Boston's Tinted Glass Ceiling?
I posted an entry to my blog, "Minding the Workplace," about the culture of Boston that may yield nods of agreement, flames, or ho hums. Here are some excerpts:
In Boston, more than in many other major cities, there exists a "tinted glass ceiling" that continues to exclude those who in some way challenge the authority of those who have long held the reigns of power and influence in this city. It is grounded in the city's historically insular culture, and it is especially prevalent in workplaces of all kinds....
The excluded include a disproportionate share of people of color and women, but also newcomers to the city representing virtually all demographic groups....
I use the term "tinted" because there is nothing transparent about these practices of exclusion. In a city where people often hold on to power for its own sake, a lot of decision making is made behind closed doors, literally and figuratively....
For the full post: http://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/core-groups-source-bostons-tinted-glass-ceiling/
Comments
I couldn't agree more
I knew about it, so when I was interviewing for teaching positions several years ago I would name drop places in the area and make sure to pronounce them correctly. I learned that the hard way, too, when I mispronounced places such as Peabody and Worcester on WERS when I was an Emerson student. After that, I caught on real fast. ;)
It's funny how that works. In other parts of the country when you mispronounce a place name locals may find it charming or even cute. Here, they just get mad!
But getting back to the original points of the post, I've tried to figure out why that is. In Boston in particular, it may be a way to protect against the waves of students flooding in September and leaving in May.. or who just stay a few years? Most of those students don't get involved, anyway. As far as racism goes, I thought that was more of a reputation based on the busing issue and that it otherwise wasn't all that different from the rest of the country.
The roots of it?
I think it's about power, insecurity, and some deep-seeded hostility to change. I know that sounds like a tinpot attempt at psychoanalysis! But as I've quipped many times, I've never seen so many people who took seriously what someone wrote in their high school yearbook: "Don't ever change! Stay the way you are!"
Students
I think that the transient student population, which doesn't often endear itself, would contribute to a resistance to change.
The Globe front page yesterday was funny.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/larger_view/?g_date=2009_02_05
maybe contribute, but....
There are lots of other college cities and towns that don't have Boston's insularity. They all have so-called town vs. gown conflicts, but the 'tude described here goes well beyond a reaction to all the college kids around here.
How many of those cities are
How many of those cities are as old and established as Boston? Many college towns were not around for a few hundred years before large colleges came into play. One thing to remember is even though Boston has always had world class colleges since the founding of Harvard it was at one time a city with a big financial sector, industries, major trade areas with some of the busiest ports in the country, and a host of other things that kept it from being so overpopulated by students.
I dont know what your experiences have been but Ive seen companies that will only play ball with people from big name schools, or entire offices where the majority of the staff are from some random place (New Jersey people tend to clump) and have noticed an unsettling number of New Yorkers running around the entertainment/alternative scene in the city.
Am I to believe that people from other places going to Harvard and BU are having a worse time finding employment then local people?
not sure how to unpack all this
Shady, I'm not sure what your ultimate point is, but if you're concentrating on the college thing, I'd respond that cities like New York seem to have room for both the local kid who goes to CUNY and the newcomer who goes to Columbia (and switch the affiliations as well).
If you're wondering why those "random" New Jerseyites and "unsettling" numbers of New Yorkers seem to "clump" together, well, maybe that underscores my point. It reminds me of a friend who left Boston in disgust after giving it 10 or so years -- she often remarked that it's hard to make friends here when the locals "aren't taking new applications."
Making friends and getting a
Making friends and getting a job are two different things. It is hard to make friends, I struggle with it because of my line of work, and to be honest I just dont fit in with other people all around me all day. Its not just transplants that have a hard time, its everyone. I do think we are all very selective about our friends, but that goes for all of us. I have some people I see on a regular basis now that it took me 15 years of seeing them off and on, and going to school with them for a few years before we broke the ice and found out we would have made great friends. Im guilty of snubbing possible friends, Ive known at least a few perfectly nice people from elsewhere that didnt understand the system, I feel bad but its in my blood. I guess its harder for them then for me because they dont already have friends and family and so on, so yeah I do feel bad. Even among locals if we dont already know each other it takes a while to thaw out.
10 years wasnt long enough, they needed more time. Theres some people that measure time in weeks, other months, years, decades and then you have Bostonians who tend to measure in generations...
exactly!
"then you have Bostonians who tend to measure in generations..."
Actually, maybe the broader question is not about jobs or friends specifically, but about whether or not a community is an open or closed one.
Great cities embrace their locals and their newcomers, recognizing that continuity and change must co-exist. Boston has been getting closer to that balance, but it's not there yet.
Is Boston different from any other city?
My guess is that this is commonplace, where jobs are filled based on who you know rather than what you know.
Maybe
Some places severely restrict the number of positions in government that are appointed, opting for civil service to maintain a professional corps. Further restrictions severely limit nepotism at all levels of government (e.g. my dad had to bust up a state road maintenance crew in a very remote area of Oregon because there were too many cousins).
In other words, the statehouse janitor in most states remains the same person even when the executive office turns over unless they transfer to another job because they are employees of the state bureaucracy, not a well connected somebody's best friend's third nephew. Better yet, major state departments are mostly run by people who have worked their way up or earned their spot through interview and hiring criteria, not well-connected people who may or may not know anything about the nuts and bolts of the subject matter or organization.
Howie Carr...
...is at his most virulent when he's in classic Boston Hater mode, but when he does his homework and connects the dots between the family connections, it's a remarkable window into how people get ahead here.
You know why that will never
You know why that will never change? It never will , because its established and anyone with enough power to get elected knows better then to shut down the system. Sure we have had people get into power vowing to fight the power, that is until they end up with a basement office in the state house, or their sister got laid off and needs a job, or those campaign donors, yeah they have nephews that need jobs. They need to get stuff done, but nobody will play ball with them because they are trying to shut down the system.
I suggest you keep an eye on the 10 most idealistic current and future politicians you can find, track them for 10 years and see how they change. Sure they may still be doing a great job and may still be idealistic but their brother is in charge of construction at Massport and they have family members of other reps and senators working in their offices. When they go to retire in 25 years they will retire to a nice little state job with a secretary... The same goes for idealistic backers of these politicians, they put so much time into the system that they start expecting some benefits from it as well. Whats your solution if the agent of change assimilates so quickly into the system?
dumb question for the original poster but....
Peabody should be pronounced pee-buddy and not pee-body right? Im not a north shore guy and call it pee-buddy but had a friend from new york who called the latter.
Emphasis is key, Pete. It
Emphasis is key, Pete. It should be PEA-buh-dee.
Yes, I believe youve got it.
Yes, I believe youve got it. The beginning is much more vocalized then the end.
Reading is "Redding" (Ive heard the g dropped off before, not sure if its some local dialect Im not familiar with, but its been done and is local) btw in case it ever comes up.
pee-buddy
Isn't that when you're at a nice restaurant, and the ladies from the table have to go in groups of two or more, to powder their noses?
Peabidy
peebidy