“Who’s Afraid of the Big Black Wolf?”: An Examination of the Black Wolves of Wall Street — and the Unfortunate Lack Thereof
Being distinguishable to your co-workers and boss in a typical job setting would seem like a generally positive thing to be; however, working on Wall Street is unlike any other job. On Wall Street, the thought of conservatism, and specifically white-males conceptions of traditional conservatism, reigns supreme when it comes to behavior, actions, and dress. This is presumably so, seeing as though 6 of the largest banks executives are composed of 80% white males — a drop-off in comparison to how Wall Street used to be.
Furthermore, what seems to be surprising is the lack of key ethnic groups employed in Wall Street, and specifically pertaining to this article, the low number of employed blacks relative to their population size. This is not to the fault of banks of course, or even individual employers (at least directly). Most bulge bracket banks have African American aimed diversity initiatives, but most are marginally helping to balance out the aforementioned numbers. Given all these perplexing certainties, what could the problem possibly stem from?
Taking into account the limited amount of data on this phenomena, I would hypothesize that the problem resides deeper within the social structure of not only Wall Street, but society as a whole. Complications arise within two extremely different ends of the spectrum: the psychological interrelation of group membership and conformity, as it relates to discrimination, and my own races severely stunted knowledge on such opportunities (as it usually was never an option afforded to us, to begin with).
Simply put — Wall Street is about money, and more so, extremely competitive. More to the point, if there isn’t one thing else that both employees and employers fancy more at firms, it is gaining profit. If an employer at an M&A firm perceives a black man as someone who can help him in his endeavor to persuade a company into signing a 100-million-dollar acquisition deal, then he will inevitably hire him (whether he’d like to, or not). The perception that he does not must have underlying reasoning behind it, and this is central to understanding how these interactions and perceptions within society are established.
Firstly, it is important to note the tightly wound and directly associated network which makes up the business community — especially in comparison to Wall Street. As an example, “87% of top level executives network daily” , with “90% of them increasing their opportunities”. Being as tight knit as they are, the union and similarities of gender, race, and work can cause members of the network to experience the psychological phenomena of “internalisation” — a specific form of conformity in which the outside perspectives and behaviors of society are accepted and integrated into the individuals personality (as similarly related in a historical experiment by Sherif).
Psychologically, conformity plays an intensive role in breeding discrimination — or in the case of Wall Street — the social rigidness which pervades each and every aspect of its inner-society. This isn’t to say that this relates just to the style of hair and correctness of suit lapels — but the overall anatomical and physical traits that make up a person as a whole. Therefore, this may provide palpable reasoning for discrimination of capable blacks when it comes time for internships and employment.
On the other end of the spectrum, things are outlined more explicitly. African Americans in the United States generally do not go to target schools for business, instead opting for smaller 2 or 4 year institutions. More so, the percent of African Americans with degrees in the stem and business fields are all under 10 percent. This leads to a huge margin of educated blacks who are incapable of competing for jobs on Wall Street, even if they study a business major, as most banks are highly selective towards ivy league schools or prestigious 4 year PWI’s.
Clearly, the possible discrimination against capable blacks based on social conformity, and the large majority of incapable blacks without the knowledge of such opportunities, could certainly bring about the low turnout rates we see for African American employees on Wall Street.
Yet, what is equally interesting is the characteristics we see in the “big black wolves” — a subset of African Americans who have not only been able to break into Wall Street — but do substantially well.
Take for instance Willie E. Woods, a co-founder of his own firm with investment into companies ranging from 25 million to 250 million dollars. One thing could be noted about Willie E. Woods, and most other “blacks wolves”: they act,look, and behave(in a professional sense)just as their white counterparts would in the same positions. In other words, they seem to fit the mold of the average conservative American, which is in stark contrast to the majority of modern-day African-American social characteristics and viewpoints.
Akin to what Toure relates in “Who’s Afraid of Post-Blackness”, it could be possible that African Americans in power, even in the modern era, might need to sparingly use their “blackness” to professionally develop themselves within their potentially downtrodden position. That said, perhaps it is better to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing rather than another “black sheep”.
(Note: The texts more overarching positions serves the purpose of initiating discussion and eliciting individual viewpoints rather than explicitly distinguishing my own personal beliefs on the topics. Too many people “think” the same; instead, let us strive to think better.)