(Name-mce) ListServ The Information Gap on Affirmative Action

[Anselmo Villanueva]

The Information Gap on Affirmative Action By Michele S. Moses and Lauren P.
Saenz <info at insidehighered.com>

Go to website for related stories:
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/11/03/moses


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.

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<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html>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.

Michele S. Moses is associate professor of education at the University of
Colorado at Boulder and author of Embracing Race: Why We Need Race-Conscious
Education Polic <http://store.tcpress.com/0807742376.shtml> (Teachers
College Press). Lauren P. Saenz is a doctoral student in educational
foundations, policy, and practice at the University of Colorado at Boulder.