Women of Color and Wealth – Measuring The Intangibles [Part 4]

by Latoya Peterson

Please note, this is part four of a multi-part series on the Lifting As We Climb: Women of Color and Wealth report released by the Insight Center for Community Economic Development. Please carefully read part one and review our comment moderation policy before participating in the comments.

Heaping trays of Indian food were laid out on the long table. A large, happy crowd gathered in clusters, piling food onto their white Chinet plates. Men made jokes about one another’s love handles and spare tires – things women would never say to one another despite thinking them. Walter handed her a thick paper plate before taking his own. “Get what you like, but we gotta head back soon. Okay?” He spoke to her affectionately, as if she were a little kid.

The food made her mouth water. All around, people spooned food onto their plates, grabbing pieces of warm naan bread. There were pans of bread everywhere. The trays emptied gradually. The group dispersed.

Kevin and Hugh had already returned to the desk. Casey had managed to grab a cocktail-size Samosa and a scoop of biriyani but had hesitated to fill her plate during an interview. Walter’s plate was crammed with a taste of everything.

“Gosh. Girls eat so little,” Walter said with wonder in his voice.

“It happened so fast,” she remarked, her free hand resting at her side.

Walter swept his right arms to the ceiling, gesturing like a ringleader, and said “It’s free food for millionaires.”

She wrinkled her brow, amused by his dramatic movement.

“In the International Equities Department – that is Asia, Europe, and Japan sales – the group you’re interviewing for -”

Casey nodded okay.

“-whichever desk that sells a deal buys lunch for everyone in the department. We finished a big deal last week – a big power plant outside of Bombay. So today we bought Indian. Get it? If Japan finishes a sales deal, then we get sushi.”

“Gotcha,” she said.

“The funny thing is that if you were a millionaire like some of these managing directors shaking down seven figures a year, you’d have known to push your way ahead and fill up your plate. Rich people can’t get enough of free stuff.” Walter shrugged. There was no reproach in his tone; in fact, there was a wistful admiration in his voice, as if he were beginning to understand how the world worked.

“So this is the game, Casey. You have to take what’s offered.” He spoke like a mentor.

“If you say so,” Casey replied. But she didn’t know how she felt about money or free things. Her father always said there was no such thing as a free lunch.

Min Jin Lee, Free Food for Millionaires

The first time I picked up Free Food for Millionaires, I could immediately relate to the protagonist Casey Han. She is the child of working class parents, exposed to the lives of the wealthy through education and proximity. However, Casey was different. Her first marker was her race. Her unseen marker were the scars of having grown up lower middle class, and understanding that there were some things that were just not within reach, or possible for someone like her. And throughout the book, each time she forgot that she was different, she paid a heavy price. Min Jin Lee’s novel is a smart commentary on the shifting influences of race and class on the lives of the Korean-Americans (generation 1.5 or 2 in the book) and follows Casey throughout life’s trials and tribulations. Even though she is a Princeton graduate, she finds herself ostracized from family, homeless, and jobless. Her childhood friend Ella takes her in, but also exposes Casey to her sadistic fiancé, Ted. Ted likes to screw with Casey, as he thinks she is acting above her station in life. In one chapter, Ted assesses Casey’s character, thinking:

[E]ventually, with her qualifications, she could have gotten a far better position than sales assistant from one of the letters she’d sent out, but few companies hired a person based on sheer resume, and it was nearly the end of July – a dead time for hiring. The girl had no cash left and no backup plans. The most hilarious thing about this girl was that she was too proud to use whatever connections she might have made. Her arrogance stunned him; he almost admired it. She was one of those Korean girls who thought she was as good as white and that the world was fair, and it tickled him to see her reduced to this position – to have to ask a member of the immigrant tribe for a patch of floor to sleep on and to ask another member to pull a favor on her behalf. Where are all of your little white friends now? he wanted to say to her. She was acting like a rich white girl, and Ted knew that life did not let you lie to yourself for very long. In that way, you had to admit, life was quite fair.

Reading through the Women of Color and Wealth Report, there was one aspect of wealth building that was absent from the pages. And the Insight Center could not have measured it, since by nature, these things are intangible. However, as a person mired in the American class struggle, the three other factors loom fairly large: networks, access, and acceptance.

These three things also influence how someone is able to amass wealth. Networks play an important role, as Ted points out above. Even if someone has the correct qualifications and experience, without networks to unlock the doors, it can be difficult to access positions on the higher levels of the scale. Also, access speaks to the idea that you can reach levels of decision makers and speak with them in order to turn things in your favor.  But most important is acceptance – the ability to appear as if you belong, so that networking comes naturally, so that the decision makers you meet will accept and want to work with you, and so you do not mark yourself as too different and strange.

