Negative Semantics on Affirmative Issues

Shortly before he did his famous flip-flop on the authorship of “Primary Colors,” The Pundit Formerly Known as Anonymous accused Colin Powell of another kind of flip-flop, one that is of particular interest to Californians as they ponder Proposition 209, the initiative that targets state-run affirmative action programs.

In Powell’s autobiography, Newsweek’s Joe Klein pointed out, the retired general states: “Preferences, no matter how well intended, ultimately breed resentment among the non-preferred. And preferential treatment demeans the achievements that minority Americans win by their own efforts . . . If [affirmative action] leads to preferential treatment or helps those who no longer need help, I am opposed.”

Contrast that with the essence of a speech Powell delivered recently at a university. “Some people will say that affirmative action stigmatizes the recipients. Nonsense,” Powell declared. “Affirmative action provides access for the qualified.”

This was, Klein declared, almost a direct contradiction, or at least an evasive exercise in semantics. Then again, Powell’s words suggest there’s a difference between affirmative action and preferential treatment. This distinction is a key issue in an ongoing court battle over whether the ballot language for Proposition 209 should include the phrase “affirmative action.” A Superior Court judge last week said it should, but state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, a leading proponent of the measure, is appealing the order.

Whatever happens, this much seems clear: When it comes to Proposition 209, the contentious measure first conceived by proponents as the so-called “California Civil Rights Initiative,” there may be no such thing as neutral language.

Note the quotation marks here and there, plus the phrase “so-called,” all to suggest that appearances may be deceiving. I also feel the impulse to refer to “so-called ‘affirmative action,’ ” because the term is so vague and has a subtly pleasing political spin built in. Or does “negative inaction” sound good to you?

*

Webster’s defines “affirmative action” as “a policy or program for correcting the effects of discrimination in the employment or education of members of certain groups . . . “ Affirmative action, thus defined, remains generally popular in polls. But attempts to further clarify the meaning have always made for large swings in opinion.

An analysis written five years ago by the late John Brennan, then director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, may be more relevant now than then. Brennan cited several 1991 polls to demonstrate the importance of semantics in this debate.

In June of that year, Louis Harris asked a sample of adults nationwide, “Do you favor or oppose federal laws requiring affirmative action programs for women and minorities in employment and education, provided there are no rigid quotas?” The results showed 75% in favor, 22% opposed. Among whites, 71% were in favor. One month earlier, another national poll that mentioned blacks but not women, and which did not specifically rule out quotas, showed an approval margin of 57% to 33%, including 52% approval among whites.

Other polls, Brennan noted, suggested that “even less popular than quotas . . . is any policy characterized as a special or racial ‘preference.’ ”

Today, the word “preference” is critical to Proposition 209. Opponents filed suit to protest the wording on the state’s official voter pamphlet, which described it, in bold print, as “Prohibition against discrimination or preferential treatment by state and other public entities.” (Would this halt VIP admissions to the UCs? Just wondering.)

A recent Los Angeles Times poll based one question largely on the measure’s wording, with no mention of “affirmative action.” The results showed 59% in favor, 29% opposed and 12% uncertain. Among white males, the support was 70% and among white females it was 58%.

A follow-up question noted that opponents say Proposition 209 “will effectively eliminate state-run affirmative action programs.” With this caveat, the margin tightened dramatically, with 43% in favor, 40% opposed, and 17% uncertain. Not only did ambivalence grow, but the gender gap widened, with support among white females dropping 18 points to 40%, compared to a 12-point drop to 58% among white males.

*

This poll suggests that Proposition 209 supporters have made headway in arguing that affirmative action is, as Klein puts it, “the euphemism of choice for not-so-subtle racial quotas, for lowered standards instead of expanded opportunities.” But it also explains why these proponents, including Lungren, want to keep the familiar jargon off the ballot.

It isn’t just the positive sound of “affirmative action” that makes the difference. There are different opinions about different programs. Many people who rue the notion that their life might depend on the upper-body strength of a woman firefighter may applaud policies to ensure that disadvantaged, overachieving inner city youths who aren’t gifted athletes have a chance of entering top public universities. Does anybody really think that human spirit and potential can be reduced to an SAT score?

Klein, meanwhile, praises the military model for affirmative action. And, quoting sociologist Charles Moskos, he suggests “a bright line” has to be drawn between “compensatory action”--intensive remedial education to help “members of disadvantaged groups to meet the standards of competition” and “preferential treatment,” in which “those standards are suspended.” And Lungren argues that his department’s own affirmative action office wouldn’t be affected by Proposition 209 because it engages in “outreach,” not preferences.

This ambivalent white male is trying to envision Klein’s “bright line.” Can we have “outreach” and “compensatory action” without preferential treatment? If the military provides such a fine model, does that mean intensive remedial education would be available to adults? How can you get on-the-job training if you can’t get the job to start with?

The hope here is that the stigmas associated with affirmative action would ease, and much of the same goals would be achieved, with a system based on socioeconomic factors rather than one based on race, ethnicity and gender.

This sentiment, however, isn’t much help in deciding how Proposition 209 should be explained on the ballot. Meanwhile, time’s running out. The ballots are due at the printer by Monday.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Please include a phone number.