Truth: Affirmative action is not synonymous with mediocrity or second best. In the evaluation process, however, the most qualified candidate may not necessarily be the individual with the most impressive publication record or academic experience. The criteria for selection should include the ability of a candidate to contribute to the life and cultural diversity of a department and to enlarge its research and pedagogical interests.

Myth: Affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination.

Truth: Affirmative action does not mean giving preference to any group. Affirmative action advances a multi-dimensional nature of excellence. It encourages us to recognize pluralism and diversity as a dimension of our value system. Accordingly, a search committee must create a diverse pool of candidates with a significant representation of women and minorities. A candidate's ability to provide cultural diversity to a department, to serve as a role model for students, and to offer a range of perspectives and scholarly interests should be major elements in the evaluation and selection process.

Myth: Affirmative action means establishing a quota system for women and minorities.

Truth: There is a fundamental difference between goals and quotas. The goal of affirmative action is the inclusion in the job force of individuals previously excluded or under-represented. Ideally, the percentage of women and minorities working in a department, college or university should be similar to the percentage of women and minorities qualified for such positions. Affirmative action does not mean showing partiality but rather reaching out to candidates and treating them with fairness and equity. Quotas, on the other hand, are court assigned to redress a pattern of discriminatory hiring.

Myth: Conducting a search that is responsive to affirmative action concerns is costly, tedious, and time consuming.

Truth: If one employs proper management skills, conducting a search that is sensitive to affirmative action issues need not take significantly more time than conducting a search which is insensitive to those issues. Enlarging a pool of candidates and treating all candidates equitably and fairly is more a function of will than of time. Ultimately, a proper search is both time and cost effective, for a search which attracts a diverse group of well-qualified candidates is likely to result in a lasting and rewarding relationship between the individual and the University. Furthermore, a search which fails to create a diverse pool of candidates may be nullified by a unit administrator, a dean, or the provost.

Myth: Once you hire an affirmative action candidate, you can never fire him or her.

Truth: The terms of employment for women and minorities are the same as for men and non-minorities. In fact, in terms of affirmative action principles, standards of achievement, job requirements, and job expectations should be equally applied to all individuals.

Myth: If I hire one or two women or minorities for dead-end jobs, I have satisfied my affirmative action responsibilities.

Truth: Tokenism in hiring or hiring women and minorities for positions which are terminal in terms of advancement does not satisfy the affirmative action goals of the University. The same opportunities for employment and career advancement must exist for all individuals; policies and standards for employment and advancement must be applied equally to everyone.

Myth: Affirmative action will result in lowering the standards and reputation of a department.

Truth: This will not happen if a qualified candidate is selected for the position. A heterogeneous faculty, providing diverse talents and points of view, increases the effectiveness and vitality of a department, as well as the stature and prestige of a university.

Myth: The pool of women and minorities in my discipline is so small that it is virtually impossible to find any.

Truth: True, there are some disciplines in which women and minorities have not entered in large numbers, but there are no fields of study in which women and minorities have not been trained (32.4% of all doctorates, for instance, awarded from 1980-1984 went to women). One can enlarge the pool of candidates by applying the principles of an affirmative action search. This includes using bibliographies of women and minorities in academic disciplines and the professions; consulting with women and minorities in your unit, college, and university; consulting with women and minorities in the same discipline at other universities and establishing a unit or institutional relationship with colleges and universities where women and minorities are predominant. Additionally, one should develop programs to create pools of underrepresented candidates, e.g., professional development, internships, postdoctoral programs, special mentoring programs, training programs, etc.

Myth: Affirmative action and Equal Opportunity are one in the same.

Truth: Equal Employment Opportunity means that all individuals must be treated equally in the hiring process and in advancement once on the job. Each person is to be evaluated as an individual on her or his merits and not on stereotyped perceptions of what members of specific groups are like. Affirmative action is a more proactive concept. It means affirming that one will actively and aggressively seek to overcome the effects of past discrimination against groups such as women and minorities by making a positive and continuous effort in their recruitment, employment, retention, and promotion. The concept also means that a university must actively remove any barriers that artificially limit the professional and personal development of women and minorities. Ultimately, the goal of affirmative action is synonymous with the mission of a university: to give each individual the opportunity to realize her or his maximum potential and to rise as high as one's talents will permit.

Myth: Affirmative action is the responsibility of the Department of Human Relations or of a college affirmative action representative.

Truth: This is true as far as it goes; it does not, however, go far enough. Affirmative action is everyone's responsibility. Since hiring is generally a "bottom up" process, with the faculty of a unit defining the pool of candidates and assessing their qualifications, affirmative action goals will never be achieved without the wholehearted and enthusiastic support and participation of the faculty.

*As taken from "Myths and Realities" compiled by Linda Lou Smith, College of Communication Arts and Sciences.

Myth: Minorities and women receive preferences.

