How does the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission categorize people?
Let's say you are an Arab from Morocco. Morocco is on the continent of Africa, so are you listed as African American? You can be - at least indirectly - if you are Black because the EEOC's categories define Black as all persons, not of Hispanic origin, having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. EEOC does not use the term "African American" but you would be linked to Africa via your racial group.
On the other hand, if you are an Arab from Morocco and are not Black, then you are placed in the category of White (Not of Hispanic origin), which is described as "All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East."
But wait, you say. What if I am an Iraqi Arab? Iraq is in the Middle East and the Middle East is in Asia. Geographers may follow that delineation but not the EEOC. The EEOC defines Asian or Pacific Islander as "All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa." Unless you're Black, if you are an Iraqi Arab, you are categorized as White.
Does that clarify matters?
No?
Well, things get trickier.
Hispanics are defined as "All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race." What if you are a Black Cuban? The Department of Labor's guidance to employers who are reporting on the composition of their workforce is that the employees should answer the Hispanic question first. If an employee indicates that he or she is Hispanic, then the person is counted as Hispanic.
This could, of course, lead to an undercount of Blacks and an overcount of Hispanics but that seems to have been missed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
What about non-American Indians who suddenly discover an American Indian ancestor and seek to change their classification in order to gain a hiring preference? Nice try, but that won't work. The EEOC definition of American Indian or Alaskan Native is "All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition."
All of this makes me appreciate the wisdom of the line used by one employer at the bottom of its recruitment ads:
We discriminate solely on the basis of merit.
1 comment:
Thank you Michael.
I was aware and had communicated my observations that employers will not count the "race" of applicants or employees who indicate that they are Hispanic.
I was impressed by the data problems and the resulting undercount of "Black/African Americans", particularly Carribean Hispanics (Cuban, Dominican, Puerto Rican,etc.) who otherwise fit the "Black/African" American" definition. I'm confident that controversey will result, especially back east.
I also marveled at the odd definition of "White" that has existed since Title VII's beginnings.
The aggregation of ethnic groups in the Asian & Pacific Islander definition paralyzed the government's enforcement of civil rights protections in Hawaii where the Japanese Asians were on top and the Filipino and Korean Asians were on the bottom.
I remember when Portuguese, Poles, and Jews were jockeying for special recognition and monitoring.
There are historical, hysterical, and political reasons for all this.
The preference/parity mindset is long gone in practice but " what gets inspected gets done".
The aggregations and peculiar definitions and the blind broad brush strokes approach will, I believe, continue to significantly compromise the government's effectiveness in ensuring genuine equal opportunity and nondiscrimination. But, hey, we're decades ahead of Europe.
You made the same points in a more interesting and humorous way.
Thank you for the good read and for the motivation and opportunity to respond.
Post a Comment