A SURVEY OF THE ATTITUDES OF A CROSS-
SECTION OF AMERICAN WOMEN AND MEN AND A
CROSS-SECTION OF VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA
ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, ABORTION, AND OTHER
KEY ISSUES AFFECTING WOMEN AND MINORITIES
Prepared for
Feminist Majority Foundation
April 1995
Design and Analysis by
Louis Harris
Conducted by
Peter Harris Research Group, Inc.
New York, N.Y.
The basic purpose of this study from the outset has been to explore in depth
among a cross-section of women and men nationwide public attitudes on a number
of the most important issues which face women in this country today. These
include a woman's right to choose in the case of abortion, problems encountered
by women in the work place, violence and spousal abuse, key items in the agenda
of the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, welfare, feminism
and participation in women's organizations, women and public office, and favorable-unfavorable
ratings of key women's groups and other institutions, as well as leading public
figures.
However, as the study evolved, it was increasingly apparent that the issue
of affirmative action was looming as critical to not only those concerned
with women's rights, but for civil rights and legal groups involved in the
rights issue as well. Indeed, after columnist William Safire wrote early in
the year that social issues seemed to be superseding economic issues as pivotal
in national elections, and that the two wedge issues were likely to be abortion,
working for the Democrats, and affirmative action, working for the Republicans,
affirmative action became a front and center political issue. Thus, it was
decided that the affirmative action issue would receive major attention in
the survey and that an additional cross-section of California voters, testing
the waters on the likely anti-affirmative action initiative, would be included.
California is viewed as the testing ground on affirmative action because
of the impending initiative prepared by opponents of affirmative action, which
likely will be voted on next year. The proposition is worded this way:
"The state will not use race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential
treatment to, any individual or group in the operation of the State's system
of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
The net effect of passage of this initiative would be to outlaw affirmative
action in California.
This proposition was tested nationally as well as in California and the entire
issue has been probed in considerable depth in this study, along with the
conclusions reached on its implications and its impact on the key political
races for control of the White House and Congress in 1996.
In all, a cross-section of 1364 adults was interviewed nationally and a cross-section
of 800 adults was interviewed in California. However, in order to have special
breakdowns of key groups of women, it was decided that the national sample
would consist of 955 women and 409 men. In the final results, men were weighted
up to 48% of the national sample. In California, the unweighted sample consisted
of 443 women and 357 men, but this sample was weighted 50% men and 50% women,
according to correct census estimates on gender in the California adult population.
A copy of the complete questionnaires used, along with annotated overall results
for each question are included in the back of this report. The national questionnaire
contained questions on all of the subjects in the survey. The California survey
included only the questions dealing with affirmative action, abortion, and
political behavior, along with full demographics. Inquiries about special
breakdowns of the results can be obtained from the office of Peter Harris
Research Group, Inc. in New York at (212)-427-8072.
The sampling, field work, computer tabulations, charts and tables, and report
preparation were contracted with the New York research firm of Peter Harris
Research Group. All women were interviewed by female interviewers and all
men by male interviewers, in order not to introduce cross-gender bias. Interviewing
was conducted by telephone using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing
(CATI) system operated by MKTG, Inc. of East Islip, N.Y. Louis Harris has
served as an independent consultant and analyst on the study. Mr. Harris has
had long experience in surveying racial and gender issues, including affirmative
action. He wrote the questionnaires and the analysis of this report. He must
bear the responsibility for the content, wording, and analytic portions.
This study follows the practice of releasing the results of every question
asked and the wording used in each question, as well as the question sequence.
This is in the best practice of the field of public opinion research. Field
work on the study was conducted from March 16 to April 3, 1995.
METHODOLOGY
The basic purpose of this study from the outset has been to explore in depth
among a cross-section of women and men nationwide public attitudes on a number
of the most important issues which face women in this country today. These
include a woman's right to choose in the case of abortion, problems encountered
by women in the work place, violence and spousal abuse, key items in the agenda
of the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, welfare, feminism
and participation in women's organizations, women and public office, and favorable-unfavorable
ratings of key women's groups and other institutions, as well as leading public
figures.
