Monday
September 8, 2008
Advertisement
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Nov. 3, 2006
The Information Gap on Affirmative Action
In a few short weeks, voters in Michigan will vote on the ballot measure known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI). In so doing, they will get to decide whether to eliminate affirmative action in public higher education admissions and government contracting in their state. In itself, the vote may not be cause for alarm.
Related stories
- Delay of Affirmative Action Ban Rejected, Jan. 2, 2007
- Short-Term Reprieve for Affirmative Action, Dec. 20, 2006
- Proxies for Race, Dec. 6, 2006
- Retreat on Affirmative Action?, Nov. 28, 2006
- Michigan Votes Down Affirmative Action, Nov. 8, 2006
What is alarming is that unless they have made the effort to take time out from their busy lives to learn about the myriad pros and cons of affirmative action and the latest research findings regarding the meaning of equality of opportunity and the benefits of a culturally diverse student body and workforce, most Michigan voters will be voting for or against affirmative action based either on their initial intuitions or on information provided by the media. Maybe even that does not seem alarming. But it should.
The decision over MCRI will have significant ramifications not only for people in Michigan, but also for people across the United States. For if it passes, there are likely to be other anti-affirmative action ballot measures placed on the ballots of states that allow such referendums. We could argue about whether it is wise for voters at large to have such authority, but that is not the point here. We are concerned by an issue that Michigan’s debate over MCRI brings up: If members of the voting public have the power to enact public policy, how are they getting the information on which they base their opinions about the issues and their subsequent voting decisions? And further, what sort of information are they getting? Our research on these issues shows that voters are not getting much substantive information on MCRI from news articles.
In the course of investigating the persistent disagreement about affirmative action after the University of Michigan Supreme Court cases, we noticed what appeared to be a disturbing trend within the print news media’s coverage of affirmative action and MCRI. It seemed to us that instead of writing about the deeper moral issues surrounding race-conscious policies like affirmative action, print news pieces focused on covering more sensational aspects related to the aftermath of the Michigan Supreme Court cases and the campaign for MCRI.
By moral issues, we mean, for example, issues having to do with the history of affirmative action in the United States, the multifaceted pros and cons of affirmative action, the impact of previous, similar initiatives in other states, and evidence from research on concepts such as diversity and merit and equality of educational opportunity.
We realize that it is often the case that in elections, the news media tend to pay more attention to the “horse race” between candidates than to the actual issues at stake. Nevertheless, there seems to be something qualitatively different about an election focused on a public policy issue. What else is there to cover if not the issues up for debate?
Moreover, MCRI does not venture into unfamiliar territory. The initiative arises from a distinct — and rather disgraceful — legacy. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, a ballot initiative nearly identical to MCRI. In the years since its passage, California has experienced sharp declines in the number of black and Latino students applying and admitted to state universities, a decrease in the number of contracts awarded to minority-owned businesses and minority contractors, and a significant drop in the number of enrolled minority students at prestigious state law schools. Given all we know about the great academic and social benefits of maintaining a diverse classroom and workplace — benefits affirmed by the Supreme Court in its 2003 decision in Grutter, the passage of Proposition 209 has been a defeat for all Californians. Now that we have evidence of the effects of passing these so-called Civil Rights Initiatives to abolish affirmative action, shouldn’t such information be a clear part of the public debate?
In order to find out what sorts of information potential voters have been receiving about MCRI, we decided to conduct a systematic study of what information the print news media have provided to the public regarding MCRI and the affirmative action debate in the years since the Michigan ballot initiative campaign first was announced in 2003. We read some 280 articles — all that we could find — from print news media and Internet sources between June 2003 and October 2006 that mentioned MCRI. Our sources included national newspapers such as The New York Times; both partisan and nonpartisan magazines such as Time, National Review and The Nation; major local newspapers such as The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press; other local papers such as Lansing State Journal and The Grand Rapids Press; campus papers such as the University of Michigan’s The Michigan Daily and Michigan State University’s The State News; and Internet and education news sources (including Inside Higher Ed).
We looked for evidence that the public was receiving meaningful, substantive information. Substance comes in many forms — we consider an article substantive if it cites any scholarly research on the costs and benefits of affirmative action or implications of affirmative action policies; provides some historical, political or philosophical context of MCRI; or explains beyond superficialities the rationales for and against affirmative action.
Using these (relatively lax) standards, we found that fewer than 13 percent of all print and online news media articles provided any substantive information. For the most part, articles about MCRI did not include any mention of the available scholarly research on the impact of diversity and the implications of anti-affirmative action measures. Nor did they provide the reader with any historical, political or philosophical context — pro or con — for evaluating the policy. They tended to report the day-to-day incidents in the progression of MCRI.
