Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice
Volume 2 Issue 1 Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, Training & Skills Article 1
2-28-2017
The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and
Equality
Osaro Airen Ph.D, LPC, NCC [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp Part of the Community-Based Research Commons, Counseling Commons, Counseling Psychology Commons, Health Psychology Commons, Multicultural Psychology Commons, Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, Race and Ethnicity Commons, School Psychology Commons, Sociology of Religion Commons, and the Sports Studies Commons
Tell us how this article helped you.
Recommended Citation
Airen, Osaro Ph.D, LPC, NCC (2017) “The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality,” Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Human Services at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
The Color Ceiling:
African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
The Glass Ceiling term was originally created to address the promotional issues
women, specifically White women faced in the corporate world. Thus, it is odd that African
Americans are currently placed under the same Glass Ceiling umbrella. The purpose of this
article is not to dismiss the Glass Ceiling term but to show that a new term must be created to
better illustrate the uphill battle that African Americans face for financial, employment, and
promotional equality.
At present, the Glass Ceiling refers to:
Artificial barriers to the advancement of women and minorities…these barriers reflect
discrimination…a deep line of demarcation between those who prosper and those left
behind…the glass ceiling is the unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities
and women from rising to the upper rung of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995 as cited in
Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia, & Vanneman, 2001).
The term Glass Ceiling has been credited to Katherine Lawrence and Marianne Schreiber who
coined the term while they were employed at Hewlett-Packard in 1979 (Hennessey,
MacDonald, & Carroll, 2014). They were concerned with the lack of upward mobility occurring for them and other female employees within the company and realized that no
matter how hard they tried, they would never crack the Glass Ceiling (Hennessey, MacDonald,
1
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
& Carroll, 2014). Katherine Lawrence introduced the term during a presentation at the 1979
annual conference of the Women’s Institute for the Freedom of the Press, but the term did not
gain attention until 1986 (Zimmer, 2015) when Hymowitz and Schellhardt (1986) addressed
the glass ceiling by examining the invisible barriers that prevent women from reaching upper
level positions. They, along with other researchers, did an excellent job of informing the
public about the existence of the workforce inequality faced by women (Hymowitz & Schellhardt, 1986; Bryant, 1984; Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987). As previously stated,
the current Glass Ceiling definition included people of color, but as the origin of term notes,
the term was created to address the advancement barriers women faced in the corporate world
(Hymowitz & Schellhardt, 1986).
The addition of people of color to the Glass Ceiling was actually an afterthought (U.S.
Department of Labor, 1995). As Johns (2013, para. 1) stated, “In 1991 the US Congress found
that, despite a dramatically growing presence in the workplace, women and minorities
remained underrepresented in management positions in business and that artificial barriers
were inhibiting their advancement.” Thus, “in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
Congress enacted the Glass Ceiling Act establishing the Glass Ceiling Commission” (Johns,
2013, para. 1). The Glass Ceiling term was developed in 1979 and gained popularity in the ‘80s but it was not until the ‘90s when people of color such as African Americans were included under the umbrella of the Glass Ceiling instead of being given separate terms that
truly illustrated their unique issues.
2
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
This is the reason that a new term must be created. A new term must be created whose origin is based on research focused directly on the workforce barriers faced by African
Americans. Thus spawned the new term, Color Ceiling, which was created by the author. The
Color Ceiling refers to the invisible barriers that impede financial equity, employment equity,
and promotional advancement for African Americans in the workforce. In arenas where equality should be the end result, prejudicial and indomitable barriers, which have resulted in
financial and promotional gaps, persist for African Americans.
In a similar fashion as the Bamboo Ceiling, the author’s goal is to raise awareness about
the workplace injustices faced by African Americans. The term, Bamboo Ceiling, refers to the
workplace barriers faced by Asian Americans that impede their career advancement and was
created to address such issues faced by Asian Americans (Hyun, 2005).The creation of the term, Bamboo Ceiling, emphasized the importance of groups breaking out from under the
Glass Ceiling term so that their voices could be properly heard. By creating the term, Hyun
(2005) has done an excellent job of raising awareness about the workplace discrimination that
Asian Americans face. Similar to the Bamboo Ceiling, the Color Ceiling separates African
Americans from under the Glass Ceiling term so that their financial and workforce inequalities
can properly be identified and addressed.
To emphasize the importance of utilizing a term that clearly identifies the issues faced
by African Americans and to critically examine the financial inequalities they experience, the author will, first, examine the Glass Ceiling’s gender-based wage gap. The Glass Ceiling’s
3
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
gender-based wage gap will be examined by looking at race and gender jointly instead of
looking solely at gender. Then, unemployment rates based on race and educational attainment
will be analyzed. Within the Color Ceiling, employment equity does not solely include financial or promotional aspects, but also examines whether equity exists in regards to the
employment of African Americans. To do so, the unemployment rates based on educational
levels between African Americans and their counterparts will be examined.
Next, higher education occupations in accordance with the Color Ceiling will be analyzed. By utilizing the Color Ceiling, the existence of workplace promotional inequalities
at academic and managerial levels in higher education will be explored. To analyze whether workplace promotional inequalities exist at the academic level, data from 2001-2013 will be examined to determine whether there has been a substantial increase of African American
faculty at the promotional faculty ranks of associate professor and professor. To examine whether workplace promotional inequalities exist at the managerial level, data from 1993-
2013 will be analyzed to determine whether African Americans have made significant higher
education managerial progress. Lastly, the collegiate presidential level will be explored to
determine whether African Americans have been provided the opportunity to serve at one of
the highest and most prominent levels in higher education.