However, as the study evolved, it was increasingly apparent that the issue
of affirmative action was looming as critical to not only those concerned
with women's rights, but for civil rights and legal groups involved in the
rights issue as well. Indeed, after columnist William Safire wrote early in
the year that social issues seemed to be superseding economic issues as pivotal
in national elections, and that the two wedge issues were likely to be abortion,
working for the Democrats, and affirmative action, working for the Republicans,
affirmative action became a front and center issue. Thus, it was decided that
the affirmative action issue would receive major attention in the survey and
that an additional cross-section of California voters, testing the waters
on the likely anti-affirmative action initiative, would be included.
California is viewed as the testing ground on affirmative action because
of the proposed initiative prepared by opponents of affirmative action, which
likely will be voted on next year. The proposition is worded this way:
"The state will not use race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential
treatment to, any individual or group in the operation of the State's system
of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
The net effect of passage of this initiative would be to outlaw affirmative
action in California.
This proposition was tested nationally as well as in California, and the
entire issue has been probed in considerable depth in this study, along with
the conclusions reached on its implications and its impact on the key political
races for control of the White House and Congress in 1996.
In all, a cross-section of 1364 adults was interviewed nationally and a cross-section
of 800 adults was interviewed in California. However, in order to have special
breakdowns of key groups of women, it was decided that the national sample
would consist of 955 women and 409 men. In the final results, men were weighted
up to 48% of the national sample. The margin of error for the national survey
is +/- 2%. In California, the unweighted sample consisted of 443 women and
357 men, but this sample was weighted 50% men and 50% women, according to
correct census estimates on gender in the California adult population. The
margin of error for the California cross-section is +/- 3%. A copy of the
complete questionnaires used, along with annotated overall results for each
question, are included at the end of this report. The national questionnaire
contained questions on all of the subjects in the survey. The California survey
included only the questions dealing with affirmative action, abortion, and
political behavior, along with full demographics. Inquiries about special
breakdowns of the results can be obtained from the office of Peter Harris
Research Group, Inc. in New York at (212)-427-8072.
The sampling, field work, computer tabulations, charts and tables, and report
preparation were contracted with the New York research firm of Peter Harris
Research Group. All interviews were conducted by telephone with adults at
least eighteen years of age using random digit dialing from a national probability
sample of households, which ensures that every household in the United States
has an equal chance of being included in the Survey. Interviewing was conducted
by telephone using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system
operated by MKTG, Inc. of East Islip, N.Y. All women were interviewed by female
interviewers and all men by male interviewers, in order not to introduce cross-gender
bias. Louis Harris has served as an independent consultant and analyst on
the study. Mr. Harris has had long experience in surveying racial and gender
issues, including affirmative action. He wrote the questionnaires and the
analysis of this report. He must bear the responsibility for the content,
wording, and analytic portions.
Field work on the study was conducted from March 16 to April 3, 1995.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SHOWDOWN ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
When the California Initiative to End Affirmative Action Is Tested, It Wins
81% to 11%
To obtain a true reading of how the American people feel about the imitative
to end affirmative action in California, the cross-section of 1364 adults
was first asked in they favored or opposed the referendum, which is worded
this way:
"The state will not use race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as
a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment
to, any individual or group in the operation of the state's system of public
employment, public education, or public contracting."
It should be noted that affirmative action is not mentioned in the initiative,
although both proponents and opponents of it agree that it would effectively
end affirmative action, if adopted.
By 81% to 11%, an overwhelming majority say they would favor this proposition
if it is offered in their state. All groups, sections of the country, including
those who favor or oppose affirmative action, blacks, Latinos, women, liberals,
and Democrats all say they would favor the initiative.
But, Support Collapses When People Are Told Passage Would Affect Affirmative
Action
All those who said they favored passage of the anti-affirmative action initiative
in California were asked three questions:
"Would you still favor this preposition if it would outlaw all affirmative
action programs for women and minorities?"
"Would you still favor this proposition if it would discourage or even end
programs to help women and minorities to achieve equal opportunities in education
and employment?"
"Would you still favor this proposition if it would discourage or even end
programs to give women and minority-owned businesses a chance to compete with
other businesses on getting government contracts?"
The results are dramatic, showing a wholesale collapse of support for the
anti-affirmative action initiative:
If passage of the initiative in "outlawing all affirmative action programs
for women and minorities," then the 81% in support of the proposition drops
52 points to 29% and opposition rises 47 points from 11% to 58%.