Some of these stories may have been exciting — such as the extensive coverage of reports that an MCRI opponent pulled a knife on MCRI’s director, Jennifer Gratz — but they hardly provide the reader with any meaningful information on which to base an important vote. Most articles centered on less substantive issues like the campaign to get the initiative on the ballot, whether the petitions were valid, or whether local politicians and business leaders supported the initiative. Perhaps the news media believe that they are merely being neutral on the issue.
However, as the Supreme Court decision in Grutter showed through its extensive citations of social science research, the more meaningful information that is available, the more likely people are to understand the complex and important educational benefits of diversity that are fostered by affirmative action. When the press provides information that is not substantive, this has a more negative impact on affirmative action policies.
As state ballot initiative processes become increasingly prominent in elections and public policy decisions, do voters have public opportunities to become informed about the relevant policy issues? Are higher education researchers able to bring their research findings to bear on public debates? And ultimately is deliberative democracy being served?
When individuals vote on ballot initiatives that enact public policy, they are participating in the most direct form of democracy. As such, they should have the opportunity to engage in substantial and meaningful reflection and deliberation over the issues on which they vote. This, in its truest sense, is what we call democratic deliberation. A deliberative democracy, we believe, offers the best chance at resolving persistent moral disagreements, such as those that accompany affirmative action policy. Participation in democratic deliberation requires that individuals be well informed on the policy issues that affect them. For many voters, much information they get on policy issues comes from the print news media. Of course, many people don’t read newspapers; however, readership is correlated with increased voting. Therefore, the quality of democratic deliberation depends in part on the quality of information appearing in newspapers, both the paper and online versions.
We are not attempting to vilify the news media here, for they are only partially responsible for providing the people with meaningful information on important policy debates. Higher education researchers and other stakeholders have a significant responsibility to actively bring their research and viewpoints to bear on relevant education policy issues as well. Unfortunately this is not happening in any significant way; our research shows that fewer than 7 percent of the articles in our database even referred to scholarly research at all.
So, in the case of ballot initiatives against affirmative action, what can researchers and stakeholders do to get their ideas known and understood, if they can’t count on the press? This question is certainly not new, but it is becoming more significant now, as controversial issues of education policy are increasingly being decided by voters via the ballot measure process. Beyond education policy, voters this year are charged with deciding many important public policy issues, like, for instance the stem cell research measure on Missouri ballots.
Rather than write the media off, it is up to us to develop relationships with members of the press and hold them responsible for the information they provide to the public. Researchers in particular can make a concerted effort to follow education policy debates related to their research, monitor the media coverage of such issues, and when they notice a lack of substantive information, be proactive in doing what they can to communicate their research in accessible and meaningful ways, free of jargon and overly complicated theoretical explanations.
Other stakeholders, outside of education research, can participate in the public debate as well, by talking about personal experiences that would shed light. For example, faculty and administrative staff upset about the implication that all minority students are not deserving could share their experiences with talented minority students in classes and on campus or talk about the differential impact of teaching classes where all students share the same socioeconomic or racial background compared to classes with a more diverse make-up.
Actions would include contributing letters to the editor and op-ed pieces whenever relevant. In addition, researchers and other stakeholders can maintain close contact with local or university media relations offices to make sure that they learn the most effective means of communicating their ideas to the media and the larger public. The key here is that in order to foster the public deliberation over controversial political issues required by a deliberative democratic society, the news media, education researchers, and other stakeholders need to be linked in providing important information to the public regarding education policy issues up for popular vote. Researchers often have the empirical evidence that can help bring substance to policy debates and the news media have the means to publicize substantive policy information. They ought to be working together to see that relevant ideas — ideas that are based in research and at least somewhat transcend partisan political bickering — get to the voting public.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Why Voters Should Approve MCRI
The author of this article is clearly not interested in substantive discussion about racial preferences but academic propaganda, produced in a vacuum where the victims and injustices of discrimination are glossed over soliberal white people can feel good about themselves.
Frederick Glaysher Why Voters Should Approve the Michigan Civil Rights Initiativehttp://www.fglaysher.com/MCRI/
Frederick Glaysher, at 6:35 am EST on November 3, 2006
Serious Misinformation
“In so doing, they will get to decide whether to eliminate affirmative action in public higher education admissions and government contracting in their state.”
