patrick.net

I blame Bush.

What the hell does "75% diversity" mean?

This is a really hard problem though, and it's not one that can really be fixed by simple measures like AA.

I'll ignore race for a second and focus on something that is almost impossible to fix: gender.

We know that women make less than men. We also know that women work fewer years than men and fewer hours per week on average. We know that this is primarily because women spend more time taking care of children than men do.

Some of this can be fixed just by having fathers spend more time with the kids. Other things can't really be fixed, though, like the time a woman needs to take off to give birth, and the common need / desire to have a significant maternity leave. A woman who chooses to have children and provide them with the care that they need during the beginning of their lives will always have a serious career disadvantage compared to people who don't do that.

So, back to race. The main problems here are historic. Wealth begets wealth, poor begets poor. Education begets education.

You'll find fewer blacks than whites as you move up the career ladder because white people tend to be richer and better educated than blacks. They're better educated because they're richer, and they're richer because they're better educated.

This is true regardless of race, but it affects blacks disproportionately because of a shameful national (global, even) legacy.

So, I think you have to go back to education. The only problem is, how do you fix education in the poorest communities? In a rich (and mostly white, but maybe asian these days) neighborhood, you have parents who care, spend time with their kids, give them proper nutrition, and raise them in a fairly safe and stable home.

In poor communities, you have higher rates of broken homes, substance abuse, and malnutrition. I won't even get into the resource access and safety problems.

The only way to fix this is slowly and steadily.

I'm not opposed to tilting the balance in favor of the disadvantaged, mind you, I'm just not convinced that it works over the long term, particularly due to the skewed birth rates amongst the educated and uneducated.

I also understand that in some parts of the country and in some occupations, there is still institutionalized discrimination. I honestly have no idea how widespread this is, because people are really good at hiding it. I do know that there's a strong correlation between poverty and poor academic performance, though, so I say we should focus on the things that we can measure and do something about it.

where do you work, and how do I get referred?

elliemae says

where do you work, and how do I get referred?

Ha.

Kevin says

What the hell does “75% diversity” mean?
This is a really hard problem though, and it’s not one that can really be fixed by simple measures like AA.
I’ll ignore race for a second and focus on something that is almost impossible to fix: gender.
We know that women make less than men. We also know that women work fewer years than men and fewer hours per week on average. We know that this is primarily because women spend more time taking care of children than men do.
Some of this can be fixed just by having fathers spend more time with the kids. Other things can’t really be fixed, though, like the time a woman needs to take off to give birth, and the common need / desire to have a significant maternity leave. A woman who chooses to have children and provide them with the care that they need during the beginning of their lives will always have a serious career disadvantage compared to people who don’t do that.
So, back to race. The main problems here are historic. Wealth begets wealth, poor begets poor. Education begets education.
You’ll find fewer blacks than whites as you move up the career ladder because white people tend to be richer and better educated than blacks. They’re better educated because they’re richer, and they’re richer because they’re better educated.
This is true regardless of race, but it affects blacks disproportionately because of a shameful national (global, even) legacy.
So, I think you have to go back to education. The only problem is, how do you fix education in the poorest communities? In a rich (and mostly white, but maybe asian these days) neighborhood, you have parents who care, spend time with their kids, give them proper nutrition, and raise them in a fairly safe and stable home.
In poor communities, you have higher rates of broken homes, substance abuse, and malnutrition. I won’t even get into the resource access and safety problems.
The only way to fix this is slowly and steadily.
I’m not opposed to tilting the balance in favor of the disadvantaged, mind you, I’m just not convinced that it works over the long term, particularly due to the skewed birth rates amongst the educated and uneducated.
I also understand that in some parts of the country and in some occupations, there is still institutionalized discrimination. I honestly have no idea how widespread this is, because people are really good at hiding it. I do know that there’s a strong correlation between poverty and poor academic performance, though, so I say we should focus on the things that we can measure and do something about it.

I think you hit the point dead on with you hammer.......in the end it becomes a issue of poverty. I havent been unemployed for the past 15 years, and have been fairly successful due to my educational pursuits. Opportunity is out there for everyone...if they want it. I would like to argue the points that I meant to define "diversity" as something involves the creation of a workplace and society that includes everyone into the mix. Gay, Women, Latin, Swedish, German, Jewish, etc. Now, my father, who grew up during Jim Crow era had no chance in hell of ever doing anything outside of manual labor where as I can now get a degree, and depending upon my global mentality....get a job anywhere in the world.