If passage "discourages or even ends programs to help women and minorities
achieve equal opportunities in education and employment," then the 81% support
drops 50 points to 31% and opposition rises 45 point from 11% to 56%.
If passage "discourages or even ends programs to give women and minority-owned
businesses a chance to compete with other businesses in getting government
contracts," then support for the initiative drops 50 points from 81% to
31% and opposition rises 45 points from 11% to 56%.
Earlier this year, the New York Times came up with similar polling results
in another area: public opinion on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
Fully 80% of the public favored such an amendment. However, Republican leaders
refused to exempt Social Security from spending cuts that could result from
passage of the amendment. When a question was written to inform people of
this fact, support for the Balanced Budget Amendment in the New York Times/CBS
Poll collapsed 50 points to no more than 30%.
Much as happened when the New York Times raised the consequences to Social
Security if a Balanced Budget Amendment were to pass, so, too, when people
realize the impact of the California initiative upon affirmative action, then
a transparent majority in favor of the proposition evaporates.
Why The California Initiative Fails with the American People
On the surface, the initiative suggests that women and minorities should
not be discriminated against and preferential treatment can't be used. But,
in fact, both opponents and proponents of the initiative agree that it will
end affirmative action in California. It is worded to make it easy to vote
for. But, when its real intent is made known, then disillusion about the initiative
sets in, and deep resentment takes place about being tricked into voting for
something they did not think they were voting for.
Here are the key reasons why the voters of California will switch from initial
overwhelming support for this initiative to decisive opposition:
The Public Backs Affirmative Action When Asked Directly About It
When a quite different proposition was presented to the cross-section
which in effect is a straight up-or-down vote on affirmative action, the
result is a solid 68% to 25% majority who support it. The wording on that
proposition:
"The state may use affirmative action programs designed to help women,
minorities, and others who have not had equal opportunities in education,
employment, and in receiving government contracts to achieve equal opportunities."
By Double Digit Margins, The Public Supports Affirmative Action for
Women and Minorities
A clear majority of 53% to 39% say they favor "federal laws requiring
affirmative action programs for women, provided there are no rigid quotas."
A comparable 50% to 34% majority also favors "federal laws requiring
affirmative action programs for Latinos, provided there are no rigid
quotas."
A 49% to 36% plurality also favors "federal laws requiring affirmative
action programs for blacks, provided there are no rigid quotas."
It Is Neither Fair Nor Honest to Use the Terms "Affirmative Action
and "Preferential Action Interchangeably"
Opponents of affirmative action use the phrase "Preferential Treatment"
to describe "Affirmative Action." The two terms have vastly different
meanings to whites in America. Minorities obviously are pro-affirmative
action by margins larger than whites. A critical question is whether "affrimative
action" and "prferential treatment" are viewed as the same by whites.
Beyond any shadow of doubt, among whites, "affirmative action" and "preferential
treatment" are not the same:
"Affirmative Action" means to a 71% to 20% nationwide majority of whites
"making opportunities for everyone, including women and minorities."
By contrast, "Preferential Treatment" means "reverse discrimination --against
white men" to a 47% to 38% plurality of whites.
By 55% to 33% among whites, "Preferential Treatment" means "hiring minorities
and women who are not otherwise qualified over qualified white men."
In sharp contrast, by 65% to 26%, a majority of whites reject the claim
that "Affirmative Action" means "giving one race or one group an advantage
they don't deserve."
The ultimate proof that "Affirmative Action" and "Preferential Treatment"
are utterly different is made clear by this highly negative statement, read
to a cross-section of whites nationwide. The statement is "Affirmative action
really means taking unqualified women and minorities and giving them preferential
treatment over qualified white men." A clear-cut 61% to 31% majority of
white America answers back categorically that they disagree with that claim.
They are saying that "preferential treatment" does this but "affirmative
action" does not.
When the same cross-section of whites is asked if they favor or oppose preferential
treatment programs, it comes as no surprise that no more than 45% of all whites
favor preferential treatment for any group. A narrow 45-44% plurality does
favor it for women, but they oppose preferential treatment programs for Latinos
by 47% to 40% and for blacks by 46% to 41%. By contrast, whites favor affirmative
action favor affirmative action programs for women by 54% to 33%, for Latinos
by 50% to 35%, and for blacks by 51% to 34%.