In the excerpt above, where Casey is at a job interview, she is literally starving, having exhausted all of her funds. Even though she is living off of rationed cigarettes and one pack of ramen noodles a day, she doesn’t fill her plate.  Her prior training has taught her to be careful what you eat and how much you eat at a job interview, so she pushes her personal desires aside in order to make a good initial impression.

This part of wealth building isn’t often discussed – the idea that some people are able to game the system better than others.  In a world in which bias can work for or against you, it is the dirty little secret of our so called meritocracy that the better connected tend to win out over the better qualified.  Once again, networks and access hold the key.

Thinking through your own network connections (parents, parent’s friends, schoolmates, peers), how easy it it to find someone who:

  • Can loan you fifty dollars?  Loan you $500? Loan you $5,000?
  • Owns a business with more than nine employees?
  • Has an executive level job?
  • Can sell you weed?
  • Does not have a bank account?

Since Fridays are for reflection, let’s ponder the following:

How does who you are connected to impact how far you can go professionally?  How much information can you find out from your networks? In what circles do you feel the most comfortable, and how does your race/class/gender impact your social and professional circle?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. DCAMarketingonline - Affiliate Marketers – Don’t Make These Common 4 Mistakes! on 19 Mar 2010 at 6:04 pm

    [...] Women of Color and Wealth – Measuring The Intangibles [Part 4 … [...]

  2. networks « [anitazavrrr] on 01 Apr 2010 at 4:02 pm

    [...] Racialicious, discussing the implications of a recent study about women of color and wealth. In her third installment, she covers the importance of networks to establishing wealth and advancing your career. While [...]

Comments

  1. Umm....wut wrote:

    Connections are only but so valuable. I say this from experience, in a recession you might find that you are tethered to a sinking ship. In that situation, I found that my community supper network was far more beneficial once my elite network was facing a tough road.

  2. Lola wrote:

    * Can loan you fifty dollars? Loan you $500? Loan you $5,000? My mom could loan or give me $500
    * Owns a business with more than nine employees? No one
    * Has an executive level job? No one
    * Can sell you weed? I’d ask my cousin to connect me
    * Does not have a bank account? Several relatives

  3. Slush wrote:

    Another aspect I often think about is how many friends I have who are doctors.

    In an age of health care misery, isn’t it also interesting that people who are more likely to have some access to health insurance are also wealthier and more likely to know professional medics in their social group, whom they can consult casually for free, outside the horrendous health care and insurance system?

  4. Just A Thought wrote:

    It’s been my experience that connections can take you very far, but you have to continually update, evaluate, and prune your networks because access and needs change so much, especially in a tight economy.

    Personally, I’ve felt like I’ve always been on the outside trying to break through an impenetrable fortress to get into more “elite” circles. I grew up black and poor, went to an HBCU but failed to make any connections to people who are still in the corporate sphere, and do not have any family or friends who are connected to avenues that lead to my desired career path or social circles. So, it’s extremely hard to get useful information to assist me in my goals.

    Another complicating factor is that I often feel uncomfortable in ‘majority’ circles, or places where people come from backgrounds that are drastically different from my own. Sometimes my own discomfort prevents me from adding members of these groups to my circle. Other times, I’m excluded because I’m the odd man out, and the members have no mandatory reason ( like work) to include me.

  5. Moni wrote:

    Yes, it is true that the amount, or type, of social capital you have helps to increase, or more often, maintain your social status.
    Similar to Slush and the doctors, I have benefited greatly by the amount of lawyers I have in my social circle. I got free advice and then access to counsel with MAJOR social capital during a potentially life altering event. The entire time, I kept thinking of how so many others like me (single mothers of color) get caught fighting a racist school system but have no way of protecting their children.

  6. DMoon wrote:

    Personally, I’ve felt like I’ve always been on the outside trying to break through an impenetrable fortress to get into more “elite” circles. I grew up black and poor, went to an HBCU but failed to make any connections to people who are still in the corporate sphere, and do not have any family or friends who are connected to avenues that lead to my desired career path or social circles. So, it’s extremely hard to get useful information to assist me in my goals.

    Another complicating factor is that I often feel uncomfortable in ‘majority’ circles, or places where people come from backgrounds that are drastically different from my own. Sometimes my own discomfort prevents me from adding members of these groups to my circle. Other times, I’m excluded because I’m the odd man out, and the members have no mandatory reason ( like work) to include me.
    ***************************************
    That is exactly my dilemna as well. Except that I did not go to an HBCU, however, everything else, from being locked out of opportunities because I don’t have any connections, to feeling completely cut off from the majority.