Truth: Affirmative action does not require preferences, nor do women and minorities assume that they will be given preference. Race, gender and national origin are factors to be considered when hiring or accepting qualified applicants. Hiring qualified women and minorities is not dissimilar to the preferences given to veterans in hiring and children of alumni in college admissions. There are other preferences used in selecting qualified candidates. For example, when colleges and universities value geographic diversity on their campuses, it may be easier for an in-state student to be admitted than one from out of state. Some colleges and universities consider athletic abilities and/or evidence of leadership skills in addition to test scores.

Myth: Title VII alone is sufficient to address discrimination.

Truth: Affirmative action means taking positive, proactive and preemptive steps to root out discrimination, rather than waiting for after the fact litigation. Title VII is enough to address discrimination, but it will do so only after an instance of discrimination has been claimed. Affirmative action policies are a means to end discrimination in a far less costly and disruptive way than protracted litigation.

Myth: Unqualified individual are being hired and promoted for the sake of diversity/affirmative action.

Truth: It is important to cut through the rhetoric and look at the facts. Only affirmative action plans that do not compromise valid job or educational qualifications are lawful. They must be flexible, realistic, reviewable, and fair. The Supreme Court has found that there are at least two permissible bases for voluntary affirmative action by employers under Title VII: (1) to remedy a clear and convincing history of past discrimination by the employer or union, and (2) to cure a manifest imbalance in the employer's work force. No doubt there are instances where poor management practices may have resulted in the hiring of unqualified people; however, these are examples of error and/or abuse of affirmative action which should be considered by the President's review and corrected by additional management training and public education. They do not indict affirmative action itself as a tool for achieving equality of opportunity for all.

Myth: The federal government should not promote affirmative action through government contracts.

Truth: Enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act created an obligation of the federal government to enforce the principle of equal opportunity in employment embodied in Title VII. One of the enforcement strategies employed by the federal government is to place conditions upon contracts awarded by the federal government involving the expenditure of federal funds. These funds come from taxes paid by women and minorities who are entitled to a fair portion of federal contracts. The original Executive Order and subsequent Executive Orders requiring affirmative action in federal contracts and awards have had bipartisan support from U.S. Presidents and members of Congress, and from leaders in the business community because they have been a reasonable and effective way to enforce the law.

Myth: Underrepresentation of minorities and women in the corporate world (or other high-paying jobs) is not due to discrimination.

Truth: Discrimination is not the sole reason for the lack of women and minorities in the corporate world. However, we must deal with history; we must deal with past and present discrimination. A study of the 1982 Stanford MBA graduating class found that after 10 years, 16 percent of men held CEO titles compared to 2 percent of women. 23 percent of males were corporate vice presidents, compared to 10 percent of women, while 15 percent of men served as directors, compared to 8 percent of women. Obviously barriers to employment and promotion still exist for women and minorities. Affirmative action opens the doors to opportunity and advancement.

Myth: The pay differences between women and men are not due to discrimination.

Truth: A 1989 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences confirmed earlier research by the National Academy of Sciences in 1981 that found that one half to one fourth of the earnings differential between men and women could not be explained by legitimate differences in education, training, experience, and characteristics of jobs.

A study by Professor Peter Hammerschmidt in the Management Institute of Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL found that female managers were paid on average $11,447 less than male managers, even when the women had identical levels of experience, skill, job titles, education, and age.

Myth: Women benefit more than African-Americans from affirmative action.

Truth: Both women and minorities benefit from access to full educational and workplace opportunities to redress past discrimination. To pit these groups against each other is wrong. Affirmative action programs give needed opportunities for both women and minorities.

Myth: Women seem to be doing well in education and in the work force, therefore affirmative action for women should not be continued. Even the so-called earnings gap between men and women has closed significantly in recent years.

Truth: In 1993, the total amount of wages women lost due to pay inequity was nearly $100 billion. The average woman loses approximately $420,000 over a lifetime due to unequal pay practices.

Although it is true that in four occupations (women mechanics, registered nurses, pharmacists, and postal workers), women earn at least 90 percent of what men earn, in the other 86 occupations, tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women earn 20-35 percent less than men. For example: women college/university professors earn 77.1 percent of male professors' wages. Women public relations specialists earn 76.7 percent of their male counterparts' wages. Women in securities and financial services/sales earn 65.6 percent of men's wages.

The wage gap between women's and men's earnings widens in the higher-paid occupations. Much of the wage gap is still attributable to the occupational segregation that continues to track women and minorities in the lower paying occupations. Two-thirds of all low-wage workers are women.

Myth: Most analyses that point to wage differentials between men and women do not take into account differences in hours worked and years of uninterrupted work experience between the sexes. Female earnings are depressed because women work, on average, fewer hours per week than men and have more interruptions over their working lives than do men.

Truth: The wage inequities most often cited are based on Department of Labor and Census Bureau date on year-round, full-time workers who have a permanent attachment to the work force. This data does not compare full-time male workers to part-time female workers, nor does it compare permanent workers to part-time and contingent workers.