The author utilizes these steps to support the creation of the new term, Color Ceiling,
which he developed to properly address the financial, employment, and promotional barriers
placed on African Americans. As stated prior, by placing African Americans under a term
4
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
that was not created for them, their concerns have not been properly addressed and the true nature of the barriers they face have not been brought to the forefront.
Financial Barriers: Closer Look at the Glass Ceiling’s Gender-Based Wage Gap
In addition to the promotional barriers faced by women and people of color, the
Glass Ceiling looks at several other barriers impeding workforce progress such as the
gender-based wage gap (Blau & Kahn, 2006a, 2006b, 2007). Several studies, as well as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, have noted that a gender wage gap exists between men and
women (Blau & Kahn, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a, 2013a, 2014a). They highlighted the existence of gender-based wage inequity which has assisted in raising awareness about the
issue (Blau & Kahn, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a, 2013a, 2014a).
It is important to note that the existence of the gender-based wage gap is somewhat true when simply looking at the average male and female full-time employees’ median weekly earnings (Blau & Kahn, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; National Equal Pay Task Force, 2013; U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a, 2013a,
2014a, 2015a, 2016). The latest data demonstrated that in 2015, women’s median weekly earnings was $726 while men earned $895 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). The data
could cause an individual to believe that all men earn more money than women which is
incorrect. When looking at earnings based on race and gender, White and Asian American
5
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
women earned more than both African American and Latino men (refer to Table 1) (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a, 2013a,
2014a, 2015a, 2016).
Data from 2002-2015 showed that White and Asian women consistently earned more and
found greater financial progress than African American and Latino men. For example, in 2002,
the median weekly earnings for Asian American women was $566, $547 for White women, $524
for African American men, and $451 for Latino men. In 2015, the numbers changed but the
median weekly earnings order remained the same. The median weekly earnings for Asian
American and White women were $877 and $743, respectively, compared to $680 for African
American men and $631 for Latino men (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a, 2013a, 2014a, 2015a, 2016). The average year consists of 52 weeks thus when calculating the 2015 average yearly wages of the groups, Asian American
women earned $45,604, White women earned $38,636, African American men earned $35,360,
and Latino men earned $32,812. Asian American and White women made over $10,000 and
$3,000, respectively, more than African American men, while Asian American women earned
nearly $13,000 and White women made close to $6,000 more than Latino men (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2014a).
In addition, the financial median weekly income progress from 2002-2015 showed that
Asian American (+$311) and White (+$196) women had significantly larger increases in their
median weekly earnings over the span of 14 years than African American (+$156) males (U.S.
6
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a, 2013a,
2014a, 2015a, 2016). The weekly income and financial median weekly income progress of Asian
American and White women compared to African American and Latino men clearly supports the prior statement that the existence a gender-based wage gap is somewhat true when simply looking at the average male and female full-time employees’ median weekly earnings but, when
looking at earnings based on race and gender, White and Asian American women earned more than both African American and Latino men.
The discrepancy in pay between White and Asian American women when compared
to African American women was even more disparaging. While Asian American and White women’s 2015 median wage earnings were $877 and $743, African American women
earned the second lowest median wage earnings of any group, where they earned $615 (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a). Thus, the yearly wages for African American women
was $31,980 compared to $45,604 for Asian American women and $38,636 for White women (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a). Also, the wage earnings increase from
2002-2015 was +$142 for African American women, the lowest of any group and well below their Asian American (+$311) and White (+$196) counterparts (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a, 2013a, 2014a).
The data demonstrated that a financial disparity exists between Asian American and
White women and their Asian American and White male counterparts. They must continue the advocate for financial equality with their male counterparts due to the wide median
7
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
weekly earnings gap but the statement that men earn more than women must be stated with
an asterisk. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data clearly showed that from 2002-2015, African
American and Latino males’ median weekly earnings never surpassed Asian American and
White women thus the statement that men make more than women is not correct when race is
factored in. Instead of a gender-based wage gap, there appears to be a race-based wage gap
where African Americans and Latinos received less median weekly earnings than Asian
Americans and Whites. By grouping African Americans with White and Asian American
women under the Glass Ceiling, an accurate depiction of the financial inequalities African
Americans is not given the proper attention it deserves. The purpose of the Color Ceiling is to
expose such inequalities.