Institutionalized discrimination is a subconscience phenomena that is the NEW racism or sexism...insert your choice of "ism" here. It involves groups working together to "cherry pick" only the liked individuals in the workplace.

Often times this involves white males choosing their friends for positions of power...which is a subconcious decision anyone could make unknowingly. Put me in power and I am sure within a few years I will have unknowingly put 1/3 of the organization under black control.

ohhh and 75% diverse meaning other than white males. Latino, Asian, Women, Blacks, Etc.

Or, maybe, diverse could mean:
lazy ... why have only productive workers?? That's not very diverse!!
slow ... why have only productive workers?? That's not very diverse!!
ignorant .. why have workers that understand problems and patterns and direction?? That's not very diverse!!
stinky ... why have only well groomed workers that do not smell?? That's not very diverse!!
fat ... why have fit and trim workers?? That's not very diverse!!
tall ... were is our 75% tall area?
skinny ... how about a lounge for the 75% skinny folks!!

.... who/why/what guage is used to figure out who/why/what gets used to do a job other than the best. THE BEST. Lets try finding a better candidate for any job, other than THE BEST ... that is stuuuuuuupid. THE BEST is always THE BEST choice!!!! If the focus is selecting THE BEST for a job, then there is no need for racism/sexism/heteroism/normalism in any workplace. EEO should really be EQUAL.

Liberalism is a mental disorder

I think the other part Kevin missed out on, and Clarence touched on was hiring who you know. No one wants to be responsible for hiring the lame employee. Therefore, they want to try and make them blend in. This is where diversity loses out, because the cards are already stacked against them. It's a subconscious act of blending in. It's what every animal does to survive. They try and avoid putting themselves in a position where failure means the spotlight ends up on them.

The whole diversification thing can be good and bad. It can be good to bring in diversity, but it can also bring in a lot of under skilled people who then make others look bad. It breaks down the first barrier though, of someone hiring the "first" person who doesn't blend in.

The other issue is that to get to the top, a person needs some experience, along with education. While diversity hiring might have helped this, it wouldn't help hiring at the higher levels because those people need to work their way up the ladder, which takes much longer. We might see some results in another 20-30 years

Bap33 says

…. who/why/what guage is used to figure out who/why/what gets used to do a job other than the best. THE BEST. Lets try finding a better candidate for any job, other than THE BEST … that is stuuuuuuupid. THE BEST is always THE BEST choice!!!! If the focus is selecting THE BEST for a job, then there is no need for racism/sexism/heteroism/normalism in any workplace. EEO should really be EQUAL.

Liberalism is a mental disorder

Fascinating (your choice of when to cite mental factors).

What if you have a job opening, that pays fairly decent, and requires skill levels that are abundant in the current market place. And what if on top of that you have very little diversity in your company, even though you are in a diverse city. So this job opens up and you get hundreds of applications and dozens that are excellent, and say 10 that you decide to interview.

If these 10 are all very good candidates, and in deciding between the 4 or 5 best is basically a coin flip, you think it wrong to have a policy that say in such cases, increasing diversity is desirable ?

"lazy...............slow..............ignorant ..............mental disorder""

I still have hope for you Bap. Those emotions you have were learned somehow. Nobody that is for diversity in the workplace is advocating lower quality people. It's about getting managers (like you, if you were a manager) out of their comfort zone, with respect to ethnicity of their hires.

marcus says

If these 10 are all very good candidates, and in deciding between the 4 or 5 best is basically a coin flip, you think it wrong to have a policy that say in such cases, increasing diversity is desirable ?

A coin flip? You've got to be joking. I would venture to guess that there are a lot of "referrals" from existing employees that tip the decision one way or the other. That's the way it works. Ever heard the phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know..."

If we ever have an opening (rarely happens here almost 0 turnover), I know 10+ people that would start working tomorrow. These aren't unemployed people. Why would I choose from that pool of people? Because I already know them, their work ethic, personality, experience, skill level, etc, etc... It's just the way it works in real life.

