NFL Gets B+ In Racial Diversity Report

The NFL received a grade of B+ in an annual report on racial diversity in sports.

Richard Lapchick, who authors the annual study for the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, raised the NFL's grade from the B that it received last year.

The league will have a record seven black head coaches this season. But only two of the 10 coaches hired this past offseason are black.

By Mark Maske |  August 17, 2006; 2:13 PM ET  | Category:  Diversity
Previous: Pennington Excused From Jets' Practice | Next: Seahawks TE Stevens Hurts Knee In Practice

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



The NFL should get an F, not a B+. In no way does it accurately reflect the racial makeup of the country. There's a much higher percentage of black players in the NFL than there are black people in America. That's just not right. How are all those poor white people supposed to feel, under-represented like that? They're clearly being disenfranchised. And what of the Latinos? Where are all the Latino NFL players? Sure, there's Tony Gonzales, but who else? Not to mention our Asian friends. Now that Dat Nguyen has retired, I can't think of one Asian NFL player. This is indeed a travesty. I'm sorry...hold on a sec...what's that you say? Oh forgive me. I thought racial diversity meant just that, not "how many black head coaches are there this year?" My bad.

Posted by: Elijah | August 17, 2006 4:27 PM

Elijah, you've clearly misunderstood the report. The B+ is because the NFL now has an overrepresentation of black head coaches and thus is discriminating against whites, hispanics, and asians. The correct ratio (for an A+ rating) is:

White head coaches: 22
Black head coaches: 4.1
Hispanic head coaches: 4.3
Asian head coaches: 1.3

Obviously the fractional numbers could be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. I propose that the league hire, in addition to the 32 team-hired head coaches (the whole numbers), two Asian head coaches, one black head coach, and one hispanic head coach who will serve with different teams on a rotating basis, with enough time served to fulfill the fractional diversity requirements.

Oh - wait. Maybe they want the number of black head coaches to be proportional to the number of black players, not the general population. Hmmm. I'm not sure I understand why that should be... Oh! I get it now: it's because the ability to run fast and benchpress 400 lbs. is directly correlated with coaching ability! Because, of course, every HOF head coach was also a GREAT NFL player. Take Joe Gibbs for instance...err, never mind.

Posted by: Ashley | August 17, 2006 7:14 PM

Well may be to be more accurate they would have to seek congressional approval to relax immigration laws to import additonal labor proportionally to be on par with the rest of the nation.

Posted by: Bo-zak! | August 18, 2006 1:33 PM

At present, the UN has 192 member countries. That number reflects all internationally recognized countries with the exception of the Vatican, meaning there are 193 countries in the world today. The NFL is made up of 32 teams with regular season rosters each comprised of 53 players, meaning there are 1696 regular season NFL players each season.

Clearly, the only way to properly ensure diversity is to require an equal number of players from each of those 193 countries. The NFL's 32 teams should therefore be made up of 8.78 players from every country in the world. Half of these players should be women, to satisfy that diversity requirement. As it's impossible to come up with an exact number, approximately 15% of the players should be gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered. All religions should be proportionally represented, as should agnostics and atheists.

Head coaches are another matter, as there are clearly more countries than there are head coaching positions. I propose two possible solutions. The first is that each team has 6.03 head coaches every year, with every country represented annually. A problem here might be that the Swedish lesbian atheist head coach may want to go for it on fourth and short, while the Liberian straight male Hindu coach does not. This might result in a nationally televised sideline clash of cultures, religions and sexual preferences, which the NFL clearly wouldn't want. A better solution might be a six-year cycle in which each team has a different head coach every year. Once someone from each country has held the position, the cycle would begin anew. All other diversity requirements would be met simultaneously by this solution, i.e. 16 female coaches each year, 15% GLBT representation, etc.

While this may seem like a lot of work, I say it's worth it. After all, the only way we'll ever be able to share this planet together in peace and friendship is through the inherent divisiveness of focusing exclusively on the stupid little things like race, culture and geography that make us all different.

Posted by: Epstein'sMother'sDoctor | August 18, 2006 2:59 PM

The full report is interesting. http://www.bus.ucf.edu/sport/public/downloads/2005_NFL_RGRC.pdf
More Asian than Latino players (34 vs. 10)

Posted by: dho | August 18, 2006 4:33 PM

There are now seven black head coaches which is 22% which is ahead of the natioal percent of blacks. Also If there were 32 black or minority coaches that would be fine if there were 32 white head coaches that SHOULD BE FINE because if you are qualified it shouldn't matter the color, don't give pity interviews like they have to now, and no matter the number of black coaches there will still be people who aren't happy.

Posted by: RS | September 11, 2006 8:29 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

© 2008 The Washington Post Company