Table 1: MedianWeekly Earnings by Race & Gender (Full-TimeWorkers)
Year Black
Male
Black
Female
Latino
Male
Latinas White
Male
White
Female
Asian
American
Male
Asian
American
Female
2002 $524 $473 $451 $397 $702 $547 $756 $566
2003 $555 $491 $464 $410 $715 $567 $772 $598
2004 $569 $505 $480 $419 $732 $584 $802 $613
2005 $559 $499 $489 $429 $743 $596 $825 $665
2006 $591 $519 $505 $440 $761 $609 $882 $699
2007 $600 $533 $520 $473 $788 $626 $936 $731
2008 $620 $554 $559 $501 $825 $654 $966 $753
2009 $621 $582 $569 $509 $845 $669 $952 $779
2010 $633 $592 $560 $508 $850 $684 $936 $773
2011 $653 $595 $571 $518 $856 $703 $970 $751
2012 $665 $599 $592 $521 $879 $710 $1,055 $770
2013 $664 $606 $594 $541 $884 $722 $1,059 $819
2014 $680 $611 $616 $548 $897 $734 $1,080 $841
2015 $680 $615 $631 $566 $920 $743 $1,129 $877
14 year
Gain
+156 +142 +180 +169 +218 +196 +373 +311
Note. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2010a, 2011a,
2012a, 2013a, 2014a, 2015a, 2016
8
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
Employment Barriers: Not Even Education is an Equalizer
Additional rationale for the Color Ceiling can be found when analyzing unemployment
rates. As Table 2 showed, from 2003-2015 the unemployment rates for African Americans
were higher than their Latino, Asian American and White counterparts (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2016). The 2015 data showed that the African American unemployment rate of 9.6%
was the highest of any group (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). In fact, African
American’s unemployment rate more than doubled Asian Americans (3.8 %) and Whites (4.6
%) in 2015 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). When race and gender were examined,
African American males (10.3%) unemployment rates was twice that of Asian American
(4.0 %) and White (4.7 %) males, while African American females’ (8.9%) unemployment
rates were twice that of Asian American females (3.7%) and almost doubled that of White females (4.5%) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). The 14 years of unemployment rate
data illustrated the disparaging level of unemployment inequality that has existed in the United
States where African Americans maintained the highest unemployment rate of their
counterparts, which has continued a disturbing trend of injustice.
9
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
Table 2: Unemployment rates 2003-2015 (Gender and Race)
Year African
American
African
American
Male
African
American
Female
Latino Latino
Male
Latinas White White
Male
White
Female
2003 10.8 11.6 10.2 7.7 7.2 8.4 5.2 5.6 4.8
2004 10.4 11.1 9.8 7.0 6.5 7.6 4.8 5.0 4.7
2005 10.0 10.5 9.5 6.0 5.4 6.9 4.4 4.4 4.4
2006 8.9 9.5 8.4 5.2 4.8 5.9 4.0 4.0 4.0
2007 8.3 9.1 7.5 5.6 5.3 6.1 4.1 4.2 4.0
2008 10.1 11.4 8.9 7.6 7.6 7.7 5.2 5.5 4.9
2009 14.8 17.5 12.4 12.1 12.5 11.5 8.5 9.4 7.3
2010 16.0 18.4 13.8 12.5 12.7 12.3 8.7 9.6 7.7
2011 15.8 17.8 14.1 11.5 11.2 11.8 7.9 8.3 7.5
2012 13.8 15.0 12.8 10.3 9.9 10.9 7.2 7.4 7.0
2013 13.1 14.2 12.1 9.1 8.8 9.5 6.5 6.8 6.2
2014 11.3 12.2 10.5 7.4 6.8 8.2 5.3 5.4 5.2
2015 9.6 10.3 8.9 6.6 6.3 7.1 4.6 4.7 4.5
Year Asian
American
Asian
American
Male
Asian
American
Female
2003 6.0 6.2 5.7
2004 4.4 4.5 4.3
2005 4.0 4.0 3.9
2006 3.0 3.0 3.1
2007 3.2 3.1 3.4
2008 4.0 4.1 3.7
2009 7.3 7.9 6.6
2010 7.5 7.8 7.1
2011 7.0 6.8 7.3
2012 5.9 5.8 6.1
2013 5.2 5.6 4.8
2014 5.0 5.3 4.6
2015 3.8 4.0 3.7
– U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009b, 2010b, 2011b, 2012b, 2013b, 2014b, 2015b, 2016
It is important to not solely study overall unemployment rates, but to also more closely examine unemployment rates based on education attainment. As Horace Mann stated,
“Education, then, beyond all other divides of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of
10
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
men—the balance wheel of the social machinery” (Horace Mann as cited in Growe & Montgomery, 2003). Sadly, the disparity between African Americans and White and Asian
Americans’ unemployment rates proved that Mann was actually wrong. Although Mann
believed that education was an equalizer, data from 2008-2015 showed that African
Americans, regardless of equal education level, never had equal unemployment rates than their
White, Asian American, and Latino counterparts (refer to Tables 3-10) (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2009b, 2010b, 2011b, 2012b, 2013b, 2014b, 2015b, 2016). The most disturbing
aspect of the data showed that regardless of the educational attainment category, African
Americans possessed the highest unemployment rates (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009b,
2010b, 2011b, 2012b, 2013b, 2014b, 2015b, 2016). The data showed that the belief of
education as the great equalizer is actually a myth. It is a myth that must be exposed for the
fight for equality to ever advance.