Talk about misinformation. MCRI outlaws preferential treatment based on race, not affirmative action (outreach programs, for example). They are different and always have been. This is why the legislation is essential: People have officially arrived at the point where they demand the right to commit race discrimination in the name of affirmative action.
JBM, at 6:50 am EST on November 3, 2006
What a patronizing article. There is no shortage of information about the arguments for and against affirmative action in the media, and there has certainly been ample coverage of the effects of the California ballot initiative on admissions at the elite schools in the UC system. This is not a case of an electorate kept in in ignorance by irresponsible media. This is a clash of values. I believe most Americans who support ballot initiatives like California’s and Michigan’s appreciate both fairness in admissions and the benefits of racial diversity, but when forced to choose between these values, they favor fairness in admissions. They doubt policies they perceive as diluting academic standards and passing the failures of the public school system up to the colleges and universities to solve. The authors may disagree with such positions, but this is an honest disagreement about policy and values, not a problem of voter ignorance.
Mommy, at 7:55 am EST on November 3, 2006
Fundamental mistake
I think this article makes a clear, yet common mistake among academic social scientists. One sees it on research on issues like gun control, capital punishment and criminal sentencing. Some aspects of these issues are amenable to social scientific analysis (i.e., what is the effect of MCRI type programs on racial enrollments, what are the results of gun control legislation, does the death penalty deter, etc.). But these are not the only issues that could be, and probably should be, salient to voters. If affirmative action leads to more diversity in higher ed, and if greater diversity even leads to certain desired and measurable outcomes, this still does make the systematic preference for and discrimination against ethnic groups morally right. For example, imagine the bulk of social scientific research found that the death penalty had deterent effects. Would those who think it morally wrong to kill to avenge a murder, morally wrong to kill even if it is ‘utilitarian’ to do so, have to change their minds? I should think not. Some facets of the issue of affirmative action are not empirical as much as normative: is it fair that the poor white kid from rural Michigan gets less points by virtue of his race than a rich African-American kid from Lansing, even if studies suggest that such a program leads to greater diversity in the end? Most people would say no, and this common sense rightly trumps all the ’studies’ in the world...
Ken, at 9:10 am EST on November 3, 2006
Bigger issue
I think the bigger issue in Michigan is the lack of initiative by the legislators to deal with these dificult issues (Higher ed funding, Affirmative action, Dove humting etc), The atmosphere in Lansing is “I do not want to deal with these issues, let the voters decide". That produces a do nothing legislature.
LAR, at 10:30 am EST on November 3, 2006
Look, if you really want more information out there, I’ll believe you if you do one thing—take a poll of everyone on how big the boost from affirmative action is; check what most people think are the differences in stats for people admitted through the program and for students who aren’t.
1. These are numbers universities have been very hesitant to publish on their own.
2. From debating with people who support the program, I always have to links to this ready because it’s rare that I run into someone on the other side of the debate who will concede that it’s as large as every study I have seen on this shows it to be.
The reason I’m bringing this up is because if you don’t like a lack of information, this is something that also goes in your favor. If you want to correct it, feel free to include these when you’re informing the general public.
SB, at 11:45 am EST on November 3, 2006
Deliberative democracy
Indeed the bigger issue is that this hot-button wedge issue has been shelved by a state congress unable to deal with it, and passed on to a voting public that does not have the resources to adequately address it. As a voter in Colorado, I face a similar state of affairs this year: a record-long ballot containing ammendments and initiatives on everything from water, land-use, to marijuana and gay marriage. These are issues that ought to be resolved in legislatures by passing laws which can then be reviewed in the courts. Sadly, the polarization of politics has forced politicians to pass the buck onto voters. That said, the article explicitly states it will not address these broader issues, instead focusing on the important issue of information distribution and democratic decision-making.
I appreciate the effort of the authors to quantify in a meaningful way the kind of information received by voters through the media. This in contrast to Mr. Glaysher’s typical assesment, published on his blog: “given the media’s censoring real discussion and having gone over almost completely into negative propaganda against MCR,” which is corroborated with no evidence, apparently in response to a particular incident recently covered in the press.
The fact is that “values” issues like affirmative action (or immigration, abortion, marriage, etc.) are tractable through the common methods of social science and historical research. From an epistemological perspective, our “values” are based on a large set of empirical data, life experiences, habits and beliefs. These are all subject to modification through more data, especially good, reasonable and well-founded data, like what is suggested in the article. This article raises a very important issue for consideration: it criticizes the status of democratic decision-making, which is based on voter’s values, as these values are informed by news media.
