Author: Jacob Dudek

Text Review Assignment

by

In American Horror Story: Cult, the show’s seventh installment, writer and director Ryan Murphy depicts some of the injustices at play in modern America, along with the amplification of these injustices in the midst of intensified levels of fear. AHS: Cult focuses on the maniacal yet charismatic Kai Anderson and his quest to take over the world in Charles Manson fashion. Opposed by local restaurant owner Ally Mayfair-Richards—who has become aware of Anderson’s malevolent intentions—Anderson strives to spread fear across the world and take his violent cult to the next level. Luckily for residents of the United States, Ally arrives with the FBI just before Anderson unleashes his army, bringing Anderson’s plans to a screeching halt.

While this season centers around fear and vulnerability, many conflicts arise from injustices and inequality. One episode highlights the the unfair treatment of immigrants in America and some widely propagated stereotypes regarding this issue. After one of Ally’s employees is killed, the police are quick to point to his immigrant coworker, Pedro Morales, as the prime suspect. While Ally and her wife (the co-owner of the restaurant) vehemently defend the character of Morales, the detectives involved seem intent on pinning the murder on this him regardless of evidence suggesting his innocence.

In addition to racially-motivated conflicts, a power struggle between men and women arises within Anderson’s cult as the show explores a variety of gender-related issues. Inspired by the ideology of former cult leader Valerie Solanas—who instructed her followers to kill all men because of their suppression of women—some female members of Anderson’s cult form an alliance after being pushed to the brink by the sexist behavior of the male cult members. These struggles, along with the Pedro Morales saga, reflect the concept of the Other that we have discussed throughout this semester. Despite living in a modern American society where all individuals are supposed to be treated equally, AHS depicts women and immigrants and outsiders looking into the window of Kai Anderson’s white male-dominated world. Additionally, Anderson’s cult embodies the ideas of fundamentalism as well. Adhering to strict principles and codes as Anderson instructs, members of the cult are willing to do anything to maintain their positions.

Overall, AHS: Cult depicts the struggles of both immigrants and women to gain equality in America while simultaneously depicting the fundamentalist principles involved in cult membership. Using a half-witted band of radically sexist men (Anderson’s cult) to incite the rage of the female characters, the writers of AHS emphasize the idea that men are afraid of powerful women. Anderson continually mentions the importance of inciting fear in others, acting as a satirical take on the current state of gender issues in America. Although the portrayal of injustice inflicted upon women by men was by no means subtle, the show uses this injustice to expertly build upon the identities of the protagonists. Specially, while Ally is depicted as an overly anxious and mentally ill pessimist in the season’s first episode, her experiences throughout the series slowly but surely mold her into a strong and tenacious leader. Ultimately, this molding of identity culminates in the final realization of the theme of women’s empowerment, when Ally overtakes Kai and becomes the last leader standing. In the end, the AHS writers intend to inspire conversations about the formation of identities, power dynamics, and injustices, and cause viewers to wonder which path they would choose when faced with similar predicaments as the Cult characters.

“Yo, Is This…” Advice Column

by

Established in the National Football League in 2003 after a push by civil rights attorneys Cyrus Mehri and Johnnie Cochran, the “Rooney Rule” requires each NFL organization to interview at least one minority candidate when searching for a new head coach. When this rule was first initiated, research showed that it positively impacted coaching diversity. Before the creation of the Rooney Rule, only 6.3 percent of games were coached by people of color; by the year 2011, that number rose to 27.1 percent. More recently, the Rooney Rule has become relatively ineffective, as the number of games coached by people of color has plummeted to 12.5 percent (Beer). While the rule is still in effect, team owners and general managers seem to be deciding on their new head coaching hires before even speaking with minority candidates. These issues have led to recently implemented changes to the original Rooney Rule. Specifically, all teams are now required to interview at least two external minority candidates for head coaching positions (as opposed to one in the original rule) and interview one external minority candidate for coordinator (offensive, defensive, or special teams), general manager, and senior football operations positions. Despite these changes, however, concerns remain regarding the effectiveness of the Rooney Rule. Does this policy attack the issue of unequal coaching hiring practices at its systemic roots, or do teams simply view their interviews with minority candidates as boxes to check on their weekly to-do lists? Will the recent amendments to the Rooney Rule revitalize its effectiveness or prove burdensome and ineffectual? This entry will attempt to definitively answer these two questions, and ultimately decide, “Yo, Is This Racist?”