I am the boss. I hire the best I can find, period. There are no ties in life. When the call is close, I have a panel of current workers conduct an interview - asking the same questions to each candidate - and I just observe. This is where "personality" and "team mesh" will get a person a job over an equally matched competitor. Age, race, sex, are not part of the interview ... any more than they would be in any other real life face to face interaction.

If anyone in charge of anything chooses a new hire based on anything other than productivity/application of job skills/value then that boss is a complete idiot. If the best person to do a job in the most productive manner at the greatest value to the entity is black, white, green, bi-lingo, tall, slow, ugly, whatever lable you choose .... then that is EXACTLY the person that should get the job. Even if the final vote in a close-call is cast by future fellow workers based on nothing more than comfort level .. that's how life works. Stripes with stripes, spots with spots, a chian is only as strong ... yaddda yadda yadda.

Forced diversity .. like you find in cross bussing in schools .. results in the non-meshed kids gathering into comfortable groups every chance they get. It results in school sponsored clubs that focuse on the differences of the cross-bused kids, keeping them totally seperate in identity from the other kids. It results in false feelings of accomplishment by those that dream up such stupid assed ideas as forced diversity. The "poor" side of town will have a certain expected attitude from kids and their parents, as will the "rich" side. The parents are responsible (made choices) for where the kids live, right? Anyways, thats a different subject I guess.

Bap33 says

Even if the final vote in a close-call is cast by future fellow workers based on nothing more than comfort level

There's the problem.

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

Even if the final vote in a close-call is cast by future fellow workers based on nothing more than comfort level

There’s the problem.

is it?
why is the "comfort level" of diversity wanted(legislated and demanded) from left-minded people not the problem, but the "comfort level" of a productive work force is? Please explain the expressed validity of forced diversity, and give some examples where the forced diverse selection was better than the best choice based on sound selection systems.

RE equal treatment: I want to see a TSA vid of any rap star/thug gangster type getting an enhanced pat-down. You do notice that all of the targets of the TSA goons are never ever anyone that looks like they may react in an agressive manner ... don't you?

Bap33 says

why is the “comfort level” of diversity wanted(legislated and demanded) from left-minded people not the problem, but the “comfort level” of a productive work force is? Please explain the expressed validity of forced diversity, and give some examples where the forced diverse selection was better than the best choice based on sound selection systems.

Well, you are kind of contradicting yourself there. In the other post you said it's OK to pick based on comfort level, but now you are challenging me to give an example when the diverse selection was better than the best choice based on sound selection systems.

I don't disagree with using a sound system to make your selection--my problem is that most places don't do that. There is some baseline of requirements--education level, experience, etc. But then all the candidates get interviewed and the one that is chosen is often picked based on comfort level. That's where I think some problems can occur.

The only companies that are frowned on being any ethinic majority are White owned and staffed company. And even then the only "REAL" people Bitching about it, are White Liberals.

If they "REALLY REALLY REALLY" need this Diversification cause, then why don't they come to Miami, and bust up all of these Cuban and Hatian Clubs, er I mean Companies?
Here in South Florida Whites are only about 10% of the people I am either friends with, or work with. I can't recall working for an "All White" company in well over 15 years or more. YET! Almost every single Job I have had in the last 15 years or so, were Majority one ethinic or race, or another. No mix no diversification, and they have just as strong opinions about anyone that isn't a Paisan as any Redneck shop ran and Staffed by Cooter and Cletus.

tatupu70 says

I don’t disagree with using a sound system to make your selection–my problem is that most places don’t do that. There is some baseline of requirements–education level, experience, etc. But then all the candidates get interviewed and the one that is chosen is often picked based on comfort level.

So they should pick based on race, sex, religion, etc., instead?

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

I don’t disagree with using a sound system to make your selection–my problem is that most places don’t do that. There is some baseline of requirements–education level, experience, etc. But then all the candidates get interviewed and the one that is chosen is often picked based on comfort level.

So they should pick based on race, sex, religion, etc., instead?

No

Then what?