The article provides evidence to support the claim that the current state of information distribution is not adequate for the average voter in Michigan to make an informed decision about this issue; and it suggests ways to improve dialogue between academics, who have the capacity to perform the kind of research needed, and media orginazations, who have the capacity to reach wide audiences.
Nathan Smith, at 12:15 pm EST on November 3, 2006
Grutter unwound
There is probably no more widely misunderstood and misreported Supreme Court decision than Grutter v Bollinger, the U of Michigan affirmative action case. These so-called researchers contribute to the clutter.
They wrote: “Given all we know about the great academic and social benefits of maintaining a diverse classroom and workplace — benefits affirmed by the Supreme Court in its 2003 decision in Grutter, the passage of Proposition 209 has been a defeat for all Californians...”
The majority in Grutter made no finding about either the academic or social benefits of diverse classrooms. The Court certainly made no such findings about the workplace. Workplace diversity was not even an issue before the Court in Grutter.
With respect to educational diversity, the Court merely stated that it would “defer” to the University’s claim that there were such benefits — a finding unique in Supreme Court constitutional civil rights jurisprudence.
But most important, the Court in no way enshrined race preferences. The Court stressed the importance of race-neutrality and it actually endorsed race-neutral efforts like California’s Proposal 209 and, by inference, Michigan’s Proposal 2. The Court held in Grutter:
“Universities in California, Florida, and Washington State, where racial preferences in admissions are prohibited by state law, are currently engaged in experimenting with a wide variety of alternative approaches. Universities in other States can and should draw on the most promising aspects of these race-neutral alternatives as they develop...”
Bill, at 3:50 pm EST on November 3, 2006
Grutter v. Bollinger
Untrue Bill.
I’m no lawyer, but I can read. The majority decision by Justice O’Connor establishes a “critical mass” criterion, which clearly does not endorse the establishment of “quotas,” but does recognize that achieving a critical mass of underrepresented students would provide “educational benefits” that are “substantial, important, and laudable.” In support of this concept, O’Connor says, “The Law School’s claim is further bolstered by numerous expert studies and reports showing that such diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for society, and for the legal profession.”
Scalia and Rhenquist deny the “critical mass” criterion, conceiving of this as a cover for racial quotas. They also deny the “educational benefit” that is accrued by a racially diverse environment. However, Scalia goes on to parse this last term so finely that he appears to uphold every substantial claim that O’Connor had seen fit to call upon when describing the “educational benefits” of a racially diverse University.
Nathan Smith, at 5:15 am EST on November 4, 2006
Someone made a crazy comment about passing the failures of the public schools up to the university system. As a product of urban public schools, I graduated high school prepared to deal with an America of increasing cultural and linguistic diversity, which served me well in college and beyond. I was somewhat behind my peers in my comprehension and analysis skills, but I had professors who were able to tailor their instruction to meet my needs, as well as those of others in my classes. That is good teaching, something to which ALL institutions of higher education shoud aspire. Universities should absolutely consider the demographics of their student populations so that they are meeting the loftier ideals of education for the greater good of society.
Patrick, at 5:26 am EST on November 4, 2006
Say what?
If “research” shows the media need “educating” about this issue —
Why have most, if not all, of Michigan’s major newspapers supported the authors’ political position on this proposal?
What would “research” say about that? Is there a “bias” here?
L.L., at 8:20 pm EST on November 5, 2006
To Ken
Ken comments about the poor rural white student and the wealthy black student as some sort of evidence of the “common sense” we should use in evaluating affirmative action. Common sense is exactly what’s needed. First, I’m sure that the poor white student got “points” for his poverty. Second, to think that rich black people don’t deserve affirmative action consideration misses a critical point-they are still black! The black experience in this country is experienced at all socioeconomic levels. My “upper-middle class” black children have lived in nice suburbs most of their lives but that didn’t stop my son from being called a nigger at age 9 (in 1995) or from being racially profiled by police this summer. I’m sure his black mid-class experiences add to the knowledge of his white classmates in his college classrooms.
andy, at 9:40 am EST on November 7, 2006
“First, I’m sure that the poor white student got “points” for his poverty. Second, to think that rich black people don’t deserve affirmative action consideration misses a critical point-they are still black! The black experience in this country is experienced at all socioeconomic levels. My “upper-middle class” black children have lived in nice suburbs most of their lives but that didn’t stop my son from being called a nigger at age 9 (in 1995) or from being racially profiled by police this summer.”
The problem is –
There are points for being poor. These are usually much less than the points you get just because of someone’s race. This is something they emphasize in the Michigan case.
