Wording
This is why so many public opinion polls are worthless:
Ramesh notes the imprecision of the phrase “affirmative action,” a phrase often used by reporters when describing racial preferences. The imprecision is quite useful for supporters of preferences. Voters are far more favorably disposed to policies described as “affirmative action” than they are to policies described as “racial preferences.” When a policy is described as “affirmative action,” polls show an almost even split in support and opposition. In contrast, a Newsweek poll last summer showed that Americans oppose “racial preferences” by a margin of 82%—14%. The opposition to “racial preferences” also includes a plurality of blacks.Support for “affirmative action” evaporates when it’s revealed to mean that a black applicant to an elite school is 200 times more likely to be admitted than a white comparative. Thus, supporters of preferences employ the term “affirmative action”— a benign policy designed to “level the playing field.” Who could be opposed to that?
This is why conservatives work so hard to vilify certain names, terms, and expressions; controlling the language means controlling public opinion, and through that, public policy. It also shows that the more these policies are understood, the more clear-headed public opinion is likely to be. Were people to understand exactly what Affirmative Action is–not the common political canard–there would be almost universal approval. But what has happened is that the quota–something which is not “Affirmative Action”–has been vilified by egregious examples, and then has been lumped in with all other laws and policies regarding prevention and redress of racial discrimination, under the label of “Affirmative Action.” Many people think that AA means forcing any given workplace to hire unqualified black people–many think, in fact, that this is the intended purpose of AA–when the term “Affirmative Action” by itself is nothing more than a set of guidelines which, when examined, are very fair and reasonable. Quotas are something different, coming in many sizes and types; even many quotas would be largely approved of if understood better.
Take this situation, for example. An employer displays a blatant bias for hiring whites over blacks. The employer advertises only in venues likely to be seen by whites, and rarely if ever hires a black person. One black person who is highly qualified does see the ad and applies for a job, and is turned down. They file a complaint with the EEOC, which then comes to the place of employment and does an investigation. The EEOC investigator finds several inequities in the workplace, noting the hiring practices, and that in a community where the qualified workforce is 20% black, the company in question, with 100 employees, only has one black person working there. The EEOC then warns the business that they should follow guidelines, such as advertising to the community in general, rather than specifically to race-limited venues, and that they keep records of the hiring process to show that they gave fair consideration to all applicants. After 18 months, the EEOC investigator returns, and finds that not only has the firm not made any changes to their hiring policies, but they have fired the only black employee, hired no other black people during that time, and have received three more complaints by highly qualified black applicants turned down with no explanation, for which the company has kept no records to prove equity in hiring. The EEOC gives a more stern warning, and goes away for another 18 months. When they return, the situation is unchanged, with more complaints being entered. Finding a rather clear racial bias at the firm, they bring the company to court and sue for a quota to be established. The judge agrees, and tells the company that they must follow EEOC hiring practices and, since they have shown clear disdain for voluntary fair hiring, must hire in a fashion that reflects the makeup of the local qualified workforce. Not the local community, but the qualified workforce. If the people in the community qualified to fill a position are 20% black, their hiring record must reflect that. “What if we can’t find that many qualified black people?” the company owner asks. “If you can prove that none applied, you’re off the hook” is the answer.
This is an example of the process which generates non-legislative-mandated quotas. It is, one could easily argue, very fair. But because it comes under the category of “racial quota,” a majority would disapprove and want it to be thrown out.
Not all quotas follow this process; some are mandated generally, and some are applied unfairly. Some are required under the law, some are completely voluntary, and others are wrongly enforced by people who believe the untrue version and out of fear of imagined prosecution, enforce the stereotype of the unfair quota they somehow think they have to create. Some quotas are good and even necessary, some are not good and should be thrown out. But each type should be considered separately and specifically described, with the rationale and effects clearly laid out, before it is judged; errant cases of mismanagement should not be held up as model cases, but rather the standard implementation under law. Affirmative Action–which, in the strict, specific sense is nothing more than a set of guidelines for fair hiring, treatment, pay, promotion, and firing–should be considered in the same way, as well as all other related issues.
But we don’t do that. Instead, we have public opinion polls which gauge public reactions to terms which are greatly biased due to concentrated political campaigns to distort their perceived meaning. And then we see politicians basing public policy on this.
Conservatives clearly understand this principe and use it as a weapon. To fight abortion, they take the most extreme case possible, twist it out of its true proportion so as to make it look like infanticide, killing healthy babies for selfish, heartless reasons, and then try to classify the entire abortion issue based upon that impression.
As long as we allow ourselves to react to generalities, without demanding clarification and definition, we’ll be open to that kind of manipulation. Of course, the clarification I speak of is largely a task for the media, so I’m not holding my breath or anything.
I’d like to thank you for writing this very informative article. I had always been against affirmative action because I thought it meant that there was a blanket quota being imposed on all business in a general area and one had to hire at least a certain percent of minorities. This is the first place I’ve seen (read) a good explanation of what affirmative action really is; it’s a shame the “Liberal Media” just uses these buzzwords instead of actually explaining what these concepts mean.
Christopher:
The subject is actually quite involved and fascinating. While there are quotas involving government hiring in a variety of venues, quotas are not prevalent in the private sector–although, ironically, many employers, believing the propaganda invented to fight AA, have imposed the precise unjust hiring quotas that are not required but that AA opponents claim. Additionally, where quotas do exist, it seems that a lot of managers do not understand how the system is supposed to work and do not apply it fairly or correctly.
To understand it better, I would like to suggest that you do what I did: make a phone call to your local EEOC office and ask some basic questions, such as “What is Affirmative Action?” “Where do quotas apply in businesses today? “How do quotas work?” I had no concrete reason for calling, I just wanted to find out what it was, so I went to the horse’s mouth. In the conversation I had, for example, asked the question, “what if a business has 1000 workers who are all white, but they can show that the only black people who applied for a job did not have the minimum qualifications, and so did not hire any?” The answer was, they’re within the law, so long as their hiring practices followed fair standards, and no punishment is in order.
The thing about quotas is, they are reactive, not proactive. In a truly fair work environment, if hiring is truly fair, and if the rules of the quota are correctly understood and followed, the quota should have zero affect on hiring. In a fair work environment, you will by chance have a workforce which is balanced with the local workforce in terms of race and gender, with normal variation. Quotas, applied correctly, only snap into action if there is a disparity in hiring. This will not be apparent to the one person whose job application may have been swayed by the quota, but an overall look at the affected environment in question would show a different story.
The problem with perception is that racial discrimination is covert or subconscious by nature; rarely if ever does an employer announce that they hired a white person over a black person because of race, although clearly this does happen. This is an inequity that only becomes apparent when you look at larger numbers. Quotas, on the other hand, are eminently visible; although they do not affect hiring nearly as much as racism does, they appear to have a much greater effect only because they are out in the open. Since people do not see the artificial boost given to white males, there is the impression that the advantage held statistically by that group is simply deserved and fairly won; and since they do see preference given to minorities due to an artificial system, there is the perception of unfairness–even when white males still have the lion’s share of higher-paid, higher-status jobs relative to their demographic in the qualified workforce. If quotas truly were the only unfair process in play, he there should be more minorities and women in those positions; that the reverse is true is proof that a stronger, opposing force is in play.
Sorry, I tend to get on my soapbox when on this topic….