If, for example, the data show that half of all of those who graduate with a Ph.D. in sociology are women, and she finds that less than 50 percent of the sociology faculty are women, then she and the department set a goal or target for the department to hire more women. She does not set, under federal guidelines or university policy, quotas. Recruitment plans are part of the good faith effort, as are clearly defined qualifications. One intention of the Civil Rights Act and federal executive orders was to assure that job descriptions reflected actual needs or requirements and then to assure that people who met those requirements had an equal chance of being hired. Another way, and an important way, to say this is that the Civil Rights Act and federal executive orders were designed to assure that everybody who was qualified, regardless of gender or ethnicity, was to have equal opportunity.
Quotas are illegal and have consistently been recognized as so by the courts.
On this issue, there can be no confusion. Neither should there be any confusion about the fact that affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were designed to improve access for women and minorities. It is sometimes argued that because of the dramatic gains made by women, blacks, and some other minority members of our society in the last thirty years that affirmative action has outlived its usefulness. There are several strong reasons for suggesting that such programs are still needed. Before looking at more global issues, let me present the case here at Chico, in terms of faculty and staff recruitment and student admissions.