I agree with this, true equality is when the right person for the job gets it regardless of their skin color, gender, so on.

When you give things away for the sake of diversity you are only creating a new problem where better qualified people are sitting without a job.

Now, they could very well be amazing scouts and I hope the move works out. However, I hope we hired them BECAUSE they are great scouts and not in the name of being diverse and trying to get street cred.

My response would be like "You're a woman? Great, why should I care? Are you qualified beyond other applicants? Yes? You're hired. No? Stop wasting my time."

 

Its not something that really needs to be said. If someone is being hired, it's a given that the hirer feels they can do the job.

 

Is it groundbreaking? I don't think it is but it does happen a lot nowadays. Maybe it's just over here. I'm sure the two ladies are more than adequately qualified to carry out their role. They're the best people available for that job. Great. Hire them and move on. It's when people/companies start waving the diversity flag going 'Look at me! Look at me!' that the suspicion of too much box ticking and not enough quantifying is raised.

I didn't know the two ladies were 'non-white' as you put it. It didn't say so in the OP, just that they were 'non-male'. Again, it matters not if they're the best people for the job.

 

We're talking about a league whose hiring practices are almost entirely driven by social connections, nepotism, and connections to other figures in the sport after a period of ritualistic dues-paying. It's about as non-meritorious as anything gets as it is, getting concerned that someone is being hired primarily off of their gender or race is really kinda just pissing into the wind.

The Dolphins have one of the most merit-driven coaching staffs in the league, and last year they had the kids of Kirk Ferentz and Michael Lombardi on their staff. Another Lombardi kid works for the Patriots, who also count two Belichick-spawn on their coaching staff. You can't throw a rock without hitting someone's dip**** kid working as a quality control coach somewhere.

Giving someone a break because of their gender is a bit awkward, but it's trying to fix problems the NFL has the only way they know how to operate, so it's something I guess?

 

It’s more than just tick boxes, we are talking about extra draft picks man...lol

 

I strongly disagree with that. I've seen people be hired for reasons that have nothing to do with their capabilities, and especially nothing to do with their capabilities compared to their peers.

In a giant organization like an NFL team, you can have throwaway hires for PR reasons. If you feel like it gives the franchise a good look its worth keeping a person, male or female, on the payroll.

 

If they’re the nest candidates for the job, I have no problem with it but if they hired these females to check a box, dumb move

 

If it's a throwaway then it doesn't matter and again doesn't need to be said.

Ultimately, Grier isn't going to jeopardize his position for a minor PR win. He either feels they are qualified, or it's just PR and these folks won't be expected to do any heavy lifting that would be problematic due to lack of qualifications.

And frankly, it's as much about potentially exploiting and untapped avenue/resource as anything. There is nothing that says dudes are inherently better - having different experience/perspective could even be a big positive.

 

Should be in all races, color, gender, etc. Good for the Fins!

 

As long as they are the BEST personnel for the job, I could care less what race, gender or any other separating identity box they are placed in.

As fans, we don’t settle for “good enough” as it pertains to players on the field. We want the BEST, not “good enough”. Same standard should apply to the ENTIRE organization in EVERY position.

 

Who says it isn't?

 

Maybe all job interviews should be done with a voice changer, behind a curtain, without the candidates name being known, if we want true impartiality.

 

Is this a necessary statement? Do you think they hired incompetent employees to tick a box?

I don't see a need for this post - It's intention is to downplay the article and there is no possible way you can prove or disprove any point here without firsthand knowledge of the interview process, who else interviewed and how the decision was made. Basically, you are trolling.

 

On a semi-related topic, I've noticed that all the reality talent shows (American Idol, America's Got Talent, The Voice, etc.) all focus much heavier on "stories" these days than they do actual talent. For instance, one of the AGT front-runners this current season spent almost 30 years in prison before being acquitted by DNA evidence. Last season, they had a kid playing violin that beat cancer....plus a mentally challenged guy who could barely talk but sang/played piano beautifully. None of these acts were anywhere near "the best talent" for the season, yet each of them won because of their fantastic story.

I'm not saying it's wrong to showcase a really tough past, but it's to the point these days that you can't win one of these shows just on talent alone. And a big part of that is the producers who exploit the heck out of those stories to tug on America's heart-strings and make it a pure popularity contest.

My wife and I argue about that every week, she'll say, "He was really good for a 9 year old kid who was bullied in school!" Then I'll reply, "But the act before him was 10 times better doing the exact same thing!" Then we see the incredible singer go home and the kid advance to the next round. That kind of stuff drives me nuts!

