All right, already. I know it’s not really a war on preferences, at least not a full-fledged one. But hey, if the New York Times can shape the news to fit its views, I don’t see why a lowly blogger can’t do the same. Besides, if there were a real war, my headline would be true, as evidenced by a David Savage article in the Los Angeles Times today, “Bush’s Opposition to Racial Preferences Gets Big Support.”
By a 2 to 1 majority, Americans approve of President Bush’s call to strike down a race-based admissions policy at the University of Michigan and say that students should be judged only on their academic records, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll.
….
When asked whether they approved or disapproved of Bush’s opposition to the University of Michigan’s “racial preference admissions program,” 55% said they approved of the president’s position and 27% disapproved.
Opposition to race-based admissions was highest among the youngest respondents and declined steadily among those who were older.
About two-thirds of those aged 18 to 29, or 67%, said they agreed with Bush’s stand against the university, while 22% were opposed to the administration’s position. Those over age 65 were more closely split, with 45% agreeing with Bush and 34% disagreeing.
Of the respondents who identified themselves as Democrats, 44% approved of Bush’s position and 39% were opposed, while Republicans approved by a 7-1 majority.
More than a quarter of those surveyed said they were members of racial or ethnic minorities, including blacks, Latinos and Asians. Of these respondents, 46% said they approved of Bush’s position and 41% were against it.
As usual with polls, these results should probably be taken with a grain, or even a shaker, of salt. Savage quotes several poll-takers and judiciously, or something, refrains from commenting on some of the odder ones. My favorite was the following:
Peggy Montford, 66, of Wichita, Kan., said she looks around her home and is of two minds on the issue.
“I’m white, and I have grandkids who are biracial,” she said. “I want everyone to be treated equally, but I also think it is fair to base things on merit. I know we don’t have an equal education system now, so you can see I have a lot of opposing ideas.”
Indeed.
UPDATE [2/7/03 9:15AM] – Responding to this poll, a spokeswoman for the University of Michigan said the public is too dumb to understand affirmative action. Really. (Link requires subscription)
“There is no way for a public-opinion poll such as this one to convey the nuances of college admissions,” said Julie Peterson, a spokeswoman for the University of Michigan. “We think surveys such as this one greatly oversimplify the issues at hand.”
Other supporters of racial preferences objected to the poll because, they said, the use of the term “racial preferences” is inflammatory. Not the practice, mind you, just accurately describing the practice.
Shirley J. Wilcher, executive director of Americans for a Fair Chance, objected to the poll’s frequent use of the phrase “racial preferences,” arguing that the use of such “loaded terms” in poll questions misrepresents the spirit of affirmative-action programs and assures “the kind of polarized, emotion-laden results that they have received.”
“For these news outlets to continue to use the word ‘preferences’ is to continue to confuse the public and exacerbate racial divisions,” Ms. Wilcher said. Her organization represents a coalition of civil-rights groups that support the sorts of race-conscious admissions policies in place at Michigan and other higher-education institutions.
I will understand if some of you without access to the Chronicle of Higher Education, where these quotes appeared in an article this morning, may suspect that I’m making up these people and their statements. I promise I’m not.
I’m not that imaginative, and even if I were I wouldn’t have the nerve to be so brazen. And even if I both were and did, I’m too smart to make up something no one would believe.
