San Francisco - When government agencies or other institutions establish racial and gender preferences in hiring, the goal is often "proportional representation" - that is, increasing the number of women and minority employees so that the demographics of the work force mirror those of society as a whole. But what happens when an ethnic minority is over represented in the work force?

Ask Shirley Page. Ms. Page, who is black, works as a counselor for the California Youth Authority. In March 1995 - despite six years in the department and a master's degree in criminal justice - she was passed over for promotion to sergeant in favor of a less-qualified Hispanic woman, who, according to sworn statements by department personnel, didn't even show up to her interview because she said she didn't want the job.

"They are setting up quotas," complains Ms. Page, who says she may sue for discrimination. "When they got ready to fill the position, they wanted a Hispanic female. They targeted the group; they hired the group."

Opponents of the California Civil Rights Initiative, the November ballot measure to abolish preferences, paint it as the product of angry white men intent on protecting their privilege at the expense of women and minorities. But if proportional representation is a legitimate basis for preferential hiring, there is no principled reason to expect that preferences will always work in minorities' favor.

Quite the contrary: In California's public sector, minorities and women are often overrepresented, whites and men underrepresented. Thus, many state agencies have actually established "goals" and "timetables" to encourage the hiring of whites and men. In a memorandum outlining her agency's affirmative action plans for the 1995-1996 fiscal year, for example, Lisa Fien, equal employment opportunity officer at the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, declared: "Eight (8) vacancies are anticipated to be filled in the Staff Services Occupational Grouping [the entry level civil service position for college graduates]. Four (4) vacancies will be filled by whites; four (4) filled by men. It is anticipated that it will take four (4) years to reach parity for whites; four (4) years to reach parity for men."

Other departments in the California government are a deficiencies of whites of men:

• The Franchise Tax Board plans to hire 45 white and 95 male typists over the next 10 years.
• The state Department of Education has set goals for men in staff services, information systems and janitorial positions.
• The Department of Social Services has goals for men in legal services, staff services, information systems and investigative positions.
• The Department of Corrections has goals for white correctional officers and parole agents.

California's state agencies aren't required to set goals for whites and men; many do not. Indeed, in 1996-97, faced with a hiring freeze, Ms. Fien's department abandoned its goals for whites and men, even though both groups were still underrepresented. Perhaps to avoid the embarrassment of setting goals for whites and men, the State Personnel Board will not report departments' goals and timetables for these groups next year.

Yet if preferences survive on Nov. 5, pressures to expand quotas for whites and men are likely to increase. For one thing, some equal employment opportunity officers genuinely believe in proportional representation regardless of whose ox is gored. "If you are truly talking about providing equal opportunity, then if you go through your process and find underrepresentation of whites and men, I believe there should be goals set up for these groups," say Sharon Felix-Rochon, the state Department of Education's EEO Officer.

Even the Clinton administration has taken the position that racial preferences for whites might sometimes be justified. In a legal brief supporting a New Jersey school board's decision to lay off a white teacher instead of an equally senior black teacher in pursuit of "diversity," the administration's affirmative action point man, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval Patrick, wrote that diversity doesn't favor one group over another: "Potentially the same interest in faculty diversity could tip the balance in favor of a white teacher," Mr. Patrick wrote - a view President Clinton himself has endorsed.

And whites and men are likely to organize to demand their slice of the preference pie. Already the European American Correctional Workers Association, founded in July 1995, claims to be the fastest growing employee organization in California state government. "We offer hope to the only group that was not represented in the field of corrections," says John R. Blackwell, a California Youth Authority counselor and the association's founder. Mr. Blackwell says his organization opposes preferences - but "will continue to lobby for the interests of European-Americans as well as continue to encourage other white groups to do the same. We want to ensure that the playing field is level. If they want to play the game with racial quotas, then we will also play that game."

All this should lead minority advocacy groups to reconsider their opposition to CCRI. Today African-Americans represent 7.8% of California's population but 11.6% of state employees. True proportional representation would cost blacks more than 7,300 state jobs, and would cost California taxpayers the services of these experienced employees. In the end, blacks - the very group affirmative action was designed to help - may be among those who benefit most from its abolition.

Mr. Lynch is a fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He is the author of a forthcoming study on affirmative action in California's civil service.