    On a personal note, it is difficult being an outsider, especially if you are an average Jane and not talented, charismatic, and gifted,–just Black, because everything comes down to who you know. The scores and the tony school are just the entre.

    Thus I have come to accept the fact that I will remain working poor. The chasms and opportunties that I need to get out of poverty are far too large to circumvent and no manner of the secret’s positive thinking and bootstrapping is going to make the inroads to being solvent and successful any easier or real.

  7. La Lubu wrote:

    This isn’t talked about anywhere near enough. I’ve noticed a great deal of financial advice that banks on people being able to make use of social connections, but have seen no, and I mean zero advice on how to make those cross-class connections—let alone be accepted among those people.

    For crying out loud, we give awards to actors for being able to portray characters outside their own life experiences, but somehow all the financial gurus just expect the rest of us to be able to pick this stuff up by osmosis, all the while negotiating the obstacles of sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, religious or cultural or language discrimination, etc.

    I’ll be frank—I don’t know anyone in a higher social class than mine, anyone with real money, real wealth. And there really isn’t any avenues where I can meet such people, either. They live in a different world than I do, literally.

    And I have noticed that men seem to have an easier time negotiating those barriers than women. Part of that is that men have a neutral uniform of clothing, “the suit”, that somewhat masks class origins. We don’t have that—women’s clothing (and hairstyle) is designed to indicate social class. We don’t have a “neutral” look to adopt when trying to cross class barriers. Let alone adding in unalterable aspects of one’s own physicality, which indicates perceived social class and a whole ‘nother slew of stereotypes to hurdle over.

    The dirty little secret is that meritocracy is an illusion. Perception trumps reality. The well-connected win out over the worker bees. And “gaming the system” is not something that everyone has a talent for. There aren’t enough avenues for folks who don’t have that “game” to find success.

  8. urbia wrote:

    I think the solution lies in demanding actual meritocracy and exposing the myths around it, rather than trying to negotiate these barriers. Entire industries can be made around selling advice to disadvantaged groups on how to ‘pass’ and get accepted and connected, which only depletes them of more wealth in the competition to fit in. Acceptance shouldn’t be the goal – but equality.

    “Even if someone has the correct qualifications and experience, without networks to unlock the doors, it can be difficult to access positions on the higher levels of the scale.”

    Okay, so how do we solve this part? Let’s address the dependency people have on networks. I hear that 80% of jobs are unadvertised, at least in Canada. So how do we go about getting a law passed that forces all job openings to be advertised? And not only that, employers should be forced to make public the qualifications of the person that was hired, so that all candidates can compare against their own qualifications to see that the process was fair.

    Even this doesn’t address the fact that past discrimination may lead to POC having less experience than white people. Then how about measuring merit in other ways? Experience just means time worked. It doesn’t necessarily mean aptitude. Alternative ways of measuring aptitude can be implemented.

    Just take it one step at a time.

  9. octogalore wrote:

    Networking is a critical aspect of wealth building — this series could be a course.

    I read “Free Food” and I’m not sure it’s the best example. For one thing, the author in trying to make a point loses the reality that college isn’t just “rich white girls” and then the Caseys of the world. Casey would have encountered plenty of wealthy Korean women and also poor/lower-middle white women.

    Additionally, Casey has graduated from Princeton and is accepted at Columbia Law. Right there, she has what she needs to build wealth if she wishes to. Some women do not have access to these privileges, but she does. However, she chooses not to go to law school or get a job directly out of undergrad. She isn’t feeling it. Many of us don’ t have that luxury. She leaves business school for a similar reason. Her problem is not lack of opportunity driven by insufficient networks, it’s lack of motivation or direction.

    Unlike many, Casey is offered a job through a friend in the world of finance, she is given housing and mentoring. One boss offers to pay for her school and offers her a store.

    The OP notes: “But most important is acceptance – the ability to appear as if you belong, so that networking comes naturally, so that the decision makers you meet will accept and want to work with you, and so you do not mark yourself as too different and strange.”

    Totally agree with this. Casey’s story, though, doesn’t explore the iterative nature of this phenomenon. Often, the first opportunity one gets, “fake it to make it” is the only way to go, because one just doesn’t fit in. Being a minority or immigrant adds heavily to this burden. Being overweight, having no family members who’ve worked in corporate America, not dressing “right” — are others. But after grabbing the first chance, one can often listen and learn enough in ones 20s to have to “fake it” less as time goes on, or at least to feel more comfortable doing it. Betty from “Ugly Betty” is a good example.

