A Political Battle Grinds On as a War of Wording

“ ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.’ ”

--From “Through the Looking-Glass”

By Lewis Carroll

****

If only Humpty Dumpty were more than a children’s book character, he might be able to settle the linguistic feud over Proposition 209.

The issue of which words should be used in discussing the statewide ballot measure--and what those words mean--will follow voters to the polls in November, playing out over the next five weeks in campaign ads and strategies. It is a semantic tug of war that is obscuring a more serious examination of the policies at stake.

Is Proposition 209 about eliminating “discrimination” and government “preferences,” as proponents describe it? Or about abolishing “affirmative action” and “equal opportunity” programs, as opponents characterize it?

Whatever Californians decide will shape the outcome of the initiative battle, as public support for Proposition 209 rises and falls depending on how it is characterized, polls show. Voters are markedly more enthusiastic about the measure when it is described in terms of preferences.

In this, as with so many other matters, the power to name and define may be all-important.

“We can use language to get people to feel what we want. We’ve known this forever,” said Robin Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley.

Language is so important to the battle that both sides went to court to get their words on the ballot. Initiative proponents lecture reporters and pollsters about their choice of terms in describing the measure. And each side plans to adhere to a script, repeating its mantra of “no preferences” or “equal opportunity through affirmative action.”

In this linguistic duel, the advantage rests with proponents. Even Proposition 209 foes concede that the wording of the initiative is extremely appealing.

“We believe the straight language is our toughest opponent,” said Pat Ewing, manager of the Campaign to Defeat 209.

The measure, an amendment to the California Constitution that would ban state and local government affirmative action programs tailored to women and minorities, makes no mention of affirmative action.

Rather, the initiative says that state and local government “shall not discriminate” or “grant preferential treatment” on the basis of race, sex or national origin in the sectors of public employment, education or contracting.

“I think the people who came up with this were very, very smart,” said Michael Siler, an assistant political science professor at Cal State L.A. “When we go in the voting booth, the mind is going to click and we’re going to say, ‘Yes, I’m against preferences.’ ”

To talk of preferential treatment is to tap into whatever resentment people may harbor about affirmative action policies.

“It’s resonating with something already there in the public,” said Ann Crigler, director of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at USC.

The term “affirmative action” resonates as well, but in a much more complex fashion.

Arnold Steinberg, political strategist for the Proposition 209 campaign, says that when he has surveyed public attitudes toward affirmative action, he has found little consensus.

“It ran from rigid quotas to nondiscrimination and a bunch of shades of gray in between.”

The confusion, suggests UC Riverside political science professor Max Neiman, springs from the absence of a single vision--or version--of affirmative action.

Although affirmative action policies clearly involve preferences, that fuzziness creates room for favorable as well as negative interpretations. Even the word “affirmative” has a positive spin.

All that injects a fluidity into the public’s opinion of Proposition 209.

When voters were told the initiative would ban discrimination and preferential treatment, 59% supported the measure in a statewide July poll by The Times.

When those same voters were read opponents’ description--that the measure would “effectively eliminate state-run affirmative action programs”--support dropped 11%. Other polls have tracked similar trends.

With that in mind, both sides of the battle went scurrying to state courts when official state election materials were released in July. Initiative foes wanted Proposition 209’s ballot title and summary to mention affirmative action. Supporters wanted the state legislative analyst’s office to drop various references to affirmative action in its report on the initiative’s impact.

Each side emerged from the court fight with wins and losses. But the pro-209 camp walked away with the key victory. The title of the initiative--which voters will see on the ballot--describes the measure as a “prohibition against discrimination or preferential treatment.”

Opponents complain bitterly that everything from the name supporters chose for Proposition 209 (the California Civil Rights Initiative) to its phraseology is packed with mom and apple-pie buzzwords that mask its true impact.

Racial and gender discrimination have long been illegal, so to include a discrimination ban in the initiative “is to play off people’s emotions and deceive them,” said Jeffrey Gordon, an attorney for the anti-209 side.

“What the voters need to know is that the programs that are going to be eliminated are known as affirmative action,” he said. “That’s the term people understand. And the reason [the measure’s authors] put preference there is they think it’s a hot-button term that people will vote against.”

Supporters counter that there is nothing devious about the wording. They say a discrimination ban was included because they wanted to reiterate that principle. And they say they do not use the term “affirmative action” because it is too vague.

Moreover, backers emphasize the measure would not ban all affirmative action programs--just those involving race and gender-based preferences. As examples of the kind of efforts that would be allowed under Proposition 209, proponents have said that state agencies could grant contracting preferences to small, fledgling businesses or that public universities could give admission preferences to the economically disadvantaged.

Proponents are so sensitive to the issue that in court proceedings, they disputed not only certain mentions of affirmative action in the state legislative analyst’s report, but which phrases should modify the term.

“Words,” Gordon said, “in this case are king.”