On Tuesday, America First Legal (AFL) lodged a complaint against the NFL, alleging that the “Rooney Rule” – a requirement for NFL teams to interview minority candidates for specific positions – is both discriminatory and illegal.
According to AFL’s filing, the “Rooney Rule” violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and promotes race and gender discrimination within the league. The complaint further asserts that the NFL prioritizes false “diversity” over established legal principles, engaging in unlawful and morally objectionable racial categorization.
AFL senior advisor Ian Prior issued a statement regarding the complaint, stating, “Every year, NFL teams must adhere to the ‘Rooney Rule’ and interview potential coaches and executives not based on their skills and qualifications, but solely due to their racial background. This process not only undermines the integrity of the candidates being interviewed but also represents a form of racial balancing that the Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally declared illegal and contrary to equal protection under the law.”
Determining the legality of the “Rooney Rule” rests with the courts. However, it is difficult to deny that the policy carries racial implications. Mandating NFL teams to interview candidates based on their skin color is undeniably discriminatory.
During a media briefing ahead of Sunday’s Super Bowl, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the issue. The New England Patriots, without conducting any interviews, promoted Jerod Mayo to their head coaching position. Goodell expressed support for this decision, stating, “I believe it’s a positive step for teams to take. I don’t view it as circumventing the Rooney Rule; I actually see it as benefiting both our players and coaches by fostering stability.”
However, as pointed out by Salguero, what if Mayo were white? Goodell commended the Patriots for cultivating their future head coach and establishing a succession plan, but this seems to apply exclusively to black coaches, revealing clear racial discrimination.
Additionally, Prior’s statement highlights the occurrence of superficial “box-checking” interviews. An example of this took place recently with the Washington Commanders. The team chartered a private jet to Detroit to interview both white Lions offensive coordinator Ben Johnson and black defensive coordinator Aaron Glenn. Allegedly, Johnson texted the Commanders’ management during the flight, withdrawing his candidacy. Subsequently, the team launched a smear campaign against Johnson, evidently upset by his decision. Their complaint centers on the timing of his notification, even though the trip to interview Glenn was still necessary.
However, does the timing really matter? If their intention was genuinely to interview Glenn, regardless of Johnson’s withdrawal, the trip to Detroit would not have been wasted. Or was their true motive to only interview Johnson and exploit the opportunity to fulfill the “Rooney Rule” since they were already in Detroit?
The latter scenario appears most plausible. Why else would they be so infuriated by a supposedly “wasted” trip that should not have been wasted in the first place?
In this situation, how must Aaron Glenn feel? The purpose of the “Rooney Rule” is to support minority coaching candidates, primarily those who are black. Yet, Glenn now knows that the Lions interviewed him solely out of obligation. And somehow, that is considered a positive outcome for Glenn?
It is quite simple, NFL: hire the most qualified individuals for available positions without considering their skin color.
This principle should apply to all American corporations. It is time to discard all the unnecessary focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Let us hire the most capable individuals without taking their skin color into account.
It may seem like a radical notion, but it is high time we embrace it.