    La Lubu makes a good point about access. Ugly Betty got lucky, but was also incredibly resourceful and independent. Casey, coming from Princeton, didn’t need as much luck. Access is big hurdle, no way around it.

    However, the internet adds some democracy to the picture. I have found, though, a number of groups in which people from different social classes have met up and befriended one another offline.

    To be honest, I’ve found too that often accusations of unearned privilege (without much or any backup) can definitely lower the probability of such networks. Often in liberal women’s groups, there is a tendency to castigate those who are believed to be “privilged” as being evil or unworthy. Or on a lesser scale, to view attempts by such women to network with less privileged women as being patronizing rather than true expressions of friendship. It should be no surprise that this kind of reaction is not going to lead to successful mixed-class networks.

  10. urbia wrote:

    I forgot to add that the obstacles in networking isn’t necessarily always class-based. For instance, you could be the rare person in your social group that wants to break into a relatively young industry (in my case, video games). If pressed to find a job, I could probably catch wind of a variety of openings through my network, but they wouldn’t necessarily conform to my goals.

    In a true meritocracy, one’s career shouldn’t be limited to what one’s friends are interested in or know people from. It should be decided by personal choice, drive, and ability. This is why I think all job postings should be made public.

  11. little mixed girl wrote:

    What connections I have access to, and what connections my mom has access to is something I’ve thought about since high school.

    Among my peers, I have people that could lend me money. Ironically, I was the one called upon to hand out $5 or $10 to friends in high school, even though I was much poorer than they were.

    While I do know people who work at pretty impressive places (Microsoft), or have impressive job titles (manager at a semiconductor place), I don’t know if I could really call upon them to give me a job.

    With that said, I am also not comfortable in making friends with people just so that I can use them in the future for a job or something. I fully admit to not being good at playing that type of game.

    I do hope that the friends that I do have would help me out when I’m down.
    That’s the main difference I see between myself and my mom.

    One thing that is often on my mind is the “fitting in” part. I think that in order to “get ahead” we have to change ourselves to a certain degree.
    I agree and disagree with that.
    I agree in that, moving your personality to fit with others can make work relations go smoothly.
    I disagree in that, I hate having to act a certain way with certain people just to appease them.
    And finally, I think that if you are trying to “get ahead” in traditional professions, you are going to have to ignore/brush off racism and sexism that you come across until you can get to the top.
    As sad as it sounds.

  12. La Lubu wrote:

    It should be no surprise that this kind of reaction is not going to lead to successful mixed-class networks.

    And I agree, octo. (and know that you are speaking from your own experience). But. That hasn’t been my observation or experience—in the rust belt, we don’t tend to have “leftier than thou” groups with the de-rigeur in-crowd markers. What passes for “mixed-class” groups here is wealthy members of nonprofit orgs doing charitable assistance for the downtrodden. The only mixed-class groups I can think of that include working class people in the mix are exclusively male: Knights of Columbus, Masons, and other all-male social and/or fraternal groups.

    There isn’t any female counterpart to those groups. Period. Nor are there informal means of cross-class socialization among women (no casual invites to golfing, hunting trips, etc. like there is among men). That puts us at a clear disadvantage.

    I like urbia’s ideas for a clearer playing field. I’m also a big fan of legislation—it was the only reason the trades opened to women. And I’ll go ahead and say it—I’m not at all opposed to quotas. Legally mandated quotas are the only thing that is going to force some workplaces to look at candidates that are outside of their personal, social comfort zone.

    I know the trope is that the “market” handles that sort of thing via the profit motive, but in reality, it doesn’t work out that way. In actual practice, people de facto put a price on their discrimination, and pay accordingly. Unless the cost is raised in a way that prevents them from voluntarily paying that exclusionary premium, the doors will remain shut. Country clubs are still in business, after all.

    Networking is a critical aspect of wealth building — this series could be a course.

    It could. But “networking” isn’t the same for everyone. What passes for networking, even if it isn’t called that, differs greatly among fields of work. My field is a whole ‘nother animal entirely—we aren’t hired according to “network”, but via the hiring hall list. For us, it isn’t the getting out to work, but the staying when times get tough….and that is primarily social in nature, and requires acceptance.

    And lemme tellya, it’s hard to build acceptance amongst a group that considers you a clear outsider—especially if you are a visibly clear outsider. Really, you’re just getting started about the same time retirement starts rolling around. The same foot some people are starting out on, it takes others over half their career to get to.

