Among the five top occupational classifications, 49 percent of total female employment in 1969 was clustered in sales and clerical occupations. In contrast, men were more evenly distributed among these categories, though there was some concentration in managerial jobs. Changes in the occupational structure of women were largely grouped in sales and professional employment. In contrast to men, women made little headway, in relative terms, among managerial occupations where they were heavily underrepresented.

While following patterns established for men and women, the occupational distribution of minority groups varied in relation to that of Anglos. Orientals in 1969 were for the most part concentrated in professional and clerical employment. In fact, their relative number in these

classifications surpassed that of all other groups. This was quite exceptional: in no other white-collar or skilled category did the

relative number of a minority group's work force exceed that of Anglos'. Changes in the distribution of minorities among the five top occupational classifications were generally positive with large gains made by

blacks among clerical employment.

Regional Variation in Minority Employment

Another measure of the occupational position of minorities and Anglos, by sex, and one that is used to measure regional variation in this position is the average money value of each group's occupational distribution. Such a measure is the index of occupational position. The index of occupational position (IOP) is created by summing 1966 U.S. median occupational earnings for men and women weighted by the proportion of a 68/ group's EEO-1 employment in each occupation.

These indexes, one for each minority group and Anglos by sex,

approximate the 1966 money value of a group's occupational distribution Because minorities and Anglos

in private, nonagricultural employment.

are treated as having the same earnings by sex in each occupation in each period, the indexes measure solely the variation in occupational distribution of minorities and Anglos and change in this distribution. Consequently, the larger a group's IOP, the greater the proportion of the group's employment in higher paying occupations. The ratio of a minority group's IOP to the Anglo IOP, by sex, measures the relative occupational position of the two groups.

The changes in minorities' relative occupational position in the U.S. show that each group increased its relative number in higher paying occupations in relation to Anglos, though only slightly (see Table 2-11). For men, the average money value of blacks' occupational distribution in 1969 was only 77 percent of that of Anglos'. Spanishsurnamed Americans and American Indians came next with indices at

82 and 88 percent of the Anglo index. The money value of the Oriental occupational structure was actually higher than that of the Anglo occupational structure (about 2 percent higher). For women in 1969, the picture was somewhat different, with blacks having an index which was 89 percent of the Anglo index and American Indians and Spanishsurnamed Americans having indices which were 92 and 93 percent of the Anglo index, respectively. The Oriental female index was actually 7 percent higher.

This picture for minority women, however, was somewhat misleading. The clustering, of Anglo women into sales and clerical employment narrowed the gap in average earnings of minority and Anglo women in relation to

that of minority and Anglo men. If Anglo women, for instance, had

shared the same occupational structure as Anglo men, the relative

occupational position of minority women would have differed little from that of minority men. Significantly, the IOP for Anglo women in 1969

($3,290) was only 30 dollars higher than in 1966: the Anglo woman's drive for economic and social equality appears to have faltered somewhere short of the job market.

By region, blacks' relative disadvantage was greatest in the South, and there was little change in their position from 1966 to 1969. For example, the southern black males' relative occupational position in 1969 was as much as 7 percent below that in the North and 6 percent in the West, and it was, for black women, approximately 4 percent less than in each of the other regions. On the other hand, the average money value of Spanish-surnamed Americans' occupational distribution relative to Anglo's was, with the exception of women in the North, higher in the South than elsewhere.

Orientals and American Indians for the most

part shared lower relative occupational positions in the West than in the North or South, though this was not true for female American

Indians in the North.

In summary, minorities' share of employment and occupational position in relation to Anglos' has increased slightly since enactment of Title VII, but emphasis must be placed on slightly rather than on increased. Fundamental differences appeared in these patterns between men and women, particularly among blacks. Perhaps more importantly, three years after EE0-1

data were first reported, the same patterns, by minority group and by

sex, persisted both within and among regions.

1. Section 706 (b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. T2000e-5 (1964) as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Public Law 92-261, 86 Stat. 103 (March 24, 1972).

4. Ibid., Sec. 701 (b), (c), and (d). Effective March 24, 1973, employers with 15 or more employees and labor organizations with 15 or more members will be covered under Title VII.

5. Ibid., Sec. 705 (a).

6. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Fifth Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 29.

7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1971, 92nd edition (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 215.

8.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Fifth Annual Report (Washington, D.Ĉ.: Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 33.

9. Ibid., p. 34.

10. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Conciliation Guidelines, n.d. (mimeographed).

11. Memorandum of Understanding between the Office of Federal Contracts Compliance and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in CCH Empl. Prac. Guide 15070 (1970).

12. Ibid., Sec. 706 (b).

13.

Ibid. See, old Sec. 706 (e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and compare Sec. 706 (f) (1) of the amended law.

16. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Third Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 10; Fourth Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Government Printing Office, 1970), P. 11; Fifth Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 17.

17. Statement of Deputy Assistant Attorney General David L. Norman, Civil Rights Division, before the General Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor: H.R. 1746, "The Proposed Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1971," March 3, 1971.