By Suchita Thepkanjana
“I wish I were a queer Black woman,” said Andy*, a straight, middle-class, male Economics student.
Out of context, this sounds absurd–at no point in world history was being queer and Black and a woman the winning combo for privilege and success. But perhaps times have changed, or at least the finance industry is trying to, with the implementation of diversity-promoting initiatives.
Andy was applying to Spring Weeks, the prestigious, highly-coveted investment banking internships that offer students the opportunity to spend time at the industry’s top firms.
But with the rise of Diversity Spring Weeks, individuals of systemically disadvantaged groups (such as the working class, LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities, and most commonly, Black individuals, including women) have become the top pick over people like Andy.
Gone are the golden days of wealthy, straight, white male Finance Bros being the only players in the corporate game. Ironically, they are now the ones excluded from many opportunities, resulting in outraged claims, like this one from Andy, that “nowadays, discrimination is going in the opposite direction”.
But are men really being oppressed, and are queer women of color really getting success handed to them on a silver platter? Ultimately, are Diversity Spring Weeks genuinely and effectively dismantling a system rooted in inequality, white supremacy, and patriarchy, or just helping to hide it better?
Spring Weeks 101
For those fortunate enough to not be familiar with the Spring Week application process, it consists of filling out forms, writing cover letters, completing logic, numerical or personality assessments, and filming multiple rounds of online interviews for each programme. Firms may offer a general programme open to anyone, and a diversity programme, open exclusively to members of certain groups. Examples of diversity Spring Weeks include Blackstone’s “Future Women Leaders Program” and Natwest Markets’ “Black Heritage Talent Inside Experience”. It is noteworthy that the vast majority of diversity programmes target women, often of ethnic minority backgrounds and particularly, of Black Heritage. Asian men, on the other hand, are rarely included in any diversity programmes.
Despite only lasting several days, Spring Weeks are venerated by students as the starting point in the pipeline towards getting a job at a major firm. After completing a Spring Week, students can “convert” their experience into a longer, more intensive summer internship. This, in turn, drastically increases their chances of landing a graduate job at the firm. It comes as no surprise, then, that masses of students sacrifice time and energy for this first step towards their dream career.
Diversity – A “Valuable Weapon”?
The unanimous stance amongst students interviewed by The Beaver is: Diversity Spring Weeks give an undeniable advantage to targeted candidates, which comes down to simple maths. Much less unanimous, however, are opinions on whether or not this advantage is justified.
“At the end of the day, getting a Spring Week is a very big numbers game: the more programmes you apply to, the higher the probability that you get in somewhere”, explains Nathan*. And because diversity candidates are eligible for both general and diversity-only programmes, they naturally have more chances than their counterparts. Furthermore, these candidates are up against a smaller pool of competitors in each diversity programme due to its exclusiveness.
Eric* claims: “even just the existence of Diversity Spring Weeks helps you indirectly. Having more opportunities boosts your confidence, and you have more chances to prepare and practice. Eventually, practice makes perfect.” Interviewees also report that results reflect this significant advantage, stating that almost every successful Spring Week candidate they know is a woman of color.
“As a man who isn’t eligible for any diversity programmes, I missed out on at least 10 Spring Week opportunities,” Eric laments. Unsurprisingly, he and all other male interviewees feel that they have been unfairly subjected to “reverse discrimination”.
“I understand that diversity programmes are trying to compensate for oppression in the past…but I never oppressed anyone! So why am I being punished for it?”, Eric asks exasperatedly.
Even some diversity candidates themselves believe they have been given an unfair advantage in the competition, such as Gina*, a South Asian woman who deliberately discloses her gender and ethnic background in every application form, hoping it will increase her chances of success.
“On the form, there’s always the option of ‘prefer not to say’, but I never choose that. Being a woman of color is such a valuable weapon…It’s terribly unfair. The most talented people I know have gotten rejected purely because they’re not diversity candidates. I have friends who are definitely more qualified than I am, but I have gotten to further stages on applications just because I’m a woman and a minority,” she claims.
Roy* chimes in by saying, “While it makes sense to help people who have been more neglected, it doesn’t mean firms should accept someone with worse qualifications just because of some diversity quota.”
Yet “diversity” does not necessarily mean “less qualified”, and “woman of color” does not automatically equal “easy, undeserving success”. Nara*, a South Asian woman who got accepted into Morgan Stanley’s general programme, emphatically disagrees with the claim that she owes her accomplishments to her diverse background. “Just because I’m a woman of color doesn’t invalidate the fact that I actually did the work and got the Spring Weeks myself,” she says in response to those who discredit her.