      When analyzing the utility of the Rooney Rule, it is important to understand the true intention of this policy. While many think the Rooney Rule was created as a way of forcing teams to hire minority candidates, that is not the case. Although the National Football League can regulate certain aspects of the interviewing process, it can never force owners to hire certain candidates. Therefore, this policy was created to require owners to give fair consideration to a variety of qualified candidates. Because of the NFL’s inability to impose more firm restrictions on owners, however, I believe the Rooney Rule falls short of its intended purpose. Not only does this rule fail to attack the issue at its roots, it allows for the perpetuation of systemic racism through the continuation of racist hiring practices. More specifically, this rule has become more of a box-checking routine then an actual exercise in promoting diversity. For example, if an NFL owner is inherently racist, the Rooney Rule will certainly not make an impact on this owner’s ultimate hiring decision. This owner will simply interview one (or two, depending on the position) minority candidates to satisfy the rule’s requirements and then move on without giving this minority candidate fair consideration. One prime example of the Rooney Rule’s recent fruitlessness is the Oakland Raiders’ 2018 hiring of head coach Jon Gruden. On December 24, 2017, Raiders owner Mark Davis met with Gruden (who is white) to discuss a potential union—this was during the middle of the Raiders’ season, and Jack Del Rio was still employed as head coach (Reid). Then, on December 31, Davis fired Del Rio to clear the way for Gruden. In the few days that followed, the Raiders interviewed two black candidates—tight ends coach Bobby Johnson and University of Southern California offensive coordinator Tee Martin. On January 6, Jon Gruden was officially introduced as the head coach of the Oakland Raiders. What was the problem? Mark Davis had already committed to hiring Gruden before interviewing the other two candidates. Bobby Johnson and Tee Martin never had a chance; Mark Davis himself detailed how Gruden agreed on a deal before Del Rio was even fired, and how he never had any interest in hiring anyone else for the job (Reid).

How Mark Davis's 6-year 'infatuation' with Jon Gruden was finally realized - Silver And Black Pride

Pictured: Raiders head coach Jon Gruden (left) and owner Mark Davis. Is this a prime example of the similar-to-me effect?

Moreover, I believe it makes sense to classify the NFL’s diversity in coaching issue as an ownership issue rather than a league issue. While all league owners cannot be grouped into one single category in terms of their views on hiring practices, the reality is that the power of the Rooney Rule resides collectively in the team owners. So, not only is the recent ineffectiveness of the Rooney Rule unsurprising, it was actually expected by experts in the field. Stefanie Johnson, an associate professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder has extensively studied diversity and unconscious bias, and released a paper examining the Rooney Rule in 2018. Johnson describes the “similar-to-me-effect” as an important factor that often plays a silent role in how individuals are hired. Essentially, if we have a healthy self-esteem and view ourselves as effective workers, we are more likely to seek out candidates who are similar to us (Steele). So, if a woman who went to Harvard was a hiring manager, for example, she would be likely to view another woman who went to Harvard more favorably than a man who graduated from The Ohio State University. How does this idea relate to the diversity issues in the NFL? Only two of the NFL’s 32 owners are people of color. Additionally, 22 of the 32 teams have been owned by the same person or family for the past twenty or more years (Paine).