Table 3: Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment in 2008 (Race and Gender)
Education Black Black Male
Black Female
Latino Latino Male
Latinas White White
Male
White
Female
Asian American
Asian American Male
Asian American Female
High school
diploma
9.3 10.6 7.9 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.1 5.2 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.3
Associates
degree
6.2 6.1 6.3 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.8 4.7 2.9
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher
4.0 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.5 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.9
-U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009b
Table 4: Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment in 2009 (Race and Gender)
Education Black Black Male
Black Female
Latino Latino Male
Latinas White White
Male
White
Female
Asian American
Asian American Male
Asian American Female
High school
diploma
14.0 16.2 11.5 10.4 10.9 9.6 9.0 10.2 7.4 7.5 9.6 5.2
Associates 10.3 13.6 8.0 8.5 8.9 8.1 6.2 7.1 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.4
11
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
degree
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher
7.3 8.2 6.7 5.7 6.1 5.3 4.2 4.4 4.0 5.6 5.5 5.7
-U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010b
Table 5: Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment in 2010 (Race and Gender)
Education Black Black Male
Black Female
Latino Latino
Male
Latinas White White
Male
White
Female
Asian American
Asian American Male
Asian American Female
High school
diploma
15.8 18.2 13.1 11.5 11.9 11.0 9.5 10.3 8.3 7.6 8.5 6.7
Associates
degree
10.8 12.0 10.0 8.8 8.7 8.8 6.5 7.3 5.7 6.2 7.3 5.1
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher
7.9 9.2 6.9 6.0 5.7 6.3 4.3 4.4 4.2 5.5 5.1 5.9
-U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011b
Table 6: Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment in 2011 (Race and Gender)
Education Black Black Male
Black Female
Latino Latino Male
Latinas White White
Male
White
Female
Asian American
Asian American Male
Asian American Female
High school
diploma
15.5 16.9 14.0 10.3 10.3 10.3 8.4 8.9 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.3
Associates
degree
12.1 13.6 11.1 8.8 7.7 9.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.5 5.4 7.5
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher
7.1 7.9 6.4 5.7 5.6 5.9 3.9 4.0 3.9 5.2 4.4 6.2
-U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012b
Table 7: Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment in 2012 (Race and Gender)
Education Black Black Male
Black Female
Latino Latino Male
Latinas White White
Male
White
Female
Asian American
Asian American Male
Asian American Female
High school
diploma
13.4 14.2 12.7 9.0 8.6 9.6 7.5 7.6 7.3 6.1 6.4 5.8
Associates
degree
10.2 9.6 10.5 8.0 8.0 8.1 5.4 5.5 5.4 6.3 5.8 6.8
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher
6.3 6.7 6.0 5.1 4.8 5.5 3.7 3.6 3.9 4.3 3.7 4.9
-U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013b
Table 8: Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment in 2013 (Race and Gender)
Education Black Black Male
Black Female
Latino Latino Male
Latinas White White
Male
White
Female
Asian American
Asian American Male
Asian American Female
High school
diploma
12.6 13.5 11.6 7.9 7.9 7.8 6.6 7.0 6.1 5.4 5.9 4.8
Associates
degree
8.5 8.1 8.8 5.9 5.2 6.4 4.9 4.7 5.0 4.3 5.1 3.5
12
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher
5.7 5.1 6.0 5.0 4.9 5.2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.8
– U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014b
Table 9: Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment in 2014 (Race and Gender)
Education Black Black Male
Black Female
Latino Latino Male
Latinas White White Male
White Female
Asian American
Asian American Male
Asian American Female
High school
diploma
10.7 11.3 10.1 6.2 5.8 6.8 5.1 5.3 4.9 4.5 5.3 3.7
Associates
degree
6.8 6.4 7.1 5.2 4.3 6.0 4.1 3.9 4.2 3.9 5.1 2.8
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher
5.2 5.1 5.2 3.9 3.8 4.0 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.8
– U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015b
Table 10: Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment in 2015 (Race and Gender)
Education Black Black Male
Black Female
Latino Latino Male
Latinas White White Male
White Female
Asian American
Asian American Male
Asian American Female
High school
diploma
9.7 10.0 9.2 5.9 5.4 6.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.1 4.6 3.5
Associates
degree
6.1 6.5 5.9 4.3 3.3 5.3 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.1 3.6 2.7
Bachelor’s
degree or
higher
4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.6 3.0
– U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016
Promotional Barriers: Promotional Equity Nonexistent in Higher Education
When Katherine Lawrence and Marianne Schreiber created the Glass Ceiling term in
1979, they brought to light the lack of upward mobility for women in corporate America. They generated awareness about the barriers placed on women attempting to advance in the corporate world, which they brilliantly did. Workplace barriers (i.e. promotional barriers),
similar to the ones that Katherine Lawrence and Marianne Schreiber spoke of have also been
placed on African Americans, but instead of making legitimate progress, African Americans
13
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
have, actually remained stagnant in their attempt to increase their presence in higher education
upper echelon.
The following data will reflect the poor representation of African Americans in upper
level higher education ranks (i.e. faculty and administrative ranks). The data will coincide with
the prior data that showed the inequalities that African Americans have faced, where they exhibited poor earnings progress and possessed high unemployment rates, higher than their White, Asian American, and Latino counterparts. These issues reflect the true nature and
definitions of the Color Ceiling.
Faculty
There is a lack of promotional advancement for African Americans in higher education
faculty ranks. According to National Center for Education Statistics: Institute for Education
Sciences, full-time faculty can be defined as lecturers, instructors, assistant professors,
associate professors, and professors (U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a,
2012a, 2014a). For full-time faculty to reach the promotional ranks of associate professor and
professor, they traditionally begin their careers as tenure track assistant professors and then
proceed to work their way up the ranks. Table 12 showed that from 2001-2013, the increase of
African Americans in the assistant professor rank was essentially nonexistent (U.S. Department
of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a). Such poor growth can impede the progress
of African American faculty in the promotional ranks of associate professor and professor. To
fully understand the lack of growth of African Americans assistant professors, their individual
14
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
growth or lack thereof, must be stated. Data from 2001-2013 showed an increase of .1% for African Americans (6.2% to 6.3%) in the assistant professor rank which is abysmal (U.S.
Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a). To better understand the low
percentage and lack of progress of African Americans at the assistant professor rank, the 2013
data will be further analyzed.