“Just be quiet. You applied. I applied…I think it’s fair. If you don’t fit into diversity programmes, then apply for the general ones. You still have opportunities. You may not have as many, but at the end of the day, there’s a reason for that,” she remarks.
To Nara, diversity Spring Weeks are more than a potential stepping stone in her career. They are a symbol that people like her–ethnic minorities and women–do have a place in the finance industry after having been excluded for so long.
“It’s important to give people the opportunity, to make them feel like they have a fighting chance. I think a lot of people who come from lower-income and/or racial minority backgrounds might feel like, ‘I have no chance, why bother applying?’ But if you see a program that aims to empower people like you, then you’ll be more inclined to…It’s a starting point,” she explains.
Performativity, Privilege, and the Fine Print
But while diversity programmes are indeed giving certain people that “fighting chance”, they may not be transforming the industry to the point of “reverse discrimination”. In fact, the most significant change caused by diversity initiatives may be in the firms’ reputations, while the ruling elite of the finance world remains largely the same.
According to interviewees, firms have become fixated on scoring well on ESGs (Environmental, Social, and Governance factors for assessing companies) and building their reputation as ethical, inclusive and sustainable, which explains why they are promoting diversity so emphatically.
“Obviously, companies are trying to market themselves as inclusive…I think diversity programmes are happening more because of how the company wants to represent itself and less because they actually care about it,” Roy claims.
And under the heavily-advertised heading of “DIVERSITY SPRING WEEK”, comes the fine print that reveals that not so much has changed.
According to interviewees, the majority of diversity Spring Weeks that they have seen are actually non-convertible or have very low conversion rates, unlike their general programme counterparts. This means interns from many diversity programmes are still not given access to the famed “Spring Week to graduate job” pipeline. Therefore, even if diversity initiatives increase certain individuals’ chances of getting a Spring Week, they still may not be offered the same, vitally-important privileges that non-diversity candidates are. This, according to Gina, defeats the “whole point” of applying for Spring Weeks in the first place.
Furthermore, interviewees allege that despite the diversity initiatives, well-connected, wealthy white men are still able to carve out places for themselves in the finance industry.
Patrick* claims that he knows several white men who got Spring Weeks and, uncoincidentally, “they are all from very wealthy backgrounds and have had internships since they were in highschool”, which is only possible with the help of arcane family contacts.
“Obviously, they haven’t pulled internships out of their own ass. Someone gave it to them because they have connections,” Nara explains. “It’s these previous experiences that were very helpful in helping them get into Spring Weeks over other people.”
As it turns out, the finance world has not been completely overturned the way some have suggested. Women, racial minorities, working class individuals and other disadvantaged groups are not quite taking over boardrooms of companies; in fact, they might not even get a summer internship. In spite of policy changes and flashy new implementations, the core of the industry remains the same: the most special privileges are still sectioned off for dominant groups, and the wealthy, most elite “Finance Bros” are still doing perfectly fine.
“Equal” but Divided
If the ultimate goal of diversity Spring Weeks is to create equality between all individuals in the finance industry, it is still far from being achieved. While intentions may be noble, the diversity-programme band-aid does not single-handedly fix the systemic inequality bullet hole. After all, it is not a simple equation where “historically disadvantaged group” + “diversity programme” = equality.
Most of all, diversity initiatives have ended up being extremely divisive, often exacerbating the pre-existing hostilities between individual Spring Weeks competitors along racial and gender lines. While these programmes create new opportunities for certain people, they simultaneously create “gaps” between everyone, as Patrick puts it.
“You’re a girl, you’ll definitely get in”, “Diversity Spring Weeks aren’t even legit”, “or “I should pretend to be gay or Black or a woman to get a Spring Week”, are all real passive-aggressive remarks LSE students have said about each other that make these “gaps” starkly clear.
So instead of creating a level playing field for everyone, it appears that diversity initiatives have created a “blame game” where individuals of different backgrounds judge, criticize and discredit each other on the basis of who they are, pointing fingers at those they believe are undeserving or unqualified. Instead of bringing people closer to each other in terms of opportunity and privilege, they are actually pushing them further apart.
At the end of the day, how uplifting are these diversity-exclusive opportunities if they exacerbate how ‘woman’ and ‘ethnic minority’ are used to further discredit individuals in ways rooted in patriarchal, imperialist ideology? How much genuine equality is being promoted if humans are still pitted against each other based on their gender, ethnicity and skin colour?
*Names have been changed to preserve anonymity
Illustrated by Sylvain Chan
