Washington celebrated yesterday. A controversial public figure with a decade-long record of professional failure "resigned" under pressure from his superiors.

No, not Ben Bernake. Vinny Cerrato, the Washington Redskins general manager, resigned and was promptly replaced by Bruce Allen, the son of a former Redskins coach (and brother of a former Virginia governor). TheWashington City Paper dubbed it "the second most popular resignation in D.C. history," following Richard Nixon. Cerrato was widely blamed for the team's poor performance since he first joined the Redskins in 1999.

A footnote to the Allen-for-Cerrato switch is something called the "Rooney Rule." In 2003, the National Football League decreed that all teams with a head coaching vacancy must interview one "minority" candidate before making a hire. This was a response to public and political criticism that there weren't "enough" black head coaches in the NFL. (The rule is named for Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, who later became a prominent supporter of Barack Obama and was rewarded with an ambassadorship.)

Earlier this year, the NFL expanded the Rooney Rule requirement to include searches for new general managers. Since Cerrato's resignation and Allen's hiring - both men are caucasian - were announced simultaneously, some questioned whether the Redskins complied with the Rooney Rule. After all, there was no "public" general manager search.

Roger Goodell, the NFL's chief executive officer, confirmed that the Redskins did, in fact, comply with the rule. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder also stated he complied with the rule, but he declined to identify the "minority" candidate he interviewed.

Some media folks are dissatisfied with that explanation. Leonard Shapiro of the Washington Post said that unlike "enlightened" owners, Snyder had the gall to pursue and select his first choice in Allen:

 

Perhaps [Snyder] abided by the letter of the law with a mandatory minority interview, but if Allen was the man Snyder targeted from Day One, were they really guided by the spirit of the Rooney Rule? Sadly, far too often team owners pick their man, add a token interview of a minority candidate to comply and never deviate from their first choice.

Mike Florio of NBC Sports - like Shapiro, a white member of the establishment press, echoed, "[C]ompliance with the spirit of the Rooney Rule and compliance with the letter of it are two different things." Florio thinks Snyder had an ethical duty to conduct a public - i.e., media-driven - search for a new general manager: "[I]t's not fair to the process to suddenly swap out General Managers without any potentially interested and qualified candidates even knowing that the job might be available."

"Not fair" to who exactly? If Snyder deprived himself of the opportunity to interview additional candidates, that's his loss. Certainly no individual has the right to interview for a particular job.

Snyder presumably complied with the Rooney Rule by interviewing "minority" candidates on his existing staff. (I keep using quotes because it's not clear to me what constitutes a "minority" for NFL purposes, especially since the majority of players are African-American.) Shapiro and Florio say this violates the "spirit" of the rule. I don't understand how corporate HR policies have spirits, but hey, Florio is a lawyer by trade, so maybe he knows something I don't.

From a libertarian standpoint, there's nothing facially wrong with a private organization adopting internal rules regarding the hiring of employees. And I'm not someone who gets up-in-arms over "affirmative action." But it's curious that a policy as silly - and ineffective - as the Rooney Rule is treated with such reverence by the media.

The premise of the rule is that there is a pool of "minority" candidates who are frequently overlooked for head coaching and general manager jobs. Let's assume this is true. The Rooney Rule still doesn't actually address that problem. A team can comply with the rule by interviewing a well-known "minority" candidate, including a former head coach or general manager. If the NFL wanted to merely address overlooked candidates, it could impose a rule stating a team must interview at least one candidate - from outside its current organization - who has never been interviewed before. As it stands, teams can constantly interview the same handful of "minority" candidates to address Rooney Rule compliance.

The other problem is that once you enact a Rooney Rule, you set a precedent for further bureaucratization. Florio suggested just as much today, with this demand for the NFL to impose a host of new restrictions on future hirings:

 

The goal of the Rooney Rule, as we understand it, is to ensure an inclusive hiring process.  The notion that the rule can be fulfilled by duping an in-house minority candidate into thinking that he has a legitimate shot at the job doesn't constitute an inclusive hiring process, in our view.

So we propose a new twist to the Rooney Rule.  We believe that the rule should be changed to require at least one minority candidate from outside the organization to be interviewed.  Frankly, it's just too easy (in most cases) to persuade a person already on the payroll to "take one for the team," especially if the wink-nod-cough-fart request to interview comes with the wink-nod-cough-fart implication that loyalty in this regard will be rewarded.

An outsider to the organization will have no reason to interview other than to try to get the job, and thereafter will have no incentive to claim that it was a legitimate interview process if the candidate doesn't truly believe that it was.

In this case, we recognize that it's possible an external candidate was interviewed.  But there's no way of knowing that because it all happened quickly -- and in the wake of the abrupt change no one is talking.  So the Rooney Rule also should impose a minimum time period for which the job must be vacant, in order to give qualified candidates of every race, color, creed, and national origin an opportunity to apply for the position.

And what happens when Florio and other media watchdogs are unsatisfied with how these new rules are enforced? Well, they'll propose even more rules. Teams will have to conduct interviews with reporters in the room. Eventually, the NFL may break down and just give each team lists of mandatory interview candidates.

Unfortunately (for him), Florio's complaining only undermines his case. He doesn't care about an "inclusive hiring process." And even Daniel Snyder's fiercest critics wouldn't accuse him of racial bias in hiring. Florio is upset because Snyder conducted a general manager search completely outside the press. Nobody - not even the Washington Post, which assigns an entire staff to cover the Redskins - knew that Allen would be coming in as general manager. The Rooney Rule provides a convenient smokescreen for jilted press to complain about a process that's "unfair" simply because they weren't a part of it.

Snyder, in particular, had good cause to keep his general manager search outside the public eye. Two years ago, his month-long search for a new head coach - led by the now-ousted Cerrato - fell apart when media reports surfaced that former New York Giants coach Jim Fassel was Snyder's first choice. Fan message boards exploded in opposition to Fassel (for what reason, it was never really clear). Snyder backed off Fassel and acceded to Cerrato's recommendation of Jim Zorn, a far less-qualified candidate who has presided over two mediocre seasons. Obviously, Snyder wanted to avoid a repeat of this when finding Cerrato's successor.

That's what guys like Florio and Shapiro want: Messy public searches that increase the importance of gossips (er, reporters) like him. The Rooney Rule facilitates that goal by attempting to lengthen coaching and management searches. But it makes little business sense for owners or fans.

(Originally published at Mises Economics Blog.)