In 2013, African Americans made up 6.3% of the assistant professor positions
compared to 67.6% for Whites (U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a,
2014a). When looking directly at the academic promotional advancement of people of color,
one word to describe their promotional advancement would be dreadful. From 2001 to 2013,
data showed that African Americans made very minimal promotional gains (U.S. Department
of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a). African Americans did not even increase a single percentage point in either the associate professor or professor ranks during that period
(U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a). In 2001, African
Americans only comprised 5.3% of associate professors which increased to 5.7% (+.4%) in
2013 and 3.1%of professors in 2001 which increased to 3.7% (+.6%) in 2013. The low
percentages combined with the lack of progress highlight the poor promotional advancement of African American faculty (U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a).
As stated prior, African Americans only saw .4% and .6% growth in the associate professor and professor ranks, respectively, while other faculty of color such as Latino (+1.4%,
associate professor; +1.2%, professor) and Asian American/Pacific Islanders (+3.7%, associate
15
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
professor; 2.8%, professor) saw a higher increase in the ranks when compared to African
Americans during the 2001-2013 period. Still, it is important to note that the positions were held primarily by White faculty (75.3%, associate professor; 81.8%, professor). White females
witnessed an increase in the associate professor rank (+2.2%), but truly witnessed remarkable
growth in the professor rank (+5.9%). White female’s growth in the professor rank was the
highest of all groups while their male counterparts saw a decrease in both the associate
professor (-10%) and professor (-11.2%) ranks, but still possessed the largest percentages in
each positional rank of any group. Such an increase in the professor rank, the highest faculty rank, by White females point to the potential early stages of them cracking the Glass Ceiling in
higher education faculty ranks, while the dismal progress of African Americans provide
support to the existence of the Color Ceiling.
Table 11: Full-time Instructional Faculty in Degree-Granting Institutions (by Race)
Year Black Latino Asian/Pacific Islander
Asian Pacific Islanders
White White Male
White Female
2001 5.1% 3.0% 6.2% – – 80.9% 49.8% 31.0%
2003 5.3% 3.2% 6.5% – – 80.2% 48.6% 31.6%
2005 5.2% 3.4% 7.2% – – 78.1% 46.4% 31.7%
2007 5.4% 3.6% 7.6% – – 76.8% 44.7% 32.1%
2009 5.4% 3.8% 8.2% – – 75.6% 43.2% 32.5%
2011 5.5% 4.1% 8.8% 8.6% .2% 74.0% 41.5% 32.6%
2013 5.5% 4.2% 9.1% 9.0% .2% 72.7% 40.0% 32.7%
-U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a
*Asian data for 2001-2009 combined Asians and Pacific Islanders. As of 2011, Asians and
Pacific Islanders comprised separate categories
Table 12: Full-time Instructional Faculty in Degree-Granting Institutions (by Assistant Professor Rank & Race)
Year Black Latino Asian/Pacific Islander
Asian Pacific
Islander
White White Male
White Female
2001 6.2% 3.3% 7.7% – – 75.5% 40.7% 34.8%
16
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
2003 6.2% 3.5% 8.6% – – 73.8% 39.3% 34.5%
2005 6.2% 3.6% 9.3% – – 71.7% 37.7% 34.0%
2007 6.3% 3.8% 10.3% – – 69.8% 35.8% 34.0%
2009 6.4% 4.0% 10.9% – – 68.7% 34.7% 34.0%
2011 6.3% 4.3% 11.4% 11.2% .2% 67.8% 33.6% 34.2%
2013 6.3% 4.3% 11.1% 10.9% .2% 67.6% 33.0% 34.7%
-U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a
*Asian data for 2001-2009 combined Asians and Pacific Islanders. As of 2011, Asians and
Pacific Islanders comprised separate categories
Table 13: Full-time Instructional Faculty in Degree-Granting Institutions (by Associate Professor
Rank & Race)
Year Black Latino Asian/Pacific Islander
Asian Pacific Islander
White White Male
White Female
2001 5.3% 2.7% 6.5% – – 83.1% 52.1% 31.0%
2003 5.4% 2.9% 6.9% – – 82.2% 50.7% 31.5%
2005 5.3% 3.1% 7.3% – – 81.3% 49.4% 31.2%
2007 5.5% 3.3% 7.7% – – 80.2% 48.0% 32.2%
2009 5.5% 3.6% 8.5% – – 78.7% 46.1% 32.6%
2011 5.6% 4.0% 9.3% 9.1% .2% 76.9% 44.1% 32.8%
2013 5.7% 4.1% 10.2% 10.1% .1% 75.3% 42.1% 33.2%
-U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a
*Asian data for 2001-2009 combined Asians and Pacific Islanders. As of 2011, Asians and
Pacific Islanders comprised separate categories
Table 14: Full-time Instructional Faculty in Degree-Granting Institutions (by Professor Rank & Race)
Year Black Latino Asian/Pacific Islander
Asian Pacific Islander
White White Male
White Female
2001 3.1% 1.9% 5.7% – – 87.2% 67.7% 19.5%
2003 3.2% 2.1% 6.1% – – 87.1% 66.4% 20.6%
2005 3.2% 2.2% 6.5% – – 86.3% 64.5% 21.8%
2007 3.4% 2.4% 7.1% – – 85.3% 62.5% 22.8%
2009 3.4% 2.6% 7.5% – – 84.2% 60.4% 23.8%
2011 3.6% 2.9% 8.1% 8% .1% 82.8% 58.4% 24.4%
2013 3.7% 3.1% 8.5% 8.4% .1% 81.8% 56.5% 25.4%
-U.S. Department of Education, 2003a, 2007, 2010a, 2012a, 2014a
*Asian data for 2001-2009 combined Asians and Pacific Islanders. As of 2011, Asians and
Pacific Islanders comprised separate categories
The prior data has shown that faculty of color, specifically African Americans, are drastically behind their White counterparts at each faculty rank. Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood (2008) 17
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
addressed the issue of lack of faculty of color in academe by analyzing 252 publications that
addressed the topic. Through their analysis, the authors identified themes that affected growth
of faculty of color. Turner et. al. (2008) found that:
undervaluation of their research interests, approaches, and theoretical frameworks and
challenges to their credentials and intellect in the classroom contribute to their
dissatisfaction with their professorial roles. In addition, isolation, perceived biases in the
hiring process, unrealistic expectations of doing their work and being representatives of
their racial/ethnic group, and accent discrimination are noted negatives described in the
literature (p. 143).
