I'm not making a normative statement here, I'm simply stating the fact that no one will come after you if you do this. Companies and colleges say all the time that they're looking for a specific ratio of races and genders and nothing happens to them.
[0]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/03/bbc-criticised-by...
As far as University enrollment, women have led the numbers for years so that isn't really at the heart of it. More so the subjects they choose as a major/minor being the issue.
Marketing STEM majors to minorities and women has been a priority for a short amount of time, so we will see how it pans out in the next decade.
We're all ok with the idea that men don't really want to be early childhood educators (Pre-k through grade 2). It's a big deal when a guy applies for those jobs, according to teachers I know. Then, of course, come the endless jokes about the pedophile trying to get a job with kids, how he is going to need a female escort when dealing with the kids, etc.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/01/479795967/asian-american-group...
That's because that's not illegal.
Hiring only X (gender/race/etc.) to achieve the ratio you want, OTOH, is among the many means to realize such targets that are illegal.
This was specifically found unconstitutional in Bakke (1979)[1] and had very real consequences for UC Davis. While I don't know about the internals of any state university admission programs, I find it highly unlikely any state schools would publicly acknowledge that they seek specific racial quotas as that puts them in immediate and grave legal jeopardy.
They'll come up with some bullshit like "since women aren't the majority of hiring managers, this doesn't count as discrimination" or something. Like they have with racism (where black people in America literally can't be racist).
Yes, but what many people stereotype "affirmative action" as being, or at least including -- notably, including the upthread suggestion characterized as "let's just hire only women for a while to balance out the numbers" -- is not only not required even in that context, it is quite illegal (and would be equally illegal if, say, "blacks" replaced "women" in the description.)