Anyway, we were talking about diversity here and it truly is a double-edged sword since the best overall candidate on paper will often be a white male. But that alone doesn't indicate talent, it simply means that the white guy advanced faster on his respective teams so he was more visible from a talent standpoint. I would hope that we're always hiring the best person for the job based on talent, cultural fit and similar criteria that the rest of America hires for...but we'll never truly know since we aren't in those interviews to see exactly what type of role a coach or coordinator will be asked to fill.

For instance, Philbin was very hands-off so he needed independent leaders that could take the playbook and run with it, while Gase was super hands-on so he wanted team oriented leaders who would regularly defer to him. The same person wouldn't be the "top candidate" in both programs since coaching style, leadership traits, etc would be completely different.

 

Calm down Kevin. Hiring employees to tick a box happens. It happens in my organisation. If you can get the steam out of your eyes for a moment and actually read my post, it says 'in any job or profession' It does happen and I neither get it nor like it. Get over it.

 

Hiring a woman in a sports field is pandering to cancel culture? C'mon now.

 

Some of y'all are just too WOKE

 

Did I say they weren’t? All I said was if they were the best...

 

He provided a fundamentally true statement that seems to have upset you.

I like it.

 

Wow. Great. Wonderful. This is the first time I've wanted to click the Tannehill Titans thread. All I care about is if they are good at their job. Diversity? I don't care.

We have a black coach and a half black top 5 QB pick, I think we met the quota already... or whatever it is

 

The title of the thread is “Dolphins walk the walk on diversity”. Ok, great...they hired 2 female scouts. That is indeed diverse but...

Does diversity equate to competence?
Does diversity equate to talent?
Does diversity equate to Super Bowl championships?

As I said earlier, I don’t care WHAT color, gender or any other identity box is checked, if he/she/it is the BEST candidate for the job, then HIRE him/her/it.

At the end of the season, none of us cares who is part of our organization as long as we had a successful season. If we’re crying in our Cheerios because we finished the season 3-13, I don’t think anyone is going to say, “well at least we had the mist diverse staff in the league”

 

I think you're probably at the point you need a workshop or an intervention or something to not be so bad at this weird psuedo-trolling thing you insist on doing.

 

I like his statement from a fundamental standpoint....you gave a typical ridiculously condescending reply.

Explain how that is ANY type of trolling?

 

You got excited about what was the most banal and lazy comment that's been repeated by like twelve people after the fact and then did the "u mad?" thing.

One way or another, you need some help you're not getting evidently.

 

Not speaking for phin mccool but he just said the same thing I did...if they’re the best for the job. He never brought up or mentioned their contract deal or anything like that.

Give you a relative example...when Miami hired Joe Philbin and/or Adam Gase, all of us held the same mindset...if he’s the best candidate for the job. They didn’t pan out.

If their names had been Josephine Philbin or Adamah Gase, we would all be saying the exact same thing...if they’re the BEST candidate for the job.

That’s all any of us are saying. If these 2 females are that damn good at scouting then by all means, grab ‘em!! San Francisco seems to be doing pretty damned well with their female offensive assistant coach, so gender doesn’t mean a thing.

All we want is the best for our team...regardless of gender

 

Why? It's just a flat out unneeded thing to say.

 

But your response was a fantastic one, free of provocativeness, free of rudeness etc....I have no doubt you believe that.

Strange you can lead the thread with the first terrible post, then claim you are a victim of "trolling". A little self-awareness may be called for here.

 

I think it's a natural reaction. I personally couldn't care less how many diversity boxes we check off, if we aren't hiring the best candidate. So diversity is great, if they're the best. A post saying how diverse we are is pretty meaningless to me, if we aren't getting good results from the people we hire.

 

Then THIS thread doesn’t need to exist. Why have a thread on “diversity”?

It’s just unneeded

 

It's 100% meaningless. Grier isn't going to put himself in jeopardy to check a box. He's not passing some obvious great all-timer to bring in some random person with no knowledge.

Either these people are entirely qualified, or the position isn't one where a novice will cause harm. In neither case do we need to bring up the "well, IF they are qualified" spiel that white dudes don't get.

It's just spotlighting something outside the norm. No need to throw shade and bring up "well IF they are qualifieds". Just ... leave it be?

 

Then if it’s outside the norm...and the sports world is putting a spotlight on it, opinions expressed such as mine are indeed meaningful

Otherwise, turn the damn spotlight off