It must therefore be concluded that it is not only misleading to use "Affirmative
Action" and "Preferential Treatment" interchangeably, but it is nothing less
than deceitful as well. It must be noted again that the California initiative
uses the word "Preferential Treatment" and completely avoids use of the term
"Affirmative Action." It is highly unlikely that that important omission was
inadvertent.
Key Group Shifts from Favoring to Opposing the California Imitative
When support for the California initiative collapses from 81% to 31%, only
three groups fail to shift from the favorable to unfavorable column: those
white men who feel affirmative action discriminates against white men, who
remain pro-initiative by 53-39%; those who voted Republican for Congress in
1994 who are still pro-initiative by 48% to 39%, and those who voted for Bush
in 1992, still pro-initiative by 47% to 40%. All others, including conservatives,
white men, southerners, Dole '96 voters, and those who will vote Republican
for Congress in 1996 all shift to pluralities or majorities in opposition
to the initiative when the for affirmative action if it passes are fully realized.
There is a big gender gap that takes place in the shift. While men drop from
81% to 36%, a decline of 44 points in support for the imitative, women drop
from 80% to 24%, a drop of a full 56 points. The biggest single shift takes
place among the most articulate of all women, those who hold down managerial
jobs -- from 76% to 14%, a drop of 62 points.
A Closer Look at Men Who Feel Affirmative Action Discriminates Against
Men
Much has been made of the supposedly key role played by presumed angry white
men in the 1994 Republican sweep of Congress. In this study, white men who
feel affirmative action discriminates against white men were able to be examined
in depth. All white, this male group makes up 19% of the adult population,
and, in 1994, they were 21% of those who came out to vote. They tend to be
more baby boomer in age, to have a two year college education, to be more
drawn from middle management than blue collar types.
They are far more conservative than the public as a whole: 18 points more
favorable to Speaker Gingrich than the nation, 15 points les favorable to
President Clinton, 22 points more favorable to Rush Limbaugh, and 15 points
more favorable to the gun lobby. Fully 47% call themselves conservatives,
compared with the national average of 36%. And 42% are Republicans, compared
with 28% in the in '92.
In their jobs, they are far more satisfied than women: 87% are satisfied
with their pay compared with women doing comparable work (only 65% of employed
women feel this way abut themselves compared with men doing comparable work);
and 78% are confident they will get a good deal in getting promoted compared
with women with similar qualifications (only 57% of women feel this way about
themselves compared with men with similar qualifications).
This data might suggest far more cause for "angry employed women" than
"angry white men," as this group has been described. In fact, the employed
women group more than counterbalances these white men who feel affirmative
action discriminates against men. Employed women, 24% of the work force and
26% of the electorate, more moderate, voted 56% to 38% Democratic for Congress
in 1994.
The Weight of the Arguments on affirmative Action Pro and Con
Working for affirmative action are these arguments:
By 78-19%, a sizable majority nationwide agrees that "After many years
of not receiving equal opportunities, it is only fair to set up programs
to make sure that women and minorities get every chance to have equal opportunities."
By 66% to 29%, a 2 to 1 majority feels elimination of affirmative action
will mean "women and minorities will not receive equal pay and some will
be paid less."
By 60% to 36%, a majority is convinced that elimination of affirmative
action will likely mean that "women will have fewer job opportunities and
some will even lose their jobs."
Working against affirmative action are these arguments:
By 50% to 39%, a majority believe one consequence of elimination of affirmative
action will be that "reverse discrimination against white men will decrease
sharply."
By 59% to 35%, an almost identical majority believes that if affirmative
action is eliminated, "hiring decisions will be based on merit only."
Although a 54% to 34% majority rejects the claim that "once affirmative
action programs are started, the result is bound to be reverse discrimination
against white men," white male middle managers endorse this view by 49%
to 46% and white men disagree with it only by 48% to 46%. Obviously, this
argument shores up critical male support for the anti-affirmative action
cause. However, women reject this claim by a decisive 2 to 1, by 56% to
29%.
