About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


82 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 870 (2007)
Tackling Unconscious Bias in Hiring Practices: The Plight of the Rooney Rule

handle is hein.journals/nylr82 and id is 882 raw text is: NOTES TACKLING UNCONSCIOUS BIAS IN HIRING PRACTICES: THE PLIGHT OF THE ROONEY RULE BRIAN W. COLLINS* This Note analyzes the National Football League's (NFL) 2002 decision to imple- ment an innovative-and controversial-policy aimed at increasing the League's number of minority head coaches. Designated the Rooney Rule, the policy man- dates that every NFL team interview at least one minority candidate upon the vacancy of a head coaching position or be subjected to a significant monetary fine. Despite ongoing allegations that it promotes tokenism and is a form of reverse dis- crimination, the Rule has reached uncharted success. While other professional sports with large minority populations (e.g., the National Basketball Association) have succeeded in integrating their head coaching positions over the past twenty years without analogous action, this Note argues that the pre-Rooney Rule NFL hiring process remained relatively static because decisionmakers unwittingly held (and often still hold) archaic biases regarding the intellectual ability of minority candidates to handle the high degree of organizational complexity in football. By deftly traversing the line between soft and hard variants of affirmative action, the Rule has proven effective because it forces decisionmakers harboring this unconscious bias to expand previously restricted coaching networks and come face- to-face with a candidate they would never have considered otherwise. INTRODUCTION Hierarchical business organizations have long faced the predica- ment of racial imbalance in their higher ranks. While minority employees are often well represented in lower-tier jobs, they are almost completely absent in upper-tier positions.' Since the United States Supreme Court's seminal decision in Griggs v. Duke Power * Copyright © 2007 by Brian W. Collins. J.D., 2007, New York University School of Law; B.A., 2004, University of California, Davis. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Samuel Estreicher, who graciously gave his time by offering substantive feed- back at several stages of the writing process, and to two of my extraordinary colleagues- Julie Mandelsohn and Beata Ng-for their endless support and insightful comments on earlier drafts of this Note. I am further indebted to the entire staff of the New York University Law Review, particularly Salezka Aguirre, Emily Bishop, Leslie Dubeck, Mitra Ebadolahi, Brian Flaherty, and Robin Moore, for outstanding editing and helpful sugges- tions. Finally, my deepest appreciation is reserved for my family, whose remarkable perse- verance and enduring encouragement never cease to inspire me. 1 Robert E. Thomas & Bruce Louis Rich, Under the Radar: The Resistance of Promotion Biases to Market Economic Forces, 55 SYRACUSE L. REV. 301, 303 (2005). 870 Reprinted With The Permission of New York University School of Law