I’m back in effect mode… yeah.

So the Ann Arbor News ran a piece today on Ward’s hustle to raise money for his ballot initiative to ban Affirmative Action in the state of Michigan. The article is fairly basic and doesn’t lend much insight into the complicated discussion of how well citizens can or will be informed/mobilized on this issue. Last week, the A-deuce News ran a story on the EPIC-MRA survey that found 63% of residents are not in support of racial preferences. Note: I said racial preferences, not Affirmative Action. The wording of the question, as reported by the A-deuce News, asked if residents would be in favor of a ballot initiative to “prohibit government agencies or universities from discriminating against or granting any preferential treatment to someone on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”

The language is critically important, dependent on the term used (affirmative action, racial preferences, discrimination, reverse discrimination, etc.) the findings of surveys and polls vary. Below you’ll find an editorial by Doreen O’Donovan, a Ford School student, about the News’ reporting of the poll. I don’t think the Ann Arbor News ever ran her editorial. Boo them!

Dear Editor,

I am surprised that the Ann Arbor News would allow itself to be used as a tool

by the enemies of affirmative action. Your article “Affirmative-action

disfavor” fulfils their dream to confuse the public. The poll was written just

as anti-affirmative action supporters wrote the state ballot proposal: in a

perplexing manner.

The semantics involved in writing polling questions is no accident. Research

supports that the wording of the proposal is more important that the actual

content. Just look at your article. “Respondents were asked whether they

would support a state ballot proposal that would prohibit government agencies

or universities from discriminating against or granting any preferential

treatment to someone on the bases if race, sex, color; ethnicity or national

origin.” What! How many times do you have to read that to figure out what

they are supporting?

University of California Regent Ward Connerly, who founded the American Civil

Rights Institute to end affirmative action policies, has learned from his past

mistakes. Affirmative action was upheld in Texas due to positive phases.

Negative wording was used in the California Civil Rights Initiatives of 1996.

It asked whether voters wanted to “eliminate” affirmative action programs. The

positive wording in the November 1997 referendum in Houston, Texas asked

whether the voters preferred to “retain” the city’s affirmative action program.

Results of vote to eliminate affirmative action in California: 55% Yes, 45% No

Results of vote to retain affirmative action in Houston, Texas: 55% Yes, 45% No

When the Board of State Canvassers approved the ballot proposal on December 12,

protesters primary concern was the wording. As journalist it is our

responsibility to report on the entire story, not just the words fed to you by

the out of state group that proposes to change our state constitution. Point

out the purposely-convoluted wording and how it might affect those who answered

the poll. Ask why Texas was able to control the wording of the ballot and the

Michigan Board of State Canvassers was not. That is the real story.

Don’t forget to look at the ballot initiative language, which is located in the political corner!

Dress warm ya’ll, it’s gonna be a cold winter (in more than one way)!

Filed under: General

Share/Bookmark Share with friends