One fact, however, is indelibly clear: if anti-affirmative action forces
try to label "affirmative action" "preferential treatment," then they are
likely to be victimized by a backlash of trying to deceive and to trick voters
by manipulation with false and misleading symbols and words.
The Political Cut of the Affirmative Action Issue
The national cross-section was asked:
"Now suppose in next year's presidential election, you found a candidate
whose views you agreed with almost completely on issues of concern to you.
Then suppose that candidate took a position on affirmative action you disagreed
with completely. Would that make you certain not to vote for that candidate,
probably not vote for that candidate, or could you still vote for that candidate?"
When the results of this questions are applied separately to those who are
pro-affirmative action and those opposed to it and then compared, the net
shift of votes over an issue can be determined. In the case of affirmative
action for women, 10% of the total vote say they can be moved by the affirmative
action issue. they divide 65% to 35% on the side of the pro-affirmative action
group. Thus, 6.5% of the total vote will move toward the candidate of the
pro group and 3.5% will move toward the candidate of the anti group, for a
net swing of 3 points. The same identical pattern works in the case of affirmative
action for blacks. In the case of affirmative action for Latinos, the advantage
for the pro side slips to only 2 points.
At least as the showdown over affirmative action begins, rather than affirmative
action being a losing issue and a "wedge" that can work against the Democratic
candidate for president who probably must favor it, affirmative action now
is working more for the pro-affirmative action than the anti-affirmative action
side -- not by a lot, but certainly it is not a losing issue for those who
advocate keeping affirmative action under the law.
THE PIVOTAL ISSUE OF ABORTION
The issue of a woman having the right to choose whether or not to have an
abortion with the advice of her doctor is as clear-cut and decisive an issue
as any in America in the mid-1990s. Up until 1985, the division on this issue
was close nationwide. But, after the Webster decision, the balance shifted
from a close 48% to 46% in favor to a pro-choice majority that climbed to
the mid-50 percent range and then into the 60 percent range in the 1990s.
In this survey, on the basic right of a woman to choose to have an abortion,
with the advice of her physician, the division nationwide is 71% to 24% in
favor of choice. By the same token, an even more decisive 74% to 20% opposes
a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. There is little doubt that the
margins favoring abortion have been heightened by public outrage over the
recent murders at abortion clinics, condemned by 94% of the public. Three
in every four people favor the Justice Department sending in marshals to take
action to protect abortion clinics from attack.
Abortion has become a major, front and center issue with women in America.
And it is an active issue in elections. In 1992, for example, the actions of
the Republican Platform Committee in Houston on the choice issue triggered a
defection from President Bush of white suburban women in key big northern states
from which he never recovered.
Over 1 in 6 voters -- 17% of the electorate -- say they are certain they
would shift their vote away from a candidate who took a position opposite
their own on the right to choose. That 17% comes down 71% to 29% on the side
of those who are pro-choice. This means that 12% of the vote nationally could
switch against an anti-abortion candidate, while only 5% would switch against
a pro-abortion candidate. This represents a potential swing of 7 full points
in the standing in a presidential race, meaning a 50-50 contest could be turned
into a 57% to 43% landslide for a pro-choice candidate on that issue alone.
The vast majority of these potential switchers are women, 60% of the total.
Women are also more concerned over the affirmative action issue than men,
making up two-thirds of the vote that would switch against an anti-affirmative
action candidate.
If the two issues -- abortion and affirmative action -- are tied together
in the same campaign, then women could well be the critical factor in determining
who will be the next occupant of the White House and which party will control
Congress. As William Safire has correctly stated, in the absence of credibility
for any politicians on the economic issue, these two "wedge" issues could
be decisive in 1996.
OTHER KEY ISSUES
The Public Assesses Key Institutions and Public Figures
In all, 16 institutions and public figures were tested on a favorable-unfavorable
rating scale, patterned after that used in recent years by polls conducted
for the Times Mirror Center for People and the Press.
Here is the rank order of the institutions and public figures tested, which
included four different phrases describing the women's movement, put in at
the behest of the sponsor of the study:
At the head of the list is The Civil Rights Movement, given a 78% to 14%
favorable rating.
Next is The Movement to Strengthen Women's Rights, viewed favorably by
71% to 21%, with women rating it 76% positive, compared with 66% for men.