Here's a clue:

tatupu70 says

I don’t disagree with using a sound system to make your selection

Bap33 says

I am the boss. I hire the best I can find, period. There are no ties in life. When the call is close, I have a panel of current workers conduct an interview - asking the same questions to each candidate - and I just observe. This is where “personality” and “team mesh” will get a person a job over an equally matched competitor. Age, race, sex, are not part of the interview … any more than they would be in any other real life face to face interaction.
If anyone in charge of anything chooses a new hire based on anything other than productivity/application of job skills/value then that boss is a complete idiot. If the best person to do a job in the most productive manner at the greatest value to the entity is black, white, green, bi-lingo, tall, slow, ugly, whatever lable you choose …. then that is EXACTLY the person that should get the job. Even if the final vote in a close-call is cast by future fellow workers based on nothing more than comfort level .. that’s how life works. Stripes with stripes, spots with spots, a chian is only as strong … yaddda yadda yadda.
Forced diversity .. like you find in cross bussing in schools .. results in the non-meshed kids gathering into comfortable groups every chance they get. It results in school sponsored clubs that focuse on the differences of the cross-bused kids, keeping them totally seperate in identity from the other kids. It results in false feelings of accomplishment by those that dream up such stupid assed ideas as forced diversity. The “poor” side of town will have a certain expected attitude from kids and their parents, as will the “rich” side. The parents are responsible (made choices) for where the kids live, right? Anyways, thats a different subject I guess.

Good points. However, if a group of football player interview 2 canidates -- 1 a football player and the other a baseball player. Who gets the job?....the football player! So, my points are that since white and black cultures are so different blacks have no chance in hell unless they change who they are at the core of their being.

This also applies for rich vs poor, surfers vs boaders, city people vs rural people....

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

I don’t disagree with using a sound system to make your selection–my problem is that most places don’t do that. There is some baseline of requirements–education level, experience, etc. But then all the candidates get interviewed and the one that is chosen is often picked based on comfort level.

So they should pick based on race, sex, religion, etc., instead?

No

The only way is to set aside a certain amount of positions as is being done by large corporations. Else, the dominant group in power will continue to select only from those that are alike them. If Blacks or Asians were in power it would be the same in reverse.

Bap33 says

Or, maybe, diverse could mean:
lazy … why have only productive workers?? That’s not very diverse!!
slow … why have only productive workers?? That’s not very diverse!!
ignorant .. why have workers that understand problems and patterns and direction?? That’s not very diverse!!
stinky … why have only well groomed workers that do not smell?? That’s not very diverse!!
fat … why have fit and trim workers?? That’s not very diverse!!
tall … were is our 75% tall area?
skinny … how about a lounge for the 75% skinny folks!!
…. who/why/what guage is used to figure out who/why/what gets used to do a job other than the best. THE BEST. Lets try finding a better candidate for any job, other than THE BEST … that is stuuuuuuupid. THE BEST is always THE BEST choice!!!! If the focus is selecting THE BEST for a job, then there is no need for racism/sexism/heteroism/normalism in any workplace. EEO should really be EQUAL.
Liberalism is a mental disorder

It absolutely could mean that. Diane Sawyer did a special on how GOOD LOOKING people get the job first over LESSER LOOKING canidates. SPORTS fields are truly the only arenas where competition of talents wins in the end.

Kobe Bryant is the best because he put in the work, not because Jerry Buss or Magic Johnson like him. However, we cant say that for every CEO in America whom have been "cherry picked" by their friends.

Tenouncetrout says

The only companies that are frowned on being any ethinic majority are White owned and staffed company. And even then the only “REAL” people Bitching about it, are White Liberals.
If they “REALLY REALLY REALLY” need this Diversification cause, then why don’t they come to Miami, and bust up all of these Cuban and Hatian Clubs, er I mean Companies?
Here in South Florida Whites are only about 10% of the people I am either friends with, or work with. I can’t recall working for an “All White” company in well over 15 years or more. YET! Almost every single Job I have had in the last 15 years or so, were Majority one ethinic or race, or another. No mix no diversification, and they have just as strong opinions about anyone that isn’t a Paisan as any Redneck shop ran and Staffed by Cooter and Cletus.

Thats the reverse discrimination we were talking about. I interviewed for an IT job at Panda Inn. What i found was the entire department was Asian, half of which could barely speak English. This indicated to me that I was not the right fit, which in the end I told the recruiter they may want to try and send someone of Asian descent in to fill the spot. I could never relate to the culture the way anothe Asian person could, and I accept the fact that I was not a good fit. All other departments were fairly diverse and integrated. Even the HRM could not understand why he had so many canidates rejected.

