Diminishing Returns from Statistical Analysis

In their article, in public Service: Success, Diversity, and Discrimination, Kim and Lewis (1994) note that Asian experience within federal service, suggest that problem is pervasive and serious, and propose remedies. This writer has personally witnessed at least two incidents of employment against Asian Americans. Neither of these episodes involved federal personnel, but it seems reasonable that federal service is not totally immune to prejudices evident elsewhere in society. However, Kim and Lewis's statistics shed little light on such discrimination's pervasiveness. Anti-Asian may not be as important a federal phenomena as their article concludes. Kim and Lewis's lucidly presented statistics can be interpreted in varying ways. The alternative interpretation which follows may also have implications for identification of against other groups, such as women, Hispanics, and African Americans. Using 1990 and 1992 statistics, Kim and Lewis describe differences between Asian and nonminority whites. Asian make up 2.6 percent of civilian work force but constitute less than 1 percent of municipal officials. There are almost no Asian American mayors or city/county managers. Only .9 percent of Senior Executive Service is Asian, while 3.5 percent of federal work force and 4.3 percent of postal service are Asian (286-287). Twenty-seven percent of white men serving federal government are supervisors, but only 15 percent of Asian American men hold such positions. Twelve percent of white women in federal service hold supervisory positions, compared to only 7 percent of Asian women (288-289). Kim and Lewis also discovered grade discrepancies between Asian and whites. men [in federal service] tended to be .03 of a grade lower than white men with same amount of education, federal experience, and age who had same handicap and veteran (288). The disparity between Asian American and white females employed by service is greater; Kim and Lewis found Asian women to be .06 of a grade behind white women with the same, education, seniority, age, veteran status and handicap (289). Kim and Lewis assert, Because other factors also affect career success, persistence of grade gaps after controlling for age, education, federal experience, veterans preference and disability status does not prove discrimination, but it does indicate problems that government needs to investigate (287). Elsewhere they attribute disparities to more bluntly. Asian American women are said to face double discrimination but be held back more by their gender than their race (287). Kim and Lewis conclude that even this model minority faces discrimination. Policy makers should not ignore this evidence and assume that battle against has been won for Asian Americans (289-290). Readers seem to be presented with a stark choice: either envelop oneself in blanket denial of existence of any anti-Asian discrimination, thus ignoring evidence, designate anti-Asian as a serious problem requiring responses such as diversity training, special recruitment and placement, and Asian American political mobilization. This writer, however, remains uncertain about phenomenon's extent; Anti-Asian may be pervasive within public service, or it may consist largely of isolated incidents addressable through existing laws and grievance procedures. The statistical disparities cited above shed little light on this issue because plausible alternatives to hypothesis can be formulated. One alternative could be called immigrants' loss or educational devaluation hypothesis. Education's contribution to productivity is often contingent upon linguistic and cultural contexts, so immigration can devalue human capital

Business · Demographic economics · Econometrics · Economics · Labour economics · Statistical analysis · Statistics · Labor Movements and Unions · Law, Rights, and Freedoms · Mathematics

• Moving “Out,” Moving On

  Nathaniel M Lewis•Annals of the Association of…•2014

  Incluir item

• Gatekeepers

  Open Access•Lenard Wells•SAGE Open•2013

  Incluir item