The authors also found that the dearth of diversity on campus and faculty being forced to be the spokespeople for people of color attributed to retention and promotion issues for faculty of
color Turner et. al. (2008). Additionally, “a perceived lack of departmental/institutional effort to
recruit, hire, and retain faculty of color contribute negatively to the experience of faculty of
color” (Turner et. al, 2008, p. 144). In addition, the debate regarding affirmative action and
various institutions refusal to effectively apply policies associated with affirmative action has
contributed to poor representation of faculty of color on college campuses (Turner et. al, 2008).
Financial barriers also existed for faculty of color due to salary inequity (Turner et. al,
2008). Faculty of color were not provided with the same salaries as their White counterparts,
thus creating issues surrounding salary equity, which was found to factor into the poor representation of faculty of color (Turner et. al, 2008). Also, there were tenure and promotion
18
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
barriers found for faculty of color, “such as negative student evaluations, undervaluation of
research, and unwritten rules and policies regarding the tenure process” (Turner et. al, 2008, p.
147) and lack of mentorship which were found to greatly aid faculty as they sought tenure and
promotion.
By identifying issues that directly affect African American faculty, determining ways to
create promotional equity, and looking directly at the issues that have led to poor advancement
work towards the important goal of dismantling the Color Ceiling. To place African American
faculty under the Glass Ceiling would result in the refusal to look solely at the unique issues
they face in higher education and would, ultimately, be an injustice.
Higher Education Managerial Positions
Similar to faculty promotional inequity, higher education executive, administrative,
and managerial positions roles have continued to lack diversity. According to the U.S.
Department of Education (n.d.), these positions would include:
presidents, vice presidents (including assistants and associates), deans (including assistants and associates) if their principal activity is administrative and not primarily instruction, research or public service, directors (including assistants and associates),
department heads (including assistants and associates) if their principal activity is
administrative and not primarily instruction, research or public service, assistant and
associate managers (including first-line managers of service, production and sales
19
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
workers who spend more than 80 percent of their time performing supervisory activities)
Table 15 showed the progress that White females have made but also, sadly, illustrate the poor progress that African Americans have made in such roles (U.S. Department of Education, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003b, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010b, 2012b, 2014b). The latest data showed that White women held 41.7% of the executive, administrative, and
managerial positions in higher education which was the highest percentage of any group
(U.S. Department of Education, 2014b). In 1993, White females held nearly 15% less
executive, administrative, and managerial higher education positions than their White male
counterparts but by 2013, they held approximately 6% more executive, administrative, and
managerial higher education positions than White males ((U.S. Department of Education,
1996; U.S. Department of Education, 2014b). On the other hand, in 20 years, African
Americans in the same category increased by only one percent (U.S. Department of
Education, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003b, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010b, 2012b, 2014b). It is
important to take time to fully comprehend the atrocity affiliated with the lack of progress for
African Americans. To think that in 20 years, African Americans would only hold 9.8% of
the executive, administrative, and managerial higher education positions was quite unsettling
when in 1993, they held 8.8% of the positions (U.S. Department of Education, 1996, 1998,
2000, 2001, 2003b, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010b, 2012b, 2014b). Thus, compared to their
counterparts, African Americans witnessed the lowest growth.
20
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
A factor that has been associated with the underrepresentation of administrators of color has been the focus of educational institutions who seek to diversify their campuses
focusing only on increasing the diversity of their student body and faculty but negating the
importance of increasing their administrators of color (Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009). In
addition, issues such as lack of mentorship, networking opportunities, appealing salary offers, and support of institutional leadership were identified as factors that affected the increase, retention, and advancement of administrators of color (Jackson & O’Callaghan,
2009).
