Dolphins walk the walk on diversity

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.

I hire the best available person but when there is no difference between candidates, I have always hired those that haven't had as much of a "fair" chance in the past. It's the only way that we can get to a better place by have a diverse workforce. But they have to be qualified 1st.

"Phin McCool wrote:

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?

"Phin McCool wrote:

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.

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.

"texanphinatic wrote:

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.

I think he's making a general statement that you shouldn't just hire someone because they are a color, gender, etc. if you have others you view as more qualified. Hiring is always a tough proposition. I've hired some who I thought would be awesome and turned out ultimately to be turds and I've hired others that I considered "average" and turned out to be awesome.

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

"Phin McCool wrote:

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.

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."

"Finatik wrote:

I think he's making a general statement that you shouldn't just hire someone because they are a color, gender, etc. if you have others you view as more qualified. Hiring is always a tough proposition. I've hired some who I thought would be awesome and turned out ultimately to be turds and I've hired others that I considered "average" and turned out to be awesome.

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.

"Disgustipate wrote:

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?

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.

"texanphinatic wrote:

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.

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.

"Phin McCool wrote:

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 dipshit 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

"texanphinatic wrote:

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.

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.

"Disgustipate wrote:

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.

Take out league and sports out of your statement and that is almost every job I ever got. Everything is about connections, paying your dues and then some of what you know. And sometimes a little nepotism.

"Finatik wrote:

According to Lindsay Jones of TheAthletic.com, the Dolphins have hired a pair of female scouts. They’ve added Joyce Harrell and Olivia Passy, with the title of personnel scouts.

The Dolphins are the only team in the NFL with minorities in the top two football jobs, and now they’re adding some more diversity to the front office.

Dolphins General Manager Chris Grier is one of two minorities in the NFL in his position, while coach Brian Flores is one of just four minority coaches.

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

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

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 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!

"JPPT1974 wrote:

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.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

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.

"Phin McCool wrote:

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.

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.

"Bumrush wrote:

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.

I don't think he's trolling. In today's climate I could totally see someone being hired to tick a box to be "acceptable" to the masses. This is the cancel culture we have allowed to take over. Not enough X for management, coaching, scouting, whatever is something regularly heard. No one said "are those guys the most qualified" it was there aren't enough of X hired. Its a 2 way street.

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.

"Bumrush wrote:

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.

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.

"Finatik wrote:

I don't think he's trolling. In today's climate I could totally see someone being hired to tick a box to be "acceptable" to the masses. This is the cancel culture we have allowed to take over. Not enough X for management, coaching, scouting, whatever is something regularly heard. No one said "are those guys the most qualified" it was there aren't enough of X hired. Its a 2 way street.

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