Besides that though, it’s horrible your son was treated that way.
Do you honestly think being called the epithet or even having been racially profiled presents roadblock to being admitted to college necessitating a over 100-point boost on the SAT? The person who did that is a ****bag. Having had that happen, do you really think that meets the level of requiring a boost greater than some kid growing up in some rural home slightly above the poverty line whose parents didn’t go to college?
SB, at 12:20 pm EST on November 7, 2006
Moses and Saenz complain that the news media published few “substantive” reports on the MCRI, when you define “substantive” reports as those which cite social scientists like themselves. They fear that this will mislead the voters who will vote on the initiative.
They wouldn’t be so concerned if they knew how little the public trusts the news media today. This is particularly true on the issue of racial quotas in education and employment, where the public’s skepticism is entirely justified.
The website of the American Society of Newspaper Editors says “We are committed to helping our newsrooms meet racial parity with their communities and the nation by 2025...We track progress through our annual newsroom employment census, released each spring at our convention.”
Intelligent people can favor or oppose racial quotas or the MCRI, according to how they weigh the issue. But, no intelligent person can trust the media coverage of the issue by an association of newspaper editors who are officially committed to one side.
Jack Olson, at 1:20 pm EST on November 7, 2006
Here is the text of the MCRI (in PDF, scroll down):http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Statewide_Bal_Prop_Status_145801_7.pdf
The article seems disingenuous. A serious article would compare the claimed 13% “substantive media coverage” with similar measures for other issues.
My views on AA are mixed: I support racial preferences for in enrollment in law schools, but not in medical schools. A blanket ban needlessly ties the hands of law-makers; it would deprive them of tools that might be useful in other contexts. For example, some colleges are looking at means for recruiting more males.
Having the ban cover the K12 system could have all kinds of unintended effects. This is way too broad.
After reading the MCRI I have too ask, why does in not include a ban on legacy as a factor in admissions?
The people of Michigan have made clear they have deep concerns about AA programs. They should elect legislators who will examine this complex issue carefully and find ways to meet the need for fairness and to address past and present dicrimination against black Americas and others in our society.
Mike, Math Prof, at 2:05 pm EST on November 7, 2006
Many are on the defensive about the article, but the reality of the matter is that media is just as much a part of the political process as anything else.
The campaign to ban affirmative action is strategically masked and marketed in a misleading fashion. Prior efforts that were clear and concise — failed! (Houston...)
And many who voted on the bill just didn’t have a clear understanding of the whole issue and idea.
That tells me that educators, legislators and media didn’t do an efficient job. Also, voters aren’t doing their part in educating themselves.
New One, at 8:45 pm EDT on June 22, 2007
Advertisement
Jobs Related to The Information Gap on Affirmative Action
or search for jobs directly.
2008/09 Lecturer/Teaching Specialist — Creative Writing
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Physician Faculty-Assistant Residency Director
East Carolina University
East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job
Technical Operations Manager
Montana State University
The Center for Biofilm Engineering (CBE) was established in 1990 as a National Science Foundation Engineering Research ... see job
Assistant Professor — Physics and Astronomy
James Madison University
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Research Technician/Senior Research Technician — Anatomy
Tufts University
RESEARCH TECHNICIAN/SR RESEARCH TECHNICIAN- Anatomy see job
Assoc Dir Student Receivables (Assoc Bursar)
University of Alabama
The University of Alabama Office of Student Receivables (Bursar) is seeking candidates for the position of Associate ... see job
Assistant Professor: Social Sciences & Human Development — Job ID 916
SUNY — Empire State College
SUNY Empire State College seeks to appoint faculty with the online programs of the Center for Distance Learning. The Center ... see job
Assistant Director for Greek Life/Student Organizations
Western Carolina University
A.K. Hinds University Center’s Mission Statement: A.K. Hinds University Center’s mission is to provide a dynamic and ... see job
Post-Doctoral Associate
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Associate Dean for Faculty
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
Two legs bad, four legs good
“Educate journalists?” You mean, berate them, until they echo what you say?
News-flash: no one holds an exclusive license on truth, including social scientists and news-reporting journalists. But at least with journalists, one side is often not “shut-out” of discussions.
After two generations of affirmative action, there are frank, honest disagreements about the general benefits of specific-based preferences. When top-ranked public universities have at least three qualified candidates for each opening — two are going to be unhappy. If the authors cannot see all that, they are lost.
B.D., ex-journalist, at 5:55 am EST on November 3, 2006