    And that’s a problem. A problem that isn’t going to be resolved by mere social networks—it’s going to take political action. Solidarity.

  13. urbia wrote:

    @little mixed girl

    I think it’s ironic that discrimination is illegal, and yet women and minorities have to ‘move’ their personalities to appear meeker and more obedient than white males in the workplace, which causes them to lose out in promotions because those attributes are not sought out for these positions.

    We’re halfway there, but it seems incomplete. What we need are more in-between laws and measures to ensure that POC and women aren’t being held to different standards and that workplaces aren’t toxic to them. We need greater access to information and proof on which we can build a case, and for this, we need laws that generate more transparency so that such information is made public.

  14. morgan wrote:

    This discussion about money and race is incredibly important. The experience of being locked out of networks, power, education, the corrosive affects of poverty: these are things that lower class white people also experience. For white people the class position is not marked and it is easier to pass and perhaps to leave, but most poor white people are locked into poverty for the many of same reasons that poor people of colour are locked into poverty: lack of access, the inability of the family to help out, the necessity to help the family. Because there is a taboo on talking about the real lives of people in poverty and the economic impacts of racism, it becomes harder to build solidarity between poor people of colour and poor white people, when in reality the lie of meritocracy is what keeps both struggling.

    And then poor white people turn against affirmative action and believed that white men are oppressed because they look at their lives and they do not see privilege. And it’s true, poor white men (and women) are only relatively privileged compared to racialized people, compared to rich or middle class white people they face a life of being locked out of opportunity.

    What I think perhaps, is my job, as a white person from a bad economic background and an ally to people of colour, is to explain class oppression, and try to build compassion among poor white people for the lives of people of colour, who often have to face the same economic oppression but in must also face the additional curse of racism. We’ll see.

  15. K wrote:

    “Additionally, Casey has graduated from Princeton and is accepted at Columbia Law. Right there, she has what she needs to build wealth if she wishes to. Some women do not have access to these privileges, but she does. However, she chooses not to go to law school or get a job directly out of undergrad. She isn’t feeling it. Many of us don’ t have that luxury. She leaves business school for a similar reason. Her problem is not lack of opportunity driven by insufficient networks, it’s lack of motivation or direction.”

    But that’s the point.

    My sister dated a guy who is the son of a corporate lawyer turned politician. ( Sec. of State for a midwestern US state) This kid did nothing. Did not finish college. Did not have any motivation. He sat around all day smoking weed and going out drinking with his friends (who all happened to be poor…and that’s really a story of him being too embarrassed to hang around the other wealthy people his age). But…did he end up sleeping on the floor at a friend’s house? No. He had his family to fall back on–their white privilege and their generational wealth.

    To put it into perspective, this guy’s parents helped him bid on a zebra head to get him excited for an African safari. Weigh that with 1st or even 2nd generation college students from middle class backgrounds. Even if you do get accepted into certain circles, you will not get accepted into the truly inside stuff that goes on. I mean, bidding on zebra heads? I thought things like that only existed in the movies.

    The point is that an unmotivated middle class person who wants to try to “find themselves” or who has no direction or who is “tired” and just needs a small break will not have the same end point as someone who has wealth and privilege to fall back on.

    What I have seen (being the kid of an extremely poor mother and an upper middle class/upper class father) is that if you are (in this case) black and you “take a break” or need to figure things out for a year or two, the world is much less forgiving than if you’re an upper-class white girl in a culture that says these types of breaks or “non-motivations” are a natural part of growing up.

    My father’s parents have money, land, own their own business and have a net-worth in the millions. And yet my father is now poor because he “took a break” from college and had no direction.

    As a side note, I’m black and I live in Korea, and I have many 1.5/2 generation Korean friends, as well as adoptees. A lot of the adoptees especially (who have white parents) have become bitter because they realize the white privilege that their parents have did not pass on to them and they can’t navigate the same circles as their (white) brothers and sisters.

  16. octogalore wrote:

    La Lubu – I agree that mixed class groups in many geographic areas are woefully inadequate. I worked in Detroit in the early 90s and wasn’t particularly politically active then, but did notice some key differences. And true, it’s much harder for women as we don’t tend to bond around sports or alcohol, which tend to have (not at the golf level, but at the watching-the-game-in-a-bar level) commonalities across class.

