James Rachels

Of the many kinds of policies that have been devised
to combat discrimination, quotas are the most despised. Almost no
one has a good word to say about them. Even those who defend other
varieties of preferential treatment are eager, more often than not, to
make it known that they do not approve of quotas. In an area in which
there is little agreement about anything else, there is a remarkable
consensus about this.

Why are quotas thought to be so objectionable? The key idea seems
to be that justice is blind, or at least that it should be blind where
race and gender are concerned. Jobs should go to the best qualified
applicants, regardless of race or sex; anything else is unacceptably
discriminatory. A race- or gender-based quota contradicts this funda-
mental principle. A hiring quota seems to involve -- necessarily -- the
idea that a less qualified black or woman may be hired ahead of a
better qualified white male. But if it is wrong to discriminate against
blacks and women, how can it be right to discriminate against white
men? This point seems to many people to be so obviously correct that
quotas are ruled out peremptorily. It is no wonder that the very word
has acquired a bad smell.

With so many other issues still unresolved, it may seem perverse to
question the one thing about which there is agreement. Nevertheless, I
believe that the prevailing consensus concerning quotas is misguided.
There is nothing wrong with a quota used in the right circumstances
and for the right reason. It needs to be emphasized, however, that
there are significant differences in the ways that quotas may be used.
They may be imposed in various sorts of circumstances and for vari-
ous purposes. In what follows I describe a set of circumstances in

-217-