Richard Lapchick on College Football Civil Rights
Don’t laugh. He’s serious.
When I saw the headline “A call to civil rights action in college football,” I thought the article would be a quirky and unexpected take on “affirmative action” in recruiting football players. That is, recruiting more whites to play on football teams for, you know, diversity’s sake. No such luck. Richard Lapchick’s article is decidedly uncool and totally expected.
Commenting on recent news about the paucity of black head coaches at 120 Division I-A schools, Lapchick, chair of a sports management program or some such, and advocate of racial bean-counting, declares the need for a “new game plan.” We have failed, he intones, because there are too few black head coaches in college football. I kept hoping he’d expound on the fact that 46 percent of the players are black. Again, no such luck.
Lapchick goes deep and invokes winningest Coach Eddie Robinson, who guided Grambling’s White Tigers, to bolster his claim that recruiting more black head college football coaches is a civil rights issue. He laments the low graduation rates among black ball players and that some illiterate players get scholarships. The implication is that only black head college football coaches care whether black players know how to read or will ever graduate. Lapchick said colleges need a rule akin to the so-called “Rooney Rule,” which requires NFL teams to interview black men for head coaching jobs. Lapchick’s “Eddie Robinson Rule” would require schools to do the same, and then some:
“Just as schools can lose scholarships under NCAA president Myles Brand’s academic-reform package, a system should be set up that would cost a school scholarships if it fails to interview a candidate of color when it has a coaching opening. There must be sanctions.”
Here’s my take on it. It wouldn’t hurt schools, private or public, to widen recruitment nets and add more “people of color” to the hiring pool. But hiring someone based on his skin color should be a no-go. Still, private organizations like the NFL can discriminate and prefer all they want. Taxpayer-supported institutions may not. If private colleges want to participate in racial bean-counting, that’s their prerogative. But you can’t be in the skin color game if you’re using the public’s money.
One wonders (I certainly do) what Lapchick thinks about the disproportionate representation of blacks on college football and basketball teams. Does he or would be ever apply his diversity expertise to recruiting more white players to these teams? Is he just as concerned about non-black athletes who can’t read and don’t graduate?
As is sometimes the case, commenters to articles and blog posts display more common sense and wisdom than the writer/blogger.
—————————————————–
One commenter writes:
“No college in America today is turning down good head football coaches because of the color of their skin! Everybody wants to win and build a credible program. Each university is going to hire the right man for that job. If you want more black head coaches in college football then tell more to interview and interview well!! This is not a civil rights issue.”
And this:
“This is by far the dumbest thing i have ever read on ESPN, Thank you ESPN for making america even more in to things about race than what is really at hand. i am positive that no guy goes in to a interview and gets declined because he is black. yeah okay so there are not alot of black coaches, whats next ? not enough mexicans in hockey? the reason is the same for both outcomes. no college should be forced to hire someone because of their race and if it becomes mandated that they do, whouldnt that be more racist than anything ? Richard Lapchick, never heard of you, and wish i never would have. i hope ESPN fires you because your not black.”
This one, too:
“What about Hispanic coaches? What about Native American coaches? What about Italian coaches? How about we just hire coaches for their ability to coach instead of their ethnicity. Tyrone Willingham’s next job probably won’t be because of his stellar win and loss record. How come there are not as many Caucasion running backs or wide receivers in the NCAA? Based on your logic the NCAA should come up with a rule that only 50% of running backs and receivers in the NCAA can be African American. The other 50% percent have to be Caucasion or something other than African American. How about we just try going with the most qualified person for the job.”
—————————————————–
In October, college coaches in Colorado signed a statement opposing Amendment 46, which would have barred the state from discriminating against or preferring people in government hiring, contracting, and admissions based on skin color. I contended, most sarcastically, that if these coaches really cared about “affirmative action,” they’d recruit more white players to colorize their heavily black teams. See Colorado Coaches Oppose Ban on Race Preferences.
1
Randy Long
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
Let’s play on even footing here, how about the NBA? I don’t think there are enough white players when compared to the number of black players so what do we do force the black players out and bring in white ones? Sounds just as fair to me.
2
Sylvia Wasson
Sunday, January 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I believe that it is “unfair” that basketball players are almost exclusively above average height. This is discriminatory against short people. Let’s level the “playing field” all the way and I mean “playing field” in the literal sense of the word.
Why worry about talent and ability! What counts is race, color, gender…oh, that reminds me: isn’t it also unfair to have only men or only women on sports teams? Why not mixed-gender football teams? Depriving fans of the suspense of a 120-pound woman football player tackling a 240-pound quarterback is simply unfair! Yes, the composition of teams should be representative of the general public. That would be genuine diversity and — as they say in academe — diversity equals excellence. And excellence is what we are after. Richard Lapchick, you are onto something!