    That said, there are possibilities for women (again, possibly geographically affected). Meet-ups around political issues or groups relating to sports that encourage verbal bonding and are low-cost– eg running or hiking groups. I can only speak for LA and Boston, but these groups often have a diverse audience in terms of race and class. Additionally, commenting communities on blogs can lead to offline friendships as well. None of this is a panacea and doesn’t come close to evening out the ground, of course.

    I agree political action is needed (although you and I may differ as to what kind). Early start programs are woefully insufficient. There are political roadblocks to school reform and enhanced school choice that hold back poor children. And frameworks to help work with families of poor schoolchildren are absent.

    Regarding numerical incentives, however, I think they work better when they are client driven. In law, we’re seeing companies like the Big 3 and a number of retailers (eg, Walmart) and food industry clients drop firms that don’t have diverse enough teams representing them. Something like that isn’t going to be stigmatizing and is also going to encourage not-purely-symbolic hiring, but the kind of hiring that leads to promotions, mentoring and nurturing careers of minorities and women.

    If companies (eg country clubs) are demonstrably hiring based on comfort zone rather than merit, however, then I do think corrective measures make sense.

  17. Restructure! wrote:

    I think the solution lies in demanding actual meritocracy and exposing the myths around it, rather than trying to negotiate these barriers. Entire industries can be made around selling advice to disadvantaged groups on how to ‘pass’ and get accepted and connected, which only depletes them of more wealth in the competition to fit in. Acceptance shouldn’t be the goal – but equality.

    Yes. This is where it’s at.

    And I’ll go ahead and say it—I’m not at all opposed to quotas. Legally mandated quotas are the only thing that is going to force some workplaces to look at candidates that are outside of their personal, social comfort zone.

    No, quotas are wrong. There are already unofficial/unintentional Asian quotas for acceptance into prestigious universities. There also used to be official Jewish quotas.

    However, changing laws does change culture, which is why I agree with urbia’s line of thought.

  18. inkst wrote:

    @ Slush #3
    This, “In an age of health care misery, isn’t it also interesting that people who are more likely to have some access to health insurance are also wealthier and more likely to know professional medics in their social group, whom they can consult casually for free, outside the horrendous health care and insurance system?” is huge.

    My father is a surgeon, and my wife’s father is also an MD. It is incredible what we can take care of informally. Just the simple fact that, like you said, you can get a consultation at the dinner table or even have them talk to one of their colleagues puts us leagues ahead of someone who has to have insurance, make an appointment, get to the appointment, feel comfortable asking the doctor questions, cover the copay, trust the doctor’s advice, get to the pharmacy, pay for meds, and on and on. So many hoops can be cut through just by having a physician as a personal acquaintance.

    For most people under the glass ceiling of social class (whether or not it’s compounded by race or gender), this is simply not an option. And speaking specifically of women, women have more consistent medical needs than men, when it comes to things like pelvic exams, pregnancy, and the fact that our society still forces women to take responsibility for birth control.

  19. urbia wrote:

    It starts somewhere, and it might as well be in the comments section of a popular blog on race and popular culture. :)

    Let’s spread the idea and the word, make this a reality.

  20. octogalore wrote:

    I agree with urbia on the transparency point. Even without revealing identities, companies can and should provide information about salary levels at different levels depending on criteria for advancement at that particular company — whether it be revenues collected or successful completion of tasks or seniority.

    The Ledbetter act and race discrimination acts are partial remedies, but not full ones, as having advance knowledge is much more powerful than having a remedy afterwards. Once one has sued, there is a stigma there that’s unfair for a righteous plaintiff.

    I think too that reaching out to mentors of different gender or race (and for senior people, reaching out to junior people along these lines) is important. I would have loved for my most important mentors to be all women — and some were — but ultimately my most loyal mentor has been an older guy whose politics and background are quite different from mine. There are people I’ve worked with who would have, on paper, been much more natural mentors, but somehow it just didn’t happen.

  21. octogalore wrote:

    Further on the point about quotas vs urbia’s and Restructrure’s strategy of “demanding actual meritocracy and exposing the myths around it.” I will third the latter.

    On the example above about client-driven diversity from the standpoint of class and race. I tend to have a very cynical view of people. In my job, when looking at times I’ve asked people I encounter to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, vs asking them to do something because it’s in their own best interest, newsflash — clients/candidates across race and gender tend to respond best to the latter approach.

    So while I think quotas can drive immediate symbolic numbers, they are not successful for nurturing careers. We are still stuck at very low percentages of POC and women in many influential lines of work, eg law, business, politics.

