Affirmative action supporters have been more vocal on campus
than the policy’s opponents, but they may not be as numerous
as their voices would suggest.
Policy-watchers, including professors and a UC regent, said
obstacles like intimidation may be muffling the opposition’s
case.
An unscientific Daily Bruin poll indicated a majority of
respondents oppose the policy, though visible on-campus activism
suggests students overwhelmingly favor affirmative action.
The question, posted at the Daily Bruin’s Web site, asked,
“What do you think about affirmative action and the
upcoming Supreme Court case?”
Nearly three out of every four respondents said the policy is
bad, racist or no longer needed, while just over 20 percent called
it “necessary and very valuable.”
The poll had 2164 replies. Controls prevented people from voting
twice with the same computer.
But whether or not the poll means anything is an entirely
different question.
University of California Regent Ward Connerly, well known for
his efforts to remove racial preferences from public life, said the
poll shows that vocal students supporting affirmative action do not
represent entire campuses.
“It validates what I’ve been saying all along, that
this issue is driven by a loudmouth minority,” he said.
Last month, a group of UCLA law students filed a Supreme Court
brief in support of affirmative action, drawing support from
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Inglewood.
On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a
lawsuit filed against the University of Michigan for its use of
affirmative action.
“A lot of that activity has been stimulated by the Supreme
Court case,” said David Sears, a UCLA psychology professor
specializing in race theory.
But public policy Professor Andrew Sabl said that since the poll
did not use a random sample, its results are insignificant.
“From a social science perspective the poll tells you
nothing at all,” he said. “The poll should probably be
discounted altogether.”
Sabl is scheduled to teach a course spring quarter titled,
“The Rights and Wrongs of Affirmative Action.” Sabl
said he plans to use the course to present all sides of the issue
and encourage students of all viewpoints to speak.
Sabl described campus debate on affirmative action at UCLA as
“highly artificial,” and agreed with Connerly that
activists in favor of the policy probably receive attention out of
proportion to their support among the student body as a whole.
“You would think students were overwhelmingly in favor of
affirmative action, and I’d be surprised to think
that’s true,” Sabl said.
Sears said supporters are more active because their position is
currently being threatened.
Many experts predict the conservative high court will rule
against the university, which might ban the use of the affirmative
action policy nationwide.
“It’s probably a calculation based on a judgment
that the court is likely to oppose affirmative action,”
Sears said. “If anything is likely to change, it
has to be changed by the pro-affirmative action side.”
But if large numbers of students disagree with affirmative
action, why are they less vocal?
“Intimidation,” Connerly said. “They
don’t want to speak out publicly about it because it’s
just too risky.”
In February, the Bruin Republicans held a bake sale to
illustrate what they considered the flaws of affirmative action by
charging lower prices for cookies based on the customer’s
gender and ethnicity. Brian Cayton, treasurer for the group, said
he does not worry about taking a public stance against affirmative
action.
“(Affirmative action supporters) might shout at
(opponents) but other than that I don’t think there’s
any danger,” he said.
Cayton said most students oppose affirmative action, but even if
the poll is an accurate representation of views at UCLA, it would
not settle the moral debate over affirmative action and racial
preferences.
Kristina Mishelski, president of Bruin Democrats and a
fourth-year philosophy student, said many students oppose
affirmative action, but for the wrong reasons.
“I think people in general are subject to a lot of
misinformation,” she said, adding many white students think
affirmative action puts them at a disadvantage in the admissions
process, which she said is not true.
Supporters of affirmative action frequently evoke memories of
the Civil Rights movement. During the 2001 rally demanding the UC
Board of Regents repeal SP-1 and 2, the end of affirmative action
at the university was condemned as “resegregation.”
“Proponents of affirmative action have managed to retain
to hold the rhetorical high ground,” Sabl said.
A record number of briefs from outside parties were filed in the
case on both sides in an attempt to sway the court.
President Bush and Connerly filed briefs against the university
in January, alleging its admissions policy amounts to illegal
racial quotas.
But in February a diverse group including General Motors,
Harvard University and former Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted
arguments favoring affirmative action.
The court will have to base its decision on law, not public
opinion. In a similar vein, Sabl said students should not base
their views on on whether a majority agrees with a position.
“In a campus environment, I don’t think we should
worry too much about polls … we should worry more about the
quality of people’s arguments,” he said.