Next was The Women's Movement, 69% to 19% favorable. This is virtually
unchanged from the 68% to 28% favorable rating recorded by the Times Mirror
Center poll in 1994.
In fourth place was The Pro-Choice Movement, rated favorably by 58% to
30%, with women rating it a higher 61% and men a lower 55% positive.
This is followed by The Right-to-Life Movement, at 57% to 30% favorable,
with women a lower 55% favorable and men a higher 61% positive.
This is followed by TV News, rated 57% to 35% favorable. But this is down
from a higher 69% to 29% favorable in the Times Mirror Center poll in 1994.
In seventh place comes President Clinton at 54% to 41% favorable, although
this is a drop from a comparable Times Mirror Center 58% to 41% favorable
in the fall of 1994.
In eighth place is Republican Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, with a
51% to 30% favorable rating, but this, too, is down from 58% to 28% favorable
in the Times Mirror poll of 1994.
In ninth place is The Feminist Movement at 51% to 34% favorable, roughly
similar to the 55% to 37% favorable rating in the Times Mirror Center poll
of last year. Women are 57% favorable, compared to 45% for men.
In tenth place are Those Running Major Companies with a 49% to 32% favorable
rating.
In eleventh place is The Gun Lobby, rated favorably by 45% to 42%.
The final five all come up with unfavorable ratings:
Congress is rated 48% to 41% negative, a turnaround from the Times Mirror
Center's poll of 1994, when Congress was 53% to 43% favorable. It should
be pointed out that the Times Mirror Center Poll was one of the few to correctly
forecast that the Republican would take over control of the House and Senate
in 1994.
In thirteenth place is The Anti-Abortion Movement, with an unfavorable
rating of 52% to 38%.
In fourteenth place is Speaker Newt Gingrich with an unfavorable rating
of 44% to 32%.
In fifteenth place is Rush Limbaugh at 50% to 29% unfavorable.
In last place are conservative TV preachers at 57% to 28% unfavorable.
This rank order might come as a surprise to some parts of the establishment,
but it parallels the results of the polling in the Times Mirror Center poll
in 1994. That extensive poll among 3800 nationwide received wide attention
for its showing that the Democrats were doing dismally in the off-year election,
while the news of the lack of popularity for much of the conservative right
was largely ignored. The clear implication of this data is that House Republicans
were elected far more on the basis of whom they were against than how much
they engendered confidence in their own right.
Violence and Spousal Abuse
A substantial 54% of the public "personally knows of a case of a woman who
has been physically abused by her husband or her boy friend." More women (58%)
know of such cases than men (51%). Younger people are more aware of such cases
than older people and single women (70%) are more aware of spousal abuse than
any other group. Least aware are men who are business executives.
By 61% to 30%, a majority of the public believes that "the police do not
do enough to protect women from being battered and abused." A higher 65% of
women feel this way, compared with 56% of men.
The Public Assess New Key Issues Emerging Today
While this study could not exhaustively cover all the spate of legislative
initiatives launched by the new Republic majority in the House, 11 of those
issues which might have special applicability to women were tested.
All 11 of proposed legislative changes meet with majority rejection by the
public:
An 81% to 12% majority rejects "a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution
that could subject Social Security to cuts, but protects the military budget."
A higher 84% of women oppose this legislation compared with 77% of men.
By 79% to 11%, a majority opposes the move to "take children away from
unmarried teenage mothers and placing them in orphanages," with a higher
83% of women and a lower 73% of men who feel this way.
By 78% to 15%, a majority rejects the step of "eliminating programs providing
pre-natal care and nutrition for pregnant mothers and infants."
By 70% to 24%, a majority also opposes the proposed "weakening of laws
to protect girl's and women's equal education and athletic opportunities."
By 66% to 22%, a majority also opposes "cutting off public education and
medical care for the children of legal as well as illegal immigrants."
By 63% to 32%, a majority rejects repealing the ban on assault weapons.
By 62% to 34%, a majority turns down the move "to weaken and even eliminate
the Food and Drug Administration which reviews new drug products and makes
sure these new products meet health and safety standards."
A 61% to 32% majority opposes "relaxing environmental control regulations."
A 60% to 30% majority opposes "not giving welfare benefits to mothers
under 18 who cannot support their children."