    I think there are two groups who can influence the self-interest of employers — feeder schools and clients. If feeder schools, who are in a position to dictate to employers because they feed strong candidates, track and make advailable to applicants the success rate these companies have at promoting POC/women and having them in top positions, there is a monetary incentive. If clients make it known that one factor in choosing employers to partner with (whether it’s a supplier to that company, a client for legal services or medical services, a buyer of clothing or computer supplies) is diversity of management teams, there is a monetary incentive.

    This would, I think, cut down on purely symbolic hiring of women and POC followed by abandonment, and will force companies to really nurture their careers and prepare them for top responsibility.

  22. Medusa wrote:

    I absolutely loved Free Food for millionaires and related to it on so many levels. One thing that has become painfully obvious to me after finishing university is how many connections I (and my family) do not have. Even during high school, my (mostly white) American friends (who were born and bred in America) had so many more opportunities than I did because of who their families knew, the wealth and property that their family had been able to mass after centuries of being in America, as well as the people they know. Now I have a bunch of American debt, but no legal way to live in America, and it is such a rude awakening that the degree may only be useful if you have the networks and the access.

  23. Donald wrote:

    From my experience there are two strands to networking priviledge. The first is who you are which is where race, class and money can all erect barriers. The second is personality and upbringing – how willing are you to spend time with incompatible people, dress as expected, contribute to the right charities, etc. All to fit in with the group of people who will benefit you.

    In some ways university is a trap for the poor and lower classes. A degree is an entry requirement for many well paid jobs yet unless the individual uses their time there to build up the right relationships they still won’t get the entry jobs which lead to the best jobs.

    Looking back over my working life I started with a fair degree of priviledge but did not exploit it. There were several occassions where I made choices not to perform the rituals of upper middle class society which I could have got into had I dedicated myself to doing so.

  24. malted_tea wrote:

    Two points of meaningful connection: that’s all I need to consider welcoming you into my personal network…or trying to access yours.

    Sounds cliche but when one door closes in your face, go find the next door until you get in.

    Lastly, networking isn’t about “using” people. It’s more about being helpful to others and looking for mutually beneficial arrangements, when appropriate.

    Isn’t there a whole thing related to this in Japanese culture (where people network with each other in some kind of massive game of Pay It Forward)?

  25. urbia wrote:

    @octogalore

    I like where you are going in terms of monetary incentive. However, there is always the possibility that employers simply don’t know what’s best for themselves.

    Even today, for instance, Canadian newspapers are still debating and coming to terms with the fact there is a demographic time bomb when the baby boomers retire. The country’s citizens have simply not been reproducing enough to replace the retiring folk. So then attention is given towards immigration. It’s at this point that it’s always highlighted that the immigrants still face a high rate of unemployment and under-employment, working at jobs far below their skill levels. There is talk about changing recruitment strategies to make the process more inclusive. To me, this makes a lot of sense. But the fact that this could have been done far sooner implies that there are people in positions of hiring power that are irrationally resisting this process.

    @Donald

    Connections can only take you so far anyway, I’ve found. It’s not enough that a pal passes your resume along to HR. The people in HR and the people in management can act on their biases and simply not give you a call back. No amount of engaging in ritualistic activities will reverse this – and that also simply takes money out of your pocket anyway. I’d rather circumvent that and address the problem directly, which is to create change in the recruitment process… and it seems a lot of people are already striving for that.

    Unfortunately, employers have to realize what’s best for themselves. It’s almost like they won’t even notice what they’re doing wrong until the day the dough leaves their pockets and someone’s spinning the world’s largest pizza with it.

  26. Donald wrote:

    @urbia I’m afraid you are wrong about connections. It’s not about getting your CV to HR. The right connection bypasses HR. You get to a senior manager who says to HR “You have got J. Doe’s CV haven’t you?”. So HR pulls out that CV and puts them on the short list. And the interviewer knows that applicant is known to that manager and asks for their opinion. Granted if an employer follows their recruitment proceedure strictly this sort of thing doesn’t happen but it is very common particular at senior level. Indeed plenty of senior posts are not advertised, you need connections to be aware that there is a vacancy.

    The recruitment process has been changed repeatedly over the past forty years. It has got steadily more elaborate and eliminated much overt discrimination. However it hasn’t changed the basis that who you know is much more important than what you can do. Especially at those crucial points where you are one of many similar candidates looking to get a position. Maybe someone has an idea which will change that but I’m not hopeful especially if it actually excludes well connected incompetents from good jobs.

    Part of the problem is that bigger organisations can and do carry a lot of deadweight – employees who don’t really contribute. Yet the organisation as a whole is still profitable. It’s only when the deadweight gets too much that the organisation collapses and all employees lose out. And the kicker in that situation is that the employee who worked hard and really knows their job is at a disadvantage compared to the one who spent their time maintaining and enhancing their connections.

