markets in changes of minority employment status by sex associated with the intensity of compliance effort as measured. Perhaps the small variation in the measure of intensity among markets contributed to this result; expanded conciliation effort within some metropolitan areas might have produced different results. Or it might be that there is, to borrow an analogy from physics, a "critical mass" of Commission activity, with little response unless it reaches that level, then an explosion. that as it may, it must be admitted that (1) the response was not linear, as specified, or (2) it was not strong enough in the SMSA's studied to show up at a statistically significant level.

1. For a reference to the use of a t-test for paired observations see Morris Hamburg, Statistical Analysis for Decision Making (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1970), pp. 351-55.

2.

3.

See Chapter 2 above.

Minority employment status by virtue of the sample is synonymous with blacks' employment status.

4. The dice may be loaded in this game. Some Commission personnel have long argued that the really tough cookies were not charged in the early years. Employees thought it hopeless and simply did not bother.

5. An alternative measure of intensity used the number of successful conciliations against the number of respondents in the metropolitan area subject to jurisdiction of the EEOC. The results in analysis were generally the same as those using the number of employees covered by EEO-1 data.

6. Again, minority employment status is defined as that of blacks.

125

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As a national policy discrimination by employers, employment

agencies, and labor organizations on the basis of race, religion, sex,

and national origin is unlawful.

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It has been since passage of Title VII

The main objective of this study was to

analyze compliance procedures established under Title VII by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to identify those factors associated with the success or failure of these procedures and their use of conciliation to resolve alleged unlawful employment and referral practices. As a corollary to this objective was the need to determine whether these procedures, and the use of conciliation, when successful, have effectively changed employment opportunities of those whose choices have been limited by acts of discrimination and to find ways for improving these procedures should that be called for.

This study has demonstrated clearly that fair employment legislation has limited effectiveness as a means to equal employment opportunity. Discrimination by employers, employment agencies, and unions in the short run operates only on the demand side of the employment equation and, more importantly, operates only on that portion of the equation within the direct control of respondents. Making overt discrimination unlawful does little to assure full employment levels of aggregate demand and, on the supply side, does nothing to see that qualified minority workers are ready to move into jobs once discriminatory barriers are lowered.

In the long run fair employment legislation can affect the supply side of the labor market by restructuring rates of return to alternative

forms of human capital investment. The lowering of discriminatory barriers. through public policy, by expanding the set of employment opportunities to those subject to discrimination, will undoubtedly alter investment decisions in education and training of such individuals. Nevertheless, the full

impact of fair employment legislation in the long run depends on the extent to which public and private institutions facilitate freedom of individual choice in such decisions without respect to race, religion, sex,

national origin.

or

Whatever results might have been expected initially by its proponents, the net impact of the "cause finding" and conciliation procedure established by the EEOC under Title VII was apparently small. On the average there was little perceptible difference in minority employment conditions between firms involved in successful conciliation and similar firms who were not. The distribution effect of Title VII may have made this difference difficult to measure by creating an atmosphere favorable to employment changes in many firms; even so, the general changes between 1966 and 1969 were not overwhelming. If conciliation had made a real impact, it should have shown up in these data. In the South, which accounted for approximately one-half of EEOC compliance activities, changes in minority employment status differed little from those in the West which accounted for only 15 percent of Commission compliance activities.

The

Fair employment legislation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the elimination of unequal employment opportunities. plight of those affected by discriminatory employment practices is too profound to be cured by even the most vigorous use of compliance procedures under Title VII. Overt discrimination at the point of hiring or upgrading is but one part of a large problem. The expansion of opportunities for