nfl owners poc

Undoubtedly, this lack of diversity among organizational owners has contributed to the lack of diversity among coaches and front office employees in recent years and years past. Johnson argues that the similar-to-me effect results in even more issues than the surface-level lack of diversity. When employers (or owners, in this case) hire candidates with the same background and experience, these candidates are likely to make the same types of mistakes as the individuals who hired them. In addition, these mistakes are more likely to be amplified and repeated as well. NFL owners would be less likely to make mistakes with a diversified decision-making team rather than a homogenous one. So, to re-address the question of why the Rooney Rule is ineffective, Johnson theorizes that interviewing only one minority candidate (as the old/original) version of the rule required) was the issue. Statistically, interviewing one minority candidate per head coaching search would result in a hiring rate of somewhere between zero and five percent. However, when teams interview at least two minority coaches, that rate rises to 33 percent (Steele). This significant difference in hiring rates is now reflected in the new version of the Rooney Rule, which requires two minority candidates to be interviewed. But will this amendment to the rule actually have its intended effect? I believe that it will not. The original version of the Rooney Rule did not work because the single minority candidates that were interviewed were typically only interviewed to satisfy the requirements of the rule. Although Johnson found that the hiring rate for minority candidates has been drastically higher when two minority head coaching hopefuls were interviewed rather than just one, I believe this new requirement will be just that: a requirement. Instead of having its intended effect, this regulation will simply result in teams checking off two boxes instead of one. While I understand the purpose and utility behind these changes, it seems that diversity in the NFL will not improve until the issue is addressed at its ownership-based roots. Due to the similar-to-me effect, coaching hires will continue to reflect the systemic dysfunction with the NFL’s power structure. As has been constant in the past, white owners will continue to hire white coaches, and the Rooney Rule will act as a minor nuisance in the hiring process.

Brian Flores has the Dolphins doing what the Giants can't - New York Daily News

Pictured: Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores. Flores is one of four minority head coaches in the NFL in 2020.

This perpetual cycle begs the question: is this tendency of white owners to hire white owners racist? There are two potential positions. On one hand, it could be argued that owners are not blatantly refusing to consider and hire minority candidates. These owners are simply choosing to hire the individuals who they believe will be the best coaches; often, these individuals just happen to share similar qualifications and experience with their future bosses. Sure, these owners are not hiring minority candidates. But they are not refusing to, either. Viewing this issue from another angle, it could be argued that the tendency to hire individuals similar to yourself is inherently racist. Regardless of intentionality and consciousness, the tendency of white owners to favor white candidates is, fundamentally, racist. For years, not only in the NFL but across all areas of business, this tendency has prevailed, indicating that systemic racism plays a role in how individuals are selected for prominent positions in the United States. Which argument is correct? I believe that both are, to some extent. Almost unfailingly, NFL owners will attempt to hire the candidate who they believe will be the best coach. Winning more games correlates to raking in more money, which is always at the forefront of a professional sports team owner’s mind. However, this will never remove the asterisk associated with the similar-to-me effect, as owners will tend to favor candidates similar to themselves, whether they intend to or not. Overall, although owners will attempt to hire the best candidate for an open coaching position, their inherent bias will cause them to select candidates similar to themselves, perpetuating the cycle of systemic racism that has plagued the NFL—and the United States—since its inception.

 

 

Works Cited

Beer, T. (2020, May 19). The NFL Enhances Rooney Rule In Effort To Increase Diversity, But Backs Away From A Controversial Proposed Change. Retrieved November 09, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/05/19/the-nfl-announces-adjustments-to-the-rooney-rule-but-backs-away-from-a-controversial-proposed-change/?sh=330de94162e9

Paine, N. (2020, January 14). The Rooney Rule Isn’t Working Anymore. Retrieved November 09, 2020, from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rooney-rule-isnt-working-anymore/

Reid, J. (2018, January 22). NFL effectively shows it will no longer enforce Rooney Rule. Retrieved November 09, 2020, from https://theundefeated.com/features/nfl-shows-it-will-no-longer-enforce-rooney-rule/

Steele, M. (2020, January 21). Can analytics fix the Rooney Rule? Retrieved November 09, 2020, from https://theundefeated.com/features/can-analytics-fix-the-rooney-rule/