  27. urbia wrote:

    @Donald

    Well, the idea is already there: make all job positions open to the public, by law, including all the senior posts.

    It’s a matter of getting it implemented. Since a lot of well-connected incompetents benefit from the lack of hiring transparency, there will be resistance to this change, but it doesn’t mean that change can’t happen.

    I think the idea is very simple and straight-forward, and it can easily be the central idea to a campaign if people want it badly enough. Especially when they realize how much white male privilege will effect the outcome of something that should be decided on merit.

    “Part of the problem is that bigger organisations can and do carry a lot of deadweight – employees who don’t really contribute. Yet the organisation as a whole is still profitable.”

    I think this part is interesting and can be expanded upon in terms of the cycle of white privilege. It flies in the face of the myth that if you study and work hard, you’ll get ahead despite your background.

    So is the reality instead that large organisations will be profitable anyway and can pick and choose to whom it shares its wealth with? To determine who has enough resources to raise a family and pass wealth to the next generation?

  28. Donald wrote:

    The idea of all job positions being open to the public has been around most of my life. After forty years of trying it hasn’t happened even in the public sector where most progress has been made. In the private sector only overt discrimination is likely to cause an employer problems. This is based on UK practice, I understand US law is less effective.

    You won’t get a mass campaign based on attacking white male priviledge because the majority of the disadvantaged here are white. The primary disadvantage is social class, even sex is less of a barrier than it was.

    Large organisations aren’t necessarily profitable but certainly their leaders choose who to share the wealth generated with. If that sounds contradictory look at the number of stock market takeovers and mergers which do not improve the businesses involved significantly but reward the senior management and advisors handsomely. When such a situation arises they choose to reward those people who are most likely to be in a postion to return the favour later. Those people usually being other white upper-middle class males.

    This is why the work hard to succeed is a myth, only a tiny proportion ever achieve in their lifetime as much as one well connected deal makes in a few months.

  29. urbia wrote:

    I’m a Canadian, and I had Canada on my mind when I wrote that. All the PR about multiculturalism and racial equality benefits someone in power or it wouldn’t be around.

    This sort of campaign would at least spark debate, with its very simple and concrete example. The contradictions would force people in power to make a choice, like a well-publicised test open to the world. Why not make all jobs transparent? What is there to hide? The public wants to know.

  30. Donald wrote:

    The people in power have already made their choice. To do the minimum required to prevent revolution. Sometimes they get it wrong and there is a revolution but too often that merely changes the individuals rather than the power structures. PR is part of that – make statements which sound good without any proposals to change anything. Incidently creating well paid jobs for middle class mostly white people.

    Now many of those PR jobs are advertised openly. However they want ‘experience’. How do you get that experience? By getting a degree and then an unpaid internship or minimum wage job with a PR consultancy. If you fit in you get a promotion to a proper job which gives you the experience needed. The majority of the population are excluded by those barrriers even before any discrimination occurs in deciding who fits in.

  31. urbia wrote:

    Donald, PR as in multiculturalism myth – not, literally, individual Public Relations firms.

    Transparency is only one way of eliminating discrimination from the workplace (all industries, not just Public Relations). Equality can be achieved by having more entry-level openings available that don’t require this barrier of experience, where aptitude can be measured by something other than merely hours worked. So many possibilities are there. It’s just a matter of being imaginative.

  32. Donald wrote:

    So I’m living a myth. The area I live in must have at least a dozen cultures all rubbing along together pretty well. It has taken a generation or two to get to that point but it has happened here. There does seem to be an idea that multiculturalism can happen overnight with only the minority communities doing any work towards it. That’s wrong, it takes all groups and some deliberate policy from local government (e.g. ensuring local schools don’t select on the basis of race or religion).

    That said, what happens in a part of a city doesn’t happen everywhere and when 90% of a national population is from one racial group far too many people do not encounter other cultures and rely on the media for their understanding.

    We’ve tried the idea of increasing the entry level openings to professional jobs (PR just being an example). It just moves the goal posts. Forty years ago a degree pretty much guaranteed entry to the professions and you could get in without one. Now the discussion is about what class of degree is required. So youngsters need an extra three years of education before they find out whether they can get in. Entry level jobs to the professions are unpaid or poorly paid because there is a surplus of applicants. Market forces mean that those with the backing of money have an advantage against those who don’t. Those with that advantage are upper-middle class mostly white people.