Author: mopress

Change of Data Sources Yields Anomalies

By Greg Moses

A Texas agency charged with taking over Civil Rights analysis has decided to stop basing its civilian workforce report on data collected by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Instead of basing its analysis on data collected for civil rights purposes, the Division of Civil Rights at the Texas Workforce Commission in its debut report this year used less precise figures reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

In the past, noted the report, the Texas Commission on Human Rights had compiled the civil rights report from data provided by the EEOC. As a result of the switch in data sources, the first table of the Texas Equal Employment Opportunity Report shows some civil rights anomalies.

For example, Caucasian Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans collectively represented 128 percent of all Texas workers; and all three categories of race-ethnicity cited were under-represented in Administration jobs. While these anomalies are common in reports from the BLS, they make a poor basis for analyzing civil rights.

Since the civil rights report is supposed to compare state agency employment figures with civilian workforce numbers, the choice of BLS data as a baseline raises further questions about the “comparison charts” presented in the report.

Chart One for instance (not Table One) presents numbers on the employment of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Females in the Statewide Civilian Workforce. Numbers used in the chart for race and ethnicity are taken from the overlapping BLS categories.

Chart One in turn is compared to employment of protected classes in state agency employment. From attachments, it appears that state agency employment is calculated according to more rigorous EEOC standards, where protected classes do not overlap.

Throughout the report, numbers are presented in such isolation that it is difficult to scan for internal consistency or disparate impact. Why does no chart present a complete spectrum of protected classes including Asian Americans or Native Americans. Why do colorful graphs of employment rates not also show comparison bars for Anglos or Males? Why are women rarely considered as various races or ethnicities? Why are discussions, analyses, and footnotes so scarce?*

In the end, the reader wants to know, what purpose is this report intended to serve beyond simply complying with some law that says a report is to be issued? Do the laws themselves not have a civil rights context that can serve as the basis for stating the purposes, findings, and recommendations of this report?

Perfunctory is the word that would most charitably describe this report. Evasive is the word I would rather use. From start to finish, the reader gets the impression that no one has really set out to present the condition of equal employment opportunity in Texas in a way that the plain language of civil rights demands.

NOTES:

The Texas Equal Employment Opportunity Report:
http://www.tchr.state.tx.us/EEOrptsum205.pdf

The BLS distribution of employment report 2003:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/gp/pdf/gp97_complete.pdf

The EEO-1 Aggregate Report for 2002:
http://eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/2002/state/48.html
[What a Civil Rights report looks like.]

First posted 3/27. *Paragraph revised 3/29 to include “disparate impact,” Asian Americans, and Native Americans.

Trying to Make Sense of Texas Civil Rights Accounting

EEO Report: Working Note One

Not sure how we ended up looking at Table One of the Feb. 2005 report from the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division, but we were puzzled from the start.

At first, it didn’t seem strange that among an alleged 32.89 percent Hispanic American workers in the total workforce, only 15.2 percent were to be found in Administrative positions. Having studied Texas history, we could easily make sense of that.

For these same reasons, neither did it seem strange that among an alleged 11.24 percent African American workers in the total workforce, only 7.1 percent were classified in Administration.

But it was surely curious to find that among an alleged 84.30 percent Caucasian American workers in the total workforce, only 77.8 percent were in Administration. That was a shock on three counts.

First of all, it meant that all categories of workers by race-ethnicity were under-represented in the Administrative classification, which is quite a statistical achievement to think about in Civil Rights history.

Second, it meant that when you added up the total percentage of workers in the workforce, you got 84.3 Caucasian plus 11.24 African American plus 32.89 Hispanic American equals a workforce of 128.43 percent!

Third, it meant that in a mandatory report to the state, the Texas Workforce Commission on Civil Rights couldn’t even get the first row of numbers right.

And fourth, as we look at the twirling graphics at the TWC website announcing the new report posted Mar. 15 — we wonder, did anybody notice?

It is not difficult to figure out what went wrong here. In the second number of the chart — percent Caucasian American in total workforce — somebody plugged in the percent you would get for White workers if you didn’t subtract out Whites of Hispanic origin. While this is the number reported for White by the bureau of labor statistics, it is a deceptive number to use for Civil Rights purposes under the heading of Caucasian American ethnicity.

Note: on second reading, analysis in the next few paragraphs looks strange to us. We’d rather say, after further consideration, that better numbers were available from EEO reports, so why weren’t EEO reports used?

If you derived percentages from the overlapping numbers of race-ethnicities actually reported in row one, you’d start with a total Caucasian workforce of 65.64 percent. And if you started this way, you would notice in the second row of Chart One that Caucasians who hold 77.8 percent of positions in Administration are over-represented by 12 percentage points.

Furthermore, if you derive your first row percentages from the first row numbers provided for race-ethnicity, you’d find that the total workforce is not 32.89 percent Hispanic American as reported but 25.6.

Misdirection on the percent of total Hispanic Americans in row one is instructive, because the percent reported there (32.89) matches pretty closely with the percentage that the US Census Bureau reports for the Hispanic population as a whole in Texas (32.0). Just reading along with the Texas Civil Rights Commission’s first chart, you’d think the Texas workforce had achieved parity in Hispanic employment.

Ditto with the misdirection on African Americans. The 11.24 percent workforce shown matches up nicely with the 2000 census number of 12.0 percent Black Texas, which sure looks better than the 8.75 percent you’d have to publish in row one if you worked with the actual numbers in that same row.