Diary of Systemic Injustices Showcase

by

This past week as I watched the NBA playoffs on ESPN, a particular sports news headline flashed on the bottom of the screen and caught my eye. Beginning with a quote from National Basketball Association commissioner Adam Silver, the headline essentially stated that although the NBA does recognize the lack of minority hirings for coaching positions, the league does not plan to adopt a similar policy to the NFL’s “Rooney Rule.” Initiated in 2003 after U.S. civil rights attorneys Cyrus Mehri and Johnnie Cochran released a study showing that black head coaches are less likely to be hired and more likely to be fired than white coaches, the Rooney Rule requires that every NFL team interview at least one minority candidate when searching for a new head coach. Moreover, after seeing this headline, I began thinking about the implications of the Rooney Rule in relation to systemic racism. After further researching employment statistics for various demographics, I found that there are significant discrepancies between black and white Americans when it comes to finding a job. Not only is the unemployment rate of black Americans nearly 5% higher than that of white Americans, black Americans are also incredibly underrepresented in high-paying jobs (Lincoln). I believe that these discrepancies are the result of systemic racism perpetuated by American society. Relating this issue to what we have discussed in lecture this semester, this scenario can be compared to de Beauvoir’s concept of “Other.” While de Beauvoir argued that women are the Other to men, in this case, the other can be described as minority job applicants. Just as de Beauvoir emphasized, this Other group does not receive access to the same opportunities as others. Although progress has been made over time, the Jim Crow Laws created a foundation of racism in the United States that still exists today. Despite efforts to hire an increasing number of minorities (take the Rooney Rule, for example), many companies fail to attack the problem of underrepresentation in employment at its roots. Until businesses consciously make efforts to deviate from what are often considered “normal hiring practices,” systemic injustice and inequality will perpetuate in the United States.

 

NBA commissioner Adam Silver on the potential institution of a “Rooney Rule”: https://www.sportscasting.com/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-wants-to-avoid-copying-the-nfl-if-possible/

“What Corporations Can Learn About Diversity From The NFL’s Rooney Rule”: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/02/01/what-corporations-can-learn-about-diversity-from-the-nfls-rooney-rule/#698b2eea47de

 

Works Cited
Lincoln Quillian,  . (2020, June 15). Hiring Discrimination Against Black Americans Hasn’t Declined in 25 Years. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasnt-declined-in-25-years

Context Research Presentation Week 7

by

In December of 2007, the film version of Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis was released. Initially, Satrapi was hesitant to transform her graphic novel into a movie in order to preserve her story’s integrity. However, after she was given full artistic control of the project and funding was secured, Satrapi decided she was ready to help create an animated Persepolis film. Despite her artistic talent and willingness to transform her autobiography into a movie, Satrapi had no prior experience with movie production; she compared her experience making the Persepolis movie to jumping into the sea for a 200 mile swim before even learning how to swim. Resultantly, she recruited her friend and fellow artist Vincent Paronnaud, who had made multiple animated films in the past, to join the project.

While Satrapi wanted to maintain as much of the novel’s plot as possible, she understood that the time constraints of a movie would force her to leave out some aspects of the story. So, she and Paronnaud set out to produce the film with a slightly different objective than the book. Rather than focusing entirely on telling the dramatic life story of Marji, the film intends to more directly address Iranian history in an attempt to educate viewers. Specifically, the films omits many of the novel’s scenes of Marji in Austria, instead focusing more on her relationship with her home country. Additionally, the film does not incorporate the scene in which Marji’s mother visits her while she is living with eight homosexuals. While this scene played a significant role in revealing Marji’s mental state in the novel, the film ignores it completely. This could potentially be because the scene did not align with the film’s main goal of educating viewers. Ultimately, Satrapi describes the challenge of adapting her novel into a movie by highlighting the differences between readers and moviegoers. Because readers are actively engaging with the text, they are able to absorb more subtle details and symbolic elements that often go unnoticed in a movie. Contrastingly, movie viewers are much more passive; resultantly, Satrapi made conscious efforts to make important messages clearer and more evident to viewers. As she describes, “when I am making a movie, the viewer is absolutely passive…you cannot lean on your viewer. When you make a comic you can lean actually on the reader to make the work for you.” Although Satrapi adapted her work to better suit a viewing audience, the film’s art style remains true to the novel. Overall, while the film version of Persepolis was created with slightly different goals than the novel, both works beautifully depict Marji’s life in relation to Iranian history, providing educational value and evoking emotion in audiences around the world.

 

Works Cited

Kennedy, Brittany. “Differences Between the Graphic Novel and Film, ‘Persepolis,” by Satrapi Analysis – ReelRundown – Entertainment.”                ReelRundown, 12 Dec. 2011, reelrundown.com/animation/An- Analysis-of-the-Graphic-Novel-and-Film-Persepolis-by-Satrapi.

Kerr, Euan. “Why It’s Difficult to Make a Movie from a Comic Book.” MPR News, MPR News, www.mprnews.org/story/2008/01/17/satrapi.