A 55% to 35% majority is opposed to "ending welfare benefits for poor
women with dependent children and turning the money over to the state to
decide what they want to do with it." A higher 59% of women oppose this
move, compared with 49% of men.
By 53% to 39%, a majority opposes "increasing the military budget."
While this list is by no means a full roster of many of the provisions passed
by the Republican House, nonetheless there is a clear common thread that runs
through the public's response to the measures tested. Most deal with human
consequences often in terms which seem to people generally, and to women in
particular, to have punitive overtones especially affecting women and children
who are disadvantaged in key areas such as health and education. Significantly,
in the first mark-ups in the U.S. Senate, a number of items objected to in
this poll are being eliminated or rolled back, which is more in accord with
the results of this poll.
Public Knowledge of and Views on Welfare
Public knowledge of the status of families on welfare was tested. All of
the statements asked about were accurate. The public was knowledgeable and
correct about four of the seven factual questions, but not informed on the
other three.
The four that majorities of over 6 in 10 know about are: "families stay
on welfare because childcare and healthcare are too expensive," "4 in 10
women on welfare do extra work for cash to have enough to feed their families,"
"a high proportion of women on welfare have been victims of spousal abuse,"
and "two in three people on welfare are children, not adults."
On the other three statements of fact, scarcely more than 3 in 10 are
knowledgeable: "the average family on welfare receives less than $373 a
month in welfare benefits," "welfare recipients cannot find work because
there are few jobs for them," and "no more than 1% of the total federal
budget is spent on welfare."
When informed that all of the seven statements were correct, people then
formed four judgments about new welfare proposals: sizable majorities believe
people on welfare "need opportunities for education and job training to get
better paying jobs," "need help in getting proper healthcare and chlldcare,
if they are told they have to go to work," "would be hurt if further cuts
are made in welfare payments," and "are living under real hardship conditions."
Feminism
Both men and women were asked if they viewed themselves as a "strong feminist,"
a "feminist," "not a feminist", or "anti-feminist." By a close 43% to 41%,a
plurality say they are not feminists. However, by 51% to 35% a majority of
women say they are a feminist, while by 50% to 30% a majority of men do not.
Women under 30 most identify themselves as feminists, with 63% saying they
consider themselves one.
Then, men and women were both given a dictionary definition of feminism:
"someone who supports political, economic, and social equality for women."
The same question on feminist identity was asked again. This time a 68% to
27% majority nationwide then said they were feminists nationwide. Among women,
the number soared to 71% who could call themselves feminists, compared with
61% of men.
Women and Public Office
A 75% to 23% majority of the American people feel "it is important for women
to be elected to office," rising to 84% among women compared with 67% of men.
When asked if there were "two candidates -- one a man and the other a woman
--- running against each other for office with the same qualification and
issue positions," 41% overall would vote for the woman and 23% for the man.
Among women, 58% say they would vote for a woman and only 13% for a man, while,
among men, 33% would vote for a man and 24% for a woman.
WHERE CALIFORNIANS STAND ON THE SHOWDOWN ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The Setting
When affirmative action was established by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964,
formal and legal recognition was given to the need to take special steps to
allow women, minorities, and others who had not shared equal opportunities
in jobs and education to get their chance.
Beset with the controversy that has always marked steps dealing with equality
for minorities and women, affirmative action was attacked for setting unfair
quotas in hiring and admissions to higher education and for establishing set-asides
in awarding government contracts to minority or women-owned business. These
issues were settled beyond any doubt in the courts, in a series of important
decisions beginning with Bakke in 1978 which declared that the use
of quotas was illegal and unconstitutional in higher education. This was followed
by the Weber decision a few years later which declared that the use
of quotas in employment was also illegal and unconstitutional. Finally, in
the 1990s, in the Richmond case, the high court declared that the use
of set-asides in awarding government contracts was declared illegal and unconstitutional.
Justice Lewis Powell, in the original Bakke decision, in casting the
deciding vote, put it this way, the Court "had never approved a classification
that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at
the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative,
or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations."
Despite this clear body of law, political candidates, commentators, and others
have persisted in claiming that affirmative action required both arbitrary
quotas and guaranteed outcomes for women and minorities. This misidentification
of what is really affirmative action is now at the heart of the current showdown
likely to take place in California.