As for percentages Caucasian, the impression that Caucasians with 77.8 percent of Administrative jobs, share some kind of under-representation in Texas Administration is dispelled by knocking down the 83 percent total workforce figure to 65, as we have seen. But now look at the 2000 census percentage of Whites who are not Hispanic and the dramatic heft of white power weighs in with a 25 percentage point differential between total population (52 percent) and total Administration (77.8).

Note: the preceding attempt to make sense of civil rights categories with non-civil rights numbers, although yielding results closer to the truth of the civil rights situation, employs methodologies that we do not recommend. Better to get the civil rights numbers from a proper civil rights source, rather than try to make bad numbers work for purposes they were never intended to serve.

Enough with the misdirection, already. The whole stupid report should be tossed back to the alleged Commission on Civil Rights with an angry, loud, and resolute demand: give Texas citizens numbers that dignify the importance of Civil Rights in this state.

The fact is that BLS numbers do not reflect either the categories of Caucasian or African American reported in table one, and the numbers are meaningless for a civil rights report.

Click to access EEOrptsum205.pdf

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

Note: this was our first whack at the Civil Rights Report and it has some zest to it. But the analysis has been superseded by another day’s work.

Contracts and Coffee Next Week

By Greg Moses

PinkDome

Prompted by a newly-posted itinerary for a “HAVA listening tour” scheduled by the Texas Secretary of State in various counties, the Texas Civil Rights Review made a few phone calls today (Mar. 24). We reached three SOS staffers who were very responsive and who provided the following information :

(1) The present schedule, beginning March 23, was posted March 23. An offline schedule that runs through the end of April does not yet include Dallas County. I have asked for a complete schedule via email.

(2) The tour is intended to touch base with County Election Officials so they can get the money available to them through HAVA and tell the SOS “what’s working and what’s not working”.

(3) The TEAM statewide database mandated by HAVA to be completed by Jan. 1 and now under development by IBM and Hart InterCivic is nearing completion of the documentation of “business rules” for software specs.

As plans now exist, voters will be able to more easily find out online where to vote, but there will be no difference in the registration experience, ie same old cards with HAVA ID requirements for new voters, same need to fill out a new card when you move, etc.

One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity said Texas would be on the cutting edge of what HAVA requires. Which tells you that HAVA requires nothing FOR the voters.

TCRR scheduled a time next week to view the TEAM contract (500-600 pages). And we were offered coffee to go with it!

I didn’t express with any of these staffers my disappointment that the meeting with Harris County officials was posted the same day as the meeting. One staffer assured me that the press had been notified way in advance. Oh, that’s great. Please let me know if you see the story.

In the enclosed writings, Ramsey Muñiz speaks of
regaining the spiritual enlightenment that was
taken from our hearts and minds. Please distribute.–Irma L Muñiz

"Only in the heart of the Mexicano cosmos man
can look for spiritual strength. And if he can
keep his soul in touch with the heart of the world,
then from the heart of the world new blood will beat
strength and stillness into him, fulfilling his
destiny of creation."–Tezcatlipoca

In studying the different religions on this earth
I have come to the conclusion that if we as a race and as
a nation are to become a spiritual power on this earth,
we must return to our ancient spiritual creation. We
were here on this earth long before the Pope, Billy Graham,
or any other spiritual leader. We were so connected
to nature, Mother Earth, heaven, Mictlan, and the
Creator, that it totally amazes me how we have
survived the worst, because the best is yet to come.

I still remember during my youth when everything that
was white was alright, while we, the brown race, were
wrong from the time of our birth. Now after all these
years of suffering and sacrificing, we will become
proud to be brown. It is our duty and responsibility
as Mexicanos to share with the youth of today and
tomorrow our ancient spiritual and cultural creation.
It is written that if we fail to do this, we will
become slaves once again. As humans on this earth we
must accept our Mexicano spiritual enlightenment. We can structure the path of spirituality within
ourselves and become that shining star that our
people will follow.

Yes, I’m a proud Mexicano!
I am so proud that happiness overcomes all this
cruel darkness of America. Who am I?
That is the title of one of our cultural/spiritual
books that will soon be written. In fact, it is
already written in my heart and mind, without data
or notes.

There is much conflict in the world today.
This conflict always comes upon the masses of the
poor, the uneducated, the unemployed, the brown,
black, or yellow man.
Nuestra raza has always demonstrated valor and
courage in defending one’s country. We will witness
many more Mexicanos/Mexicanas fighting the wars and
conflicts of America. It is in our blood!

We have
such a unique sense of respect and honor that even
America has come to understand the true warriors
that we are. Yet we witness the deaths of our
sisters and brothers at the borders of America. We
also witness the highest dropout rate of students
in the educational system of this country. We witness
the population of Mexicano inmates in the federal
and state prisons of America. The saddest thing is
hearing our own Mexicano/Hispanic/Latino politicians
tell us that all is alright. It is not alright, and
it never will be until we return to our beginning
– our spiritual creation, our beliefs in the Creator
of all life on this earth.

Remember that they (different oppressors) took
enlightenment away from our hearts and minds. I was
destined to bring our spiritual enlightenment back
to the masses of our people. Remember that spirituality,
regardless of your religion, comes back to cultura!
Eleven years in these dungeons have been a long
time. Without you and your love I cannot even think
of how I would have survived. It was your love and
spirituality.

Con amor,

Ramsey – Tezcatlipoca

"Only the strong survive."
http://www.freeramsey.com

Received via email from Irma L. Muñiz, 15 July 2005.