Question 2:  How do these programs work?
All affirmative action programs have a common element:  they analyze a situation to determine whether or not one or more of the protected groups mentioned above are adequately represented in an institution. If representation is inadequate, then the institution develops a plan to correct the situation.

Question 3:  Does an existing educational, employment, or contractor/vendor program or practice have to be intentionally discriminatory for an affirmative action program to be put in place?
No. For example, when one educational institution reviewed its construction and purchasing program, it determined that its use of businesses owned by women, and minorities did not correlate positively with the availability of such businesses in the area. Therefore, the Office of the Senior Vice President for Finance developed a program to respond to this situation.

Question 4:  Why is there such strong reaction against affirmative action?
There are many misconceptions about affirmative action.

Myth:  Affirmative action forces institutions to lower their standards when hiring.
Reality:  No affirmative action plan calls on an institution to lower its standards for the hiring or advancement of employees. Minorities and women on campus have to meet the same basic standards for promotion, tenure, or pay raises as their white male colleagues. Indeed, many women and minority employees believe they must actually perform at a higher standard in order to be considered equal to members of the white male population group.

Myth:  Either there are no qualified women and minorities for some positions, or it takes too much time to find them.
Reality:  Enlarging the pool of candidates and treating all candidates equitably and fairly is more a function of will than of time. For almost every job, the fact is that there are many qualified women and minorities. A dedicated effort to diversify a workforce employs a variety of strategies designed both to make these candidates aware of positions and to diversify the pools of qualified applicants.

Myth:  Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination against white males.
Reality:  Traditionally, discrimination in America excluded minorities and women from many opportunities. Affirmative action does not bar white males from any opportunity. Affirmative action seeks only to remedy the effects of discrimination. Indeed, even where affirmative action is most actively pursued, white males are still highly successful in securing jobs.

Myth:  Affirmative action goals are the same as quotas.
Reality:  Employment goals and quotas have certain similarities:  both are used to bring about change and both are measurable. However, goals and quotas are quite different. Quotas define results in terms of specific numbers and are externally imposed upon an institution by the court. Goals are internally generated and used as targets to measure success. Often, those who are charged with achieving goals are actually involved in establishing them.

Myth:  Affirmative action reserves jobs for women or minorities.
Reality:  A job made available under affirmative action guidelines is not reserved for a candidate of minority or female status. Affirmative action guarantees only that no qualified candidate-of any group-will be excluded from the pool of those being considered.

Question 5:  Wouldn't it be fair to use gender and race-blind screening?
Affirmative action requires first and foremost the recruitment of individuals from underrepresented groups that reflect their presence in the workforce. Secondly, the ODAA requires the screening of applicants with great care to be sure that all qualified individuals advance through the process. The screening process need not be blind to achieve fairness; in fact, a thorough review of credentials based on well defined and job-related criteria does the most to achieve fairness.

Question 6:  If we want to hire or admit underrepresented persons, why don't we just set aside some positions for them or interview only underrepresented persons?
It is clear that such a procedure would distort affirmative action by creating a situation where gender or race alone would bar someone from an opportunity. While such factors are permissible for consideration in a set of criteria, neither may be used as the sole criteria.