Beginning in 1991, the media and some political types began to use the phrase
"preferential treatment" interchangeably with "affirmative action." Patently,
preferential treatment is illegal under the three U.S Supreme Court decisions.
Yet, it has been used over and over again as a synonym for "affirmative action."
Now it is likely to appear again in a proposition being proposed by anti-affirmative
action forces in California in 1996. That initiative reads:
"The state will not use race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential
treatment to, any individual or group in the operation of the state's system
of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
Both supporters and opponents of this imitative are completely agreed that
if it is passed, it will effectively end all affirmative action programs now
in place in California state government. Yet, the term "affirmative action"
is not used, but instead "preferential treatment" is substituted for it. And
that phrase has been increasingly used in public opinion polls which in turn
show the public is not in favor of "preferential treatment." However, a number
of reporters and others have then concluded that there is "hard evidence"
that support for "affirmative action" has evaporated, when the polling results
show public aversion to "preferential treatment."
This survey of a cross-section of 800 adults in California not only dealt
with perceived differences between "affirmative action" and "preferential
treatment," but tested how people might vote on the proposed initiative. Then,
it went one step further. Each person who said he or she favored the proposition
was asked a series of three questions dealing with the consequences of passage
of the imitative. They were asked:
"Would you still favor this proposition if it would outlaw all affirmative
action programs for women and minorities"
"Would you still favor this proposition if it would discourage or even
end programs to help women and minorities to achieve equal opportunities
in education and employment?"
"Would you still favor this proposition if it would discourage or even
end programs to give women and minority-owned businesses a chance to compete
with other businesses on getting government contracts?"
The People Render Their Verdict on the Proposed Proposition
When asked directly whether they favor or oppose the initiative, an overwhelming
78% to 16% majority of Californians say they would vote for it.
Every major group in the state at first blush supports the initiative: sizable
majorities of women, liberals, blacks, Latinos, feminists, supporters of affirmative
action, as well as every region in the state, every level of educational group,
those from all political persuasions, income groups, and classes give their
apparent backing to the imitative.
But, then, when they were tested about the consequences of passage of the
imitative, support for it literally collapses:
If passage means "it will outlaw all affirmative action programs for women
and minorities," then the 78% for it drops a full 47 points down to 31%
in favor of the initiative and those opposed rise 44 points from 11% to
55%.
If passage means "discouraging or even ending programs to help women and
minorities to see achieve equal opportunities in education and employment,
then the 78% in favor of it plummets 46 points to 32% and opposition to
it rises 46 points from 11% to 57%.
If passage means "discouraging or even ending programs to give women and
minority-owned businesses a chance to compete with other businesses on getting
government contracts," then support for the imitative freefalls 43 points
from 78% to 35%, while opposition to it rises 44 points from 11% to 55%.
This sharp collapse of support for the initiative when it is made to face
the consequences of what it will do is reminiscent of a similar experience
the New York Times had earlier this year, when it polled on a Constitutional
Amendment Requiring a Balanced Budget, which was before the U.S. Senate after
passing in the House. Fully 80% of the public favored passage of that amendment.
But, when the Times asked another question if people would still be for it
if it meant that Social Security, which House Republican leaders refused to
exempt from the amendment, would be subject to being cut if it were passed,
support plunged 50 points to the 30% level. The bill failed in the Senate
the next day by a single vote.
Why Do Voters Change their Minds About the Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative
As worded, the initiative to many sounds highly appealing, since it says
at the beginning that the state "will not discriminate," suggesting to some
that it provides protection for minorities, women, and others. Then it talks
about not allowing "preferential treatment" to be granted -- again, reassuring
people that nepotism or favoritism, or giving unqualified people a break over
qualified people will not take place. Thus, the initiative confuses strong
affirmative action advocates into thinking this is a safe and sound proposition
to vote for, certainly not threatening to affirmative action.
Then, when they are told that it would end affirmative action, a sense of
both shock and dismay takes over and their attitudes change radically in a
hurry. They feel they have been had.
Here are the specific reasons for the drastic change of heart:
When asked directly, they are not inclined to repeal Affirmative Action
On a simple question about "repeal of affirmative action," an 11 point 49%
to 48% plurality say they do not want repeal. Women oppose repeal by a 21
point margin (51