CBS AA Poll

[Ryo-Ohki]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/polls/main537753.shtml

<b>"When it comes to the concept of affirmative action, 54% think that affirmative action programs in hiring, promoting and college admissions should be continued, while 37% want them abolished."</b>

When AA is presented in a way that promotes anti-discriminatory outreach measures, the majority of Americans polled will support AA.


When AA is presented in a way that accurately reflects what it is (20 points out of an effective 110 point scale for being the correct race), the vast majority of people oppose it.

The question is, why didn't CBS/NYT poll AA in a way that accurately reflects what the national debate is about?

 

[lola]

🙄 🙄 🙄

AA this, AA that

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Might as well get it out of my system before June 2003.

Life is going to be kind of boring after the SC strikes AA down.

 

[MacGyver]

Well, the general public likes AA if AA means that people make a special effort to identify possible minorities for positions, but yet dont give them an outright advantage in the hiring/admissions process.

when you ask if AA should be used to give people an outright advantage in the selection process, the numbers are very different.

Originally, AA was meant to be used as a tool to try and encourage minorities to apply, it was NOT used as an outright advantage over someone else in the decision stage until years later.

I have a problem with people who claim that Michigans setup is not a quota. Do you think that the 20 points that Michigan gives to race is totally random? Only if you are very naive. Michigan has changed this point value system over time until they have found that it results in the "right" number of minority acceptances. Therefore, it is a de facto quota. The 20 point thing is not random, it is a carefully thought out and measured advantage to give minorities just enough of a boost to get the representation they want.

 

[geneman]

My roommate had to write a paper on AA for some class of his, and a few articles were lying in our apartment. So I picked some up and read them. Several particular points were rather remarkable.

In this paper, a former Supreme Court Justice (Powell) -- a person who we assume has the highest powers of reason -- basically argued that so-called "ranges" or "critical masses" are not functional equivalents of quotas. In the case of Michigan, since their 20 point bonus results in 11-14% minorities and not exactly 13%, it cannot be considered a quota nor quota-like.

This is almost as remarkable as the next point. Justice Powell said that the Court must presume that academic institutions act in good faith when operating their "plus" programs. In other words, institutions are on their honor to use "plus" programs not to replicate quotas. But this is precisely what they are for -- to achieve a critical mass (which for all intents and purposes is functionally identical to a quota)!

I was and still am stunned. Although I disagree, I can understand when AA supporters argue that, on a societal level, the benefits of racial diversity outweigh the costs of distorted meritocracies. But when people, let alone a Justice, try to use lawyer-ese tricks of semantics to state dubious and fly-in-the-face-of-common-sense arguments, I am flabbergasted. Is there any hope out there?

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
When AA is presented in a way that accurately reflects what it is (20 points out of an effective 110 point scale for being the correct race), the vast majority of people oppose it.

The question is, why didn't CBS/NYT poll AA in a way that accurately reflects what the national debate is about?

Probably because the UM policy isn't indicative of what all colleges do? That's my thought, anyway.

And couldn't this have been added to one of the current posts? I mean, I'm glad you like debating AA and all, but you've said this before...not with the new data, but it's still the same point you've been arguing repeatedly.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by SistaKaren
Probably because the UM policy isn't indicative of what all colleges do? That's my thought, anyway.

And couldn't this have been added to one of the current posts? I mean, I'm glad you like debating AA and all, but you've said this before...not with the new data, but it's still the same point you've been arguing repeatedly.

I agree, Michigans policy is relatively extreme to toher colleges. But that still doesnt mean that what they are doing is right or that we should just ignore it since it doesnt happen that way at every college.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by geneman

In this paper, a former Supreme Court Justice (Powell) -- a person who we assume has the highest powers of reason -- basically argued that so-called "ranges" or "critical masses" are not functional equivalents of quotas. In the case of Michigan, since their 20 point bonus results in 11-14% minorities and not exactly 13%, it cannot be considered a quota nor quota-like.

This is almost as remarkable as the next point. Justice Powell said that the Court must presume that academic institutions act in good faith when operating their "plus" programs. In other words, institutions are on their honor to use "plus" programs not to replicate quotas. But this is precisely what they are for -- to achieve a critical mass (which for all intents and purposes is functionally identical to a quota)!

I was and still am stunned. Although I disagree, I can understand when AA supporters argue that, on a societal level, the benefits of racial diversity outweigh the costs of distorted meritocracies. But when people, let alone a Justice, try to use lawyer-ese tricks of semantics to state dubious and fly-in-the-face-of-common-sense arguments, I am flabbergasted. Is there any hope out there?

I agree with you geneman, this is absolute BS. Powell's logic here is absurd here.

Its virtually impossible for Michigan to get EXACTLY X% minorities in their entering class every year. To do so would be a direct violation of the Bakke court decision, and they are schrewd enough to know this.

So, like snakes, they conjure up this indirect quota system where they somehow pretend to say its not a quota because they dont publish a target goal for minority enrollment. This is absolute BS as well, becuase Michigan has continuously refined the 20 point boost over the years to get the kind of representation they want. Just because it doesnt result in EXACTLY 13% minority representation does not mean its a quota.

Does everybody think that Michigan just sat down one day, and said, "you know a 20 point boost is appropriate for minorities"

Hell no, they carefully thought about it, played with this number for several years to see what kind of minority enrollment they could get, and after a few years, finally setteld on the 20 point bonus because they KNEW it would give them APPROXIMATELY the numbers they wanted every year.

Arguing that this is not a quota shows an utter failure in logic and reasoning.

 

[BushBaby]

Originally posted by lola
🙄 🙄 🙄

AA this, AA that

I hear that...this horse has been beaten soo many times. 🙄