This study measures all the marginal direct and indirect costs of an affirmative action/equal employment opportunity (AA/EEO) program at a single institution through cost analysis procedures identifying cost generating variables in three categories: personnel, operating expenses, and capital outlay replacement value. Costs were weighed against benefits, as measured by number of women and minorities hired. Since costs and benefits should be evaluated only in relation to effectiveness of implementation procedures, program administration was assessed through a series of interviews with faculty chairs. Total compliance costs incurred for the university in one budget cycle amounted to 0.4% of the total institutional budget, and the great majority of these costs were expended indirectly, in faculty time. Representation of women and minorities was increased by approximately 1.9%, despite lack of strong leadership from the central administration and haphazard program administration. Although the costs incurred in implementing AA/EEO are negliglible compared to other social justice legislation, educators still decry its expense. Thus, we argue that educators are not concerned with the actual dollar outlay for AA/ EEO but instead use its intangible educational costs as a symbolic issue in their struggle with the state over university autonomy.