Depends on the plans. If it's a quota, it's a quota, and that's probably not good (illegal according to AGentJ). If it's a plan to broaden the candidate search to include areas that you were not including before, but that have high percentage minority, for example, and you still only selected the best qualified candidates, this would not be a quota, but might meet the criteria of a plan that will end up increasing the number of minority employees.
Although we use race, IMO it's really culture. No one thinks negatively if Morgan Freeman applies for a job, he's not judged on race. If an ex-gang-banker who is trying to turn his life around, has tats and different accent and mannerisms than the company interviewing him, they may not feel culturally comfortable with him, and reject him. Which to a degree is fine. What it's about understanding that we all have bias, especially cultural bias, and we should at least make some effort to understand that if we are in a position of authority. Not being aware of this is worse than being aware. Compensating some for this is better than no compensation whatsoever (not pay, compensate like make changes). It will never emotionally feel right for most people, that's the entire point. It should be pushed for to *some reasonable* degree though by employers IMO.
If you hire people regularly, you understand that there is no perfect objective standard by which to hire from. Much of it is the feeling you get from the individual, because they typically had to meet the objective resume criteria just to get to the in-person interview...GPA, what school, which classes, work experience, these are fairly objective. But if they meet them and they seem to not be a good team-first, you may think well, there are others better qualified that are a good team fit. OK, that's understandable, but was the primary determinant their cultural difference that made them not a good fit? If so, you may want to scrutinize that choice a little more.