Now, if we apply diversity laws then the IT group would have never been able to cherry pick friends and family to join them.

All large modern corporations have policies of encouraging diversity, that doesn't come from liberals, it comes from modern times and common sense. But I guess the obvious pragmatic side of it is lost on some people.

Let me break it down for you Bap. Talent exist in all ethnic groups. Now I'm talking about the big city here, but if you are running a corporation, in a major city, you want diversity, as much as possible, so that when there is a talented nonwhite person that you want on your team, he or she will be willing to join your company.

IT's just reality here in 2010 and this is only going to be more true as time goes on.

Now in the past, yes, some forward thinking "liberals" did force this a little.

But it's the 21st century now, and no serious company would think of not encouraging diversity, and that's not because of liberals or just a token effort at being PC, it's just where the world is at.

What are you out in the sticks somewhere where everyone is white and is still wrestling with 1970s issues ?

you solidify my point .... in spades. Thanks.

You both have a point BAP/MARCUS, the statement that "the best is the best choice" is invalidated when people choose to go with the canidate that they most relate to instead of the most qualified or in this case the "best" canidate.

However, diversity exists because it has been proven that 9/10 times people go with whom they most closely associate with.

Therefore UGLY people cant get jobs from GOOD looking people....

Clarence 13X says

Often times this involves white males choosing their friends for positions of power…which is a subconcious decision anyone could make unknowingly. Put me in power and I am sure within a few years I will have unknowingly put 1/3 of the organization under black control.

Well, Clarence 13X, the white people who unquestionably were and still are in control have, instead, put a lot of black people in control, up to and including the current president and previously Sec. of State, Joint Chiefs, and numerous others. In many if not most cases, bending over backwards to find reasons to so do and close eyes on the reasons not to. Perhaps that is the difference between us.

tatupu70 says

I don’t disagree with using a sound system to make your selection

Sure, a "sound system" Sounds great! ... So what exactly is your definition of a sound system, how is it validated, implemented, adjusted to not result in "adverse impact" while not degrading its original predictive value, and of course, regulated?

Clarence 13X says

The only way is to set aside a certain amount of positions as is being done by large corporations.

So, an individual who is not a minority should be passed over for a job even if they are much more qualified than an individual who is a member of a "minority class?"

You, sir, are a racist!

Yeah, I'm telling you, this issue really has the racists like Clarence showing their true colors.

Paralithodes says

So, an individual who is not a minority should be passed over for a job even if they are much more qualified than an individual who is a member of a “minority class?”
You, sir, are a racist!

Are you assuming that it is impossible to fill a set number of positions with minorities without passing up more qualified individuals that are not minorities??

That sounds racist to me.

tatupu70 says

Are you assuming that it is impossible to fill a set number of positions with minorities without passing up more qualified individuals that are not minorities??
That sounds racist to me.

Yes, assuming such a thing would sound racist to me as well. I guess it's a good thing I don't make that general assumption and instead focus on the impact of an arbitrary quota on the rights of individuals .

IMO, it is absolutely fine to set a number of positions as a goal, and perform extended outreach to find qualified candidates among under-represented groups. The higher the number of qualified candidates you can get from under-represented groups, the higher the likelihood that more will be selected as a proportion of the total selected. That, in fact is the actual definition of "Affirmative Action."

A set-aside number of positions, or "quotas" in actual terms, is something else entirely. If you believe it is "racist" to be against a quota, that's fine. I believe it is "racist" to be for one. Which position makes "race" an explicit part of the selection criteria? Hint - it's not my position.

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

Are you assuming that it is impossible to fill a set number of positions with minorities without passing up more qualified individuals that are not minorities??
That sounds racist to me.

Yes, assuming such a thing would sound racist to me as well. I guess it’s a good thing I don’t make that general assumption and instead focus on the impact of an arbitrary quota on the rights of individuals .
IMO, it is absolutely fine to set a number of positions as a goal, and perform extended outreach to find qualified candidates among under-represented groups. The higher the number of qualified candidates you can get from under-represented groups, the higher the likelihood that more will be selected than otherwise. That, in fact is the actual definition of “Affirmative Action.”
A set-aside position, or “quota” in actual terms, is something else entirely. If you believe it is “racist” to be against a quota, that’s fine. I believe it is “racist” to be for one. Which position makes “race” an explicit part of the selection criteria? Hint - it’s not my position.