Table 15: Higher education management in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity
Year Black Latino Asian/Pacific Islander
Asian Pacific Islander
White White Male
White Female
1993 8.8% 2.6% 1.7% – – 86.1% 50.5% 35.6%
1995 9.0% 2.7% 1.8% – – 85.2% 48.4% 36.8%
1997 8.7% 2.8% 1.9% – – 85.3% 47.0% 38.2%
1999 8.8% 3.1% 2.1% – – 84.5% 45.2% 39.3%
2001 9.3% 3.6% 2.4% – – 82.7% 44.2% 38.6%
2003 9.4% 3.9% 2.7% – – 81.8% 41.3% 40.5%
2005 9.4% 4.3% 2.8% – – 81.2% 40.3% 40.9%
2007 9.7% 4.6% 3.0% – – 80.0% 38.6% 41.4%
2009 9.5% 5.0% 3.4% – – 79.1% 37.7% 41.5%
2011 9.4% 5.4% 3.4% – – 78.1% 36.8% 41.3%
2013 9.8% 5.2% 3.6% 3.5% .1% 77.6% 35.9% 41.7%
-U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996, 1998, 2000,
2001, 2003b, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010b, 2012b, 2014b
College Presidents
When looking solely at college presidents, the position has remained predominantly White. Cook & Kim (2012) created the most comprehensive college president study to date. The authors found that from 1986-2011, the number of nonwhite college presidents increased by 21
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
only 5% (8% – 13%) (Cook & Kim, 2012). Also, Cook & Kim (2012) found that from 2006-
2011, the number of nonwhite presidents actually decreased. In 2006, 14% of colleges were led
by nonwhite presidents but by 2011, the number dropped to 13% (Cook & Kim, 2012). Table 16
showed that over the span of 25 years (1986-2011), African American presidents increased by only one percent from 5% to 6% (Cook & Kim, 2012). To think that in a quarter of a century,
African Americans did not make headway in diversifying the college presidential ranks is
baffling and incredibly worrisome.
An aspect of the Color Ceiling refers to the invisible barriers that impede promotional
advancement for African Americans in the workforce which can be clearly seen in faculty,
higher education managerial positions, and college presidential ranks.
Table 16: College Presidents Demographics (Race)
– Cook & Kim, 2012
Conclusion
The purpose of this article was not to diminish the positive effect the Glass Ceiling has had on raising awareness of the occupational plight that women have faced but to raise awareness of the ignored workforce issues that African Americans have continually faced.
The intended goal of this investigation was to verify the need for the development of a Year Black Latino Asian
American
White
1986 5% 2% 0% 92%
2006 6% 5% 1% 86%
2011 6% 4% 2% 87%
22
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
distinctly different phrase that specifically highlighted the persistent financial, promotional,
and occupational inequalities for African Americans. Through careful examination of demographics and Census data, patterns were found that supported the need for a newly created term, the Color Ceiling. The author was able to support the necessity of such a phrase through data that painted an even bleaker picture than anticipated. For example, the
analysis of the gender-based wage gap was quite eye opening. Prior studies and terms
highlighted attention to the existence of a gender-based wage gap, but more in-depth look at
the wage gap based on race and gender was even more revealing, providing a more accurate
portrayal of critical issues to be addressed (Blau & Kahn, 2006a, 2006b, 2007).
It must be noted that due to the high rate of Native American financial data omitted
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics publications utilized in this study, their higher education
data was not included. The lack of Native American financial data was quite concerning and
as stated by Sue & Sue (2012), Native Americans have been treated as “invisible” and their omission in a number of the Bureau of Labor Statistics publications made that very evident
which is something that must be changed.
The current research found that a major discrepancy existed in terms of the race-based
wage gap where African American and Latino males actually earned less than Asian
American and White females. This issue has not received the same attention as the genderbased wage gap due to the heavy focus on gender-based wage equality. It is important for the
gender-based wage gap discussion to continue, but it is equally important for the African
23
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
American and Latino communities to be informed about the financial injustices they have faced where, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they received the lowest median
weekly income in the United States regardless of their gender.
The second aspect of the Color Ceiling states that an invisible barrier exists that
impedes the employment equity for people of color. Data showed that African Americans
continuously possessed the highest rate of unemployment when compared to their Latino,
Asian American and White counterparts. Data also showed that regardless of equal
educational attainment, African Americans continuously possessed higher unemployment
rates than Latinos, Asian American and Whites. Even when African Americans possessed a bachelor’s degree or higher, they still did not have lower unemployment rates than Asian
Americans and Whites who only possessed associates degrees. This data altered the author to
a major employment equity problem that must be addressed.
The final aspect of the Color Ceiling states that an invisible barrier exists that impedes
promotional advancement for African Americans. After looking at the employment inequality data, an individual may feel sick to their stomach due to the lack of promotional opportunities
for African Americans in higher education. Data from 2001-2013 showed that African
American faculty were poorly represented in the promotional ranks of associate professor and
professor and made very minimal gains in that time frame.
Additionally, 20 years of data (1993-2013) showed that African Americans made little
gains in executive, administrative, and managerial positions in higher education. In the span
24
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
of 20 years, African Americans witnessed an increase of 1% in higher education executive,
administrative, and managerial positions. When the author examined the appointments of
higher education presidents of color, 25 years of data illustrated how African Americans have not been given the opportunity to lead higher education institutions. In 25 years, African
American college presidents increased only a single percentage from 5% to 6% (Cook & Kim,
2012). The paltry promotional advancement of African Americans in important higher
education positions is an area that must be addressed and the data shows the importance of the Color Ceiling being utilized to address such issues. The lack of promotional opportunities for African Americans has been in existence for a number of years but has not been given the proper attention it deserves. It is the hope of the author that these issues are appropriately focused on and rectified in a timely manner.
With the creation of the Glass Ceiling, the injustices faced by women in the workforce were brought to light and has continued to be discussed. The lack of promotional opportunities
for Asian Americans has also been brought to light through the creation of the Bamboo
Ceiling. It is the hope of the author that through the creation of the Color Ceiling, African
Americans will not continue to be placed under a term that did not include them during its
conception and that their financial, employment, and promotional injustices receive the proper
attention that they deserve through a term that was created solely for them.
25
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
References
Blau F., Kahn L. (2006a). The gender pay gap: Going, going, but not gone. In: Blau F.,
Brinton M., Grusky D. (eds) The Declining Significance of Gender? New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 37–66.
Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2006b). The U.S. gender pay gap in the 1990s: Slowing convergence.
Industrial &Labor
Relations Review, 60(1), 45-66.
Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2007). The gender pay gap: have women gone as far as they can?
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 7-23.
Bryant, G. (1984). The Working woman report: Succeeding in business in the 80s. New
York, N.Y.: Simon and Schuster.
Cook, B., and Kim, Y. (2012). The American college president 2012. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Cotter, D., Hermsen, J., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social
Forces, 80(2), 655-681.
Growe, R. & Montgomery, P. (2003). Educational equity in America: Is education the great
equalizer? Professional Educator, 25(2), 23-29.
Hennessey, S. M., MacDonald, K., & Carroll,W. (2014). Is there a glass cliff or a solid ledge
for female appointees to the board of directors? Journal of Organizational Culture,
Communications &Conflict, 18(2), 125–139.
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T. (1986, March 24). The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem
to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. Wall Street Journal,
Section 4, 1, 4-5.
26
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
Hyun, J. (2005). Breaking the bamboo ceiling: Career strategies for Asians: The essential
guide to getting in, moving up, and reaching the top. New York: Harper Business.
Jackson, J. F. L., & O’Callaghan, E. M. (2009). Ethnic and racial administrative
diversity: Understanding work life realities and experiences in higher education.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 35, No. 3. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Johns, M. L. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling: Structural, cultural and organizational barriers
Preventing women from achieving senior and executive positions. Perspectives in Health
Information Management.
Morrison, A., White, R. & VanVelsor, E. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women
reach the top of America’s largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
National Equal Pay Task Force (2013). Fifty years after the Equal Pay Act: Assessing the
past, taking stock of the future. Washington: National Equal Pay Task Force, White
House.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., &McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies
and standards:A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development 70,
477-486.
Sue, D. & Sue, D. (2012). Counseling the culturally diverse: theory and practice. Hoboken,
N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Turner, C., Gonzalez, J., & Wood, J. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139‐168.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2003. BLS Report
978. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
27
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2005. BLS Report
987. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2005. BLS Report
995. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2006. BLS Report
1000. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2007. BLS Report
1008. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009a). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2008. BLS Report
1017. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010a). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2009. BLS Report
1025. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011a). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2010. BLS Report
1031. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012a). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2011. BLS Report
1038. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013a). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2012. BLS Report
1045. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014a). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2013. BLS Report
1051. Retrieved from: htttp://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015a). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2014. BLS Report
1058. Retrieved from: htttp://www.bls.gov/cps/earnings.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009b). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
28
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
2008. BLS Report 1020. Retrieved from:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/race_ethnicity_2008.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010b). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
2009. BLS Report 1026. Retrieved from:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/race_ethnicity_2009.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011b). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
2010. BLS Report 1032. Retrieved from:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/race_ethnicity_2010.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012b). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
2011. BLS Report 1036. Retrieved from:
www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/race_ethnicity_2011.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013b). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
2012. BLS Report 1044. Retrieved from:
www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/race_ethnicity_2012.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014b). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
2013. BLS Report 1050. Retrieved from:
www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/archive/race_ethnicity_2013.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015b). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
2014. BLS Report 1057. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity,
2015. BLS Report 1062. Retrieved from:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/2015/home.htm
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). Integrated postsecondary education data system
integrated postsecondary education data system (IPEDS) glossary. National Center for
29
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/index.asp?id=209
U.S. Department of Education (1996). Digest for education statistics: 1996 tables and figures,
Table 217. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
U.S. Department of Education (1998). Digest for education statistics: 1998 tables and figures,
Table 222. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d98/d98t222.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2000). Digest for education statistics: 2000 tables and figures,
Table 226. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d00/dt226.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2001). Digest for education statistics: 2001 tables and figures,
Table 225. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d01/dt225.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2003a). Digest for education statistics: 2003 tables and figures,
Table 231. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt231.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2003b). Digest for education statistics: 2003 tables and figures,
Table 228. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt228.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2004). Digest for education statistics: 2004 tables and figures,
Table 225. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_225.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2006). Digest for education statistics: 2006 tables and figures,
30
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
Table 225. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_229.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2007). Digest for education statistics: 2007 tables and figures,
Table 239. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_239.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2008). Digest for education statistics: 2008 tables and figures,
Table 246. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_246.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2010a). Digest for education statistics: 2010 tables and figures,
Table 260. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_260.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2010b). Digest for education statistics: 2010 tables and figures,
Table 256. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_256.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2012a). Digest for education statistics: 2012 tables and figures,
Table 291. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_291.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2012b). Digest for education statistics: 2012 tables and figures,
Table 287. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_287.asp
U.S. Department of Education (2014a). Digest for education statistics: 2014 tables and figures,
Table 315.20. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
from:https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_315.20.asp
31
Airen: The Color Ceiling: African Americans Still Fighting for Equity and Equality
Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2017
U.S. Department of Education (2014b). Digest for education statistics: 2014 tables and figures,
Table 314.40. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_314.40.asp
U.S. Department of Labor (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human
capital. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Retrieved from:
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling.pdf
Zimmer, B. (2015, April 3). The phrase ‘glass ceiling’ stretches back decades. Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-phrase-glass-ceiling-stretchesback-
decades-1428089010
32
Journal of Human Services: Training, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 1
https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jhstrp/vol2/iss1/1
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
GET A PERFECT SCORE!!! 
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more