OPM Federal Minority Hiring Overview FY 2003

Federal Overhiring of Minorities FY 2003
Racial Quotas Run Amok ... Again!

[August 5, 2004 -- Washington, DC] Today Adversity.Net released it's fourth annual report of Federal overhiring of selected minorities.

See Also:
2006 Report!

For the fourth year in a row that Adversity.Net has been analyzing this data, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management still refuses to publish under- and over-representation data regarding white males.

Our detailed examination of the feds' FY 2003 employment data shows they continue to overhire preferred racial groups by hundreds or even thousands of percentage points over their proportion in the general population. The feds call this affirmative action, and they disingenuously imply that these egregious racial quotas are necessary in order to achieve their perverted, corrupted version of equal opportunity. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The newest data released by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unambiguously show that blacks continue to be the primary beneficiaries of the Federal Government's "racially sensitive" hiring policies. This is clearly illustrated in Figures 1, 2 and 3 below.

In Figure 1, OPM's FY 2003 data unashamedly show that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overhired blacks by 623% over their affirmative action target (quota).

The U.S. Department of Education overhired blacks by 462% over their quota.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) overhired blacks by 430% over their quota.

FIGURE 1
Blacks received the biggest boost from federal racial quotas.

FIGURE 1: OPM's FY 2003 report illustrates that the Fed's "racially sensitive policies" (quotas) primarily benefit blacks.

The other preferred groups -- Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and Women -- are also overhired in many agencies, but not to the same extent as blacks.

FIGURE 2
Labor, SBA and Homeland Security Overhired Minorities.
FIGURE 2: Blacks receive the greatest benefit from Federal racial quotas, but occasionally Hispanics and other preferred groups receive a disproportionate quota boost.

Similarly, Figure 2 shows that the U.S. Department of Labor overhired blacks by 243% over their affirmative action target.

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) overhired blacks by 259% over their racial quota for that racial group.

And while the newly formed Department of Homeland Security managed to only overhire blacks by 51% over their quota, Homeland Security did manage to overhire Hispanics by 286% over their racial quota. Hispanics received a much better racial preference in Homeland Security than they did in most other Federal Agencies.

If there is any doubt in your mind that the Federal government's racial quota policies primarily benefit blacks, Figure 3 at the left should help convince you.

Figure 3 presents the overhiring data for blacks across all 21 independent federal agencies and all 18 federal executive departments in FY 2003.

The average rate of overhiring of black women across the entire Federal government is 98.2% over their proportion in the general population.

The average rate of overhiring of black men is 36.7% across the entire Federal government over their proportion in the general population.

FIGURE 3
Blacks overhired more than any other group

FIGURE 3: On average, in FY 2003 blacks have been overhired by almost 70% across the entire Federal Workforce (includes all 21 independent federal agencies and all 18 federal executive departments).

Black men and women combined were overhired on average by 69.2% more than their proportion in the civilian sector.

[Source: FEORP FY 2003 report at page 14.]

FY 2003 OPM Annual Report to Congress

As in prior years, our 2004 analysis is based upon the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) "Annual Report to the Congress: Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program". The source data for our analysis is the most recent OPM report covering Federal fiscal year 2003 (October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003).

In addition to the startling overhiring of selected racial groups, the OPM data also strongly suggests that the Federal Government continues to engage in an aggressive campaign to fire, retire, or "attrition" a disproportionate number of non-minorities (white guys and other non-preferred groups) in order to increase the proportion of preferred minorities. See the following quotation from the official OPM report for FY 2003:

"The permanent Federal Workforce ... declined by 6,665 from 1,515,345 in FY 2002 to 1,508,680 in FY 2003.

"Despite the overall decrease ... the FY 2003 FEORP report shows that ... minorities in the Federal workforce increased from 470,827 (31.1 percent) in 2002 to 471,691 (31.3 percent) in 2003." [471,691 minus 470,827 = 864 more minorities. Editor]

[Source: FY 2003 FEORP, p. 9 at para. 3.]

The above carefully worded statement could be construed to mean that a disproportionate number of the 6,665 employees which were eliminated from the Federal Workforce during this period were non-minorities. Either that or only 864 new jobs were created and 100% of those went to minorities. Or something in between.

Either way, FY 2003 appears to have been another very bad year for non-preferred racial groups (white guys and certain Asian immigrants) who were seeking Federal employment.

2001 Redux: In this year's report, OPM Director Kay Coles James was very careful to avoid the political blunder she made in last year's report (FY 2001). In her introduction to last year's report, Ms. James essentially reported that fewer than 23 out of every 100 new Federal jobs that year went to non-preferred individuals such as white males:

"The FY 2001 FEORP report shows that minority employment in the Federal workforce increased during the last year (up by 9,490, which is significant in the context of overall workforce growth of 12,310)." [Emphasis added.]

[Source: FY 2001 FEORP, p. 3 at para. 2.]

In other words 12,310 new federal jobs were created during FY 2001 but only 2,820 of this total -- 22.9% -- were filled by white males and other "non-minorities". Fewer than 23 jobs out of every 100 new Federal jobs were filled that year by non-minorities.

In a Sept. 26, 2003 article featuring Adversity.Net's previous annual report, Accuracy in Media called it "racism in federal hiring" and wonders why the media refuse to report on it. The AIM story is available at the following link (opens a new window): http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/09/26/html

COMMENTARY: The federal governments' policy of aggressively hiring and promoting selected races and ethnicities at the expense of white males and other non-preferred groups is rooted in the Constitutionally dubious principles of "proportional representation", "underrepresentation", and "disparate impact / adverse impact".

These principles, together and individually, speak of a federal doctrine of "equal results based on skin color" versus "equal opportunity based upon ability, effort and merit."

Even the most liberal interpretation the U.S. Constitution cannot support the fallacious premise that all racial and ethnic groups should be given jobs in proportion to their numbers in the general population.

The federal government's ongoing, concerted effort to provide "proportional representation" to selected racial and ethnic groups in all job categories flies in the face of truly color blind equal opportunity.

The original, unamended Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) spoke eloquently about non-discrimination.

Unfortunately, in the years immediately following enactment of the original CRA, the federal agencies charged with enforcement and monitoring of the CRA's provisions against discrimination, aided and abetted by the racial quota lobby, quickly enacted regulations which actually require discrimination against white males and other non-preferred groups.

It is racism, pure and simple.

But it is racism with this difference:

Only high-achieving racial and ethnic groups can be officially discriminated against under the principle of "proportional representation".

If too many white males do well in a job category, or if too many mainland Asian-Americans are employed because of their skills, then the principle of "proportional representation" demands that their numbers be reduced -- they need to be fired, retired, or "attritioned" -- in order to make way for hiring a "correct" proportion of preferred individuals from among the government's arbitrarily selected, arguably "disadvantaged" racial groups such as blacks, Hispanics, and others.

Also, as I said in last year's analysis, it appears certain that neither OPM nor our policy makers will next year, or the year after that, correct the glaring omission of hiring data for white males and other presumably "advantaged" groups in these official government boast-fests about "artificial diversity". Inclusion of such data might make the rest of the data appear even more indefensible. -- Tim Fay, Editor. August 5, 2004.