In these remarks, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, discusses the Department's policy to enforce Federal equal employment opportunity guarantees without supporting quotas and other numerical formulae that provide preferential treatment. The discussion counters the charge that this policy is inconsistent with the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court and as demonstrated in three cases often cited: 1) "Bakke," a reverse discrimination case in which the court supported a school's interest in a diverse student body but upheld a student's individual right to be free from racial discrimination; 2) "Fullilove," where minority set aside provisions in public works employment were supported; and 3) "Weber," in which a race conscious quota scheme for employee training was upheld. It is contended that these legal precedents do not represent Supreme Court endorsements of quotas, but merely demonstrate that the limited use of racial criteria is not forbidden. It is emphasized that the Department's approach to race and sex discrimination in employment provides relief for identifiable victims of discrimination but removes considerations of color and gender in future hiring and promotion practices. (Author/MJL)