*As taken from the American Association of University Women's Program and Policy, April 1995.

Refuting the Myths about affirmative action in the University of California

Myth: Affirmative action has its impact only at the time of admission.

Truth: Most of UC's affirmative action (AA) programs are preparatory in nature. The goal of these programs is to increase the number of underrepresented students who are prepared. As a result, these students qualify fully in the admissions process and are prepared to attend the University of California as undergraduates. Other developmental components provide coverage of the educational pipeline from the point of entry through the University. These efforts support two additional goals: 1) to increase the number of these students who receive Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral degrees from the University; and 2) to increase the number of these students who become University faculty, staff, and researchers.

Myth: Affirmative action programs don't work.

Truth: Affirmative action programs are highly effective. In 1990, the general rate of University of California eligibility in the state for African American and Chicano/Latino students was 5.1% and 3.9%, respectively. In 1992-93, African American and Chicano/Latino students in UC's Early Academic Outreach Program achieved UC eligibility at rates of 43.8% and 46.5%. College going rates for underrepresented EAOP graduates greatly exceed those for the same ethnic groups in the California public high school graduating class overall. For African American and Chicano/Latino public high school graduates, the 1992-93 California four-year public college-going rates were 11.9% and 9%, respectively. For EAOP graduates from these groups, the rates were 41.6% and 43.9%. When enrollment at California independent colleges and out-of-state colleges is added, the four-year college enrollment rate increases to 73.6% for African American and 58% for Chicano/Latino graduates.

Myth: "Academic merit" is synonymous with "grades and test scores."

Truth: While grades and test scores are primary eligibility measures, these two gauges do not fully encompass the variety of factors that comprise academic merit. Other factors come into play, such as the rigor of a school's academic offerings; the accomplishments of a student in a particular field or subject; whether or not a student made maximum use of the resources available; academic work pursued outside the classroom; and other evidence of intellectual and creative ability.

Myth: Most underrepresented students are admitted by exception.

Truth: Few students enter UC through Admissions by Exception (ABE). Even though Regental policy permits up to six percent of newly enrolled freshman students and six percent of newly enrolled transfer students to be admitted by exception (special action), in 1993 the total percentage of UC freshman students admitted by exception (special action) was 4.6% of the admitted class. This number includes underrepresented and non-underrepresented students. All Admission by Exception students demonstrate excellent academic potential, special talents, or persistence through hardship in such measure that it is felt that they will contribute to the University and demonstrate academic success.

Myth: Affirmative action programs and students cause balkanization on campuses.

Truth: In making charges of "balkanization" at colleges, critics are often referring to the plethora of student organizations prevalent at colleges and universities. Such student organizations appear for numerous ethnic groups (both underrepresented and majority), as well as for a variety of special interests and activities. Critics of group proliferation mistakes move to achieve community (out of internally differentiated aggregates) as fragmentation and as an assault upon some larger community. It is easy to forget that only two decades ago, most American campuses were culturally and racially homogeneous, as were most fraternities and sororities.

Most students desire diversity on campus. In a survey of UC Berkeley undergraduate students by the Commission on Responses to a Changing Student Body, seventy percent of all undergraduate students at Berkeley agreed with the statement, "I'd like to meet more students from ethnic and cultural backgrounds that are different from my own."

Myth: Pursuit of diversity has lowered the overall academic quality of the University.

Truth: The proportion of entering freshmen who graduate from the University of California now is greater than the proportion who graduated at any other time in the history of the University. At the Berkeley campus, students that entered the University in 1907 graduated at a rate of 50.8% at the end of six years. Berkeley students entering in 1955 graduated at a rate of 51.0% at the end of six years. Students that entered that UC system in 1987 graduated at a rate of 75.3% at the end of six years.

The proportion of freshmen who graduate from the University of California is among the highest reported by major publicly funded colleges and universities in the United States. Graduation figures compiled by the American Association for University Data Exchange (AAUDE) for freshmen who entered college in Fall 1984 reveal that 62.9% of students at AAUDE participating institutions graduated within six years. 37.6% of freshmen who entered the CSU system in 1984 graduated within six years. By comparison, 73.4% of freshmen who entered the University of California in the same year graduated within six years.

Myth: Affirmative action has run its course. It's no longer needed.

Truth: Between the academic years ending 1993 and 2006, the number of California public high school graduates is projected to grow by 43% from 254,308 to 362,933 graduates, with the principal growth among the non-white population. The University must maintain its efforts, in partnership with the schools, to raise the rates of full eligibility for students from underrepresented groups, which remain substantially below the 12.5% rate called for by the Master Plan. Currently, 94% to 96% African American and Chicano/Latino high school graduates are ineligible for admission to the University. If this situation continues, the principal barrier to access will remain unchanged, and will negatively affect many more young Californians.