I pretty much agree. I only think quotas are useful if companies can't be trusted to do the outreach or hire qualified minorities. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but at this point I don't think quotas are necessary.

tatupu70 says

I pretty much agree. I only think quotas are useful if companies can’t be trusted to do the outreach or hire qualified minorities. Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but at this point I don’t think quotas are necessary.

There have in fact been some court cases ordering some organizations to establish some quotas and hire some minorities. One of the most famous is Sheet Metal Workers Union # 28, which was ordered to do so by the Supreme Court:
http://www.answers.com/topic/local-28-of-sheet-metal-workers-international-association-v-equal-employment-opportunity-commission
I have no issue with it being implemented in specific cases, to remedy a specifically identified problem. I believe we are in near full agreement on this issue, sir.

it is all about intent and focus.

If the intent is to hire the absolute best person for a job, and the focus is finding the absolute best person for a job, then there is no reason to pay any attention to anything that does not help reach that goal.

The "idea" that focusing and intending to hire someone that matches some pulled-from-thin-air special "protected" class description, as oposed to the absolute best candidate is absolutly undefendable. That type of system is a luxury, and is in no way productive. As a matter of fact, if anyone cars to look at facts and nature and life honestly, a system based on the whole "protected" class focus is destructive. As with most every feelgood system forced on the American public, the system of forced devirsity has a net-negative effect.

There is only one NBA Champ. And anyone that makes a team has a chance to win it. None of the NBA rules or requirements mention race - by the way.
There is only one NASCAR Cup. Anyone that makes the team is welcome to try for it. None of the NASCAR rules mention race either.
One of these is dominated by a "protected" (as per left-minded rules) "class", and nobody has ever tries to force for more racial diversity in it's ranks. The other is dominated by a "non-protected class" and has been attacked and forced to come up with some type of diversity program based on race. Interesting, huh?

I wonder how this whole conversation would be viewed one hundred fifty years from now.

My opinion is that these questions would seem like quaint ancient history. It will be difficult for any person, even those who are socially retarded, to comprehend that this was considered (by some - not me) political. And I think they will agree with those here who say that diversity never needs to be, or needs to have been forced, for example in law schools or large corporations.

But then, if you have never lived in a very sheltered homogeneous population, how would you know what that was like ? How would you know whether expediting the inevitable at that time had any social or economic advantages ?

Paralithodes says

I blame Bush.

what the heck Bush do to hold back diversity....I am not sure I understand this one.

Bap33 says

The “idea” that focusing and intending to hire someone that matches some pulled-from-thin-air special “protected” class description, as oposed to the absolute best candidate is absolutly undefendable. That type of system is a luxury, and is in no way productive. As a matter of fact, if anyone cars to look at facts and nature and life honestly, a system based on the whole “protected” class focus is destructive. As with most every feelgood system forced on the American public, the system of forced devirsity has a net-negative effect.

Yes, class focus is destructive. However, it ia apparently clear that no nother ethic groups are permitted the same opportunities as whites in the workplace. If not for the cherry picking and buddy system I would agree 100% with you.

Until we can measure performance in the workplace like we can in sports we have to put in place measures to ensure that qualified canidates are not overlooked simply because their culture is different.

marcus says

I wonder how this whole conversation would be viewed one hundred fifty years from now.
My opinion is that these questions would seem like quaint ancient history. It will be difficult for any person, even those who are socially retarded, to comprehend that this was considered (by some - not me) political. And I think they will agree with those here who say that diversity never needs to be, or needs to have been forced, for example in law schools or large corporations.
But then, if you have never lived in a very sheltered homogeneous population, how would you know what that was like ? How would you know whether expediting the inevitable at that time had any social or economic advantages ?

I think in 150 years it will be known that diversity efforts in the workplace are what will lead developing nations to buy a companies products. Large corporations are already placing focus on diversity because they see the value in the ideas of a diverse group that can re-focus their products towards the untapped markets.

My point is not to take jobs away from qualified canidates but to put a stop to the CHERRY PICKING and GOOD OL BOYS network that prevents qualified canidates from truly competing.

The good ol boys network can include wome, blacks, others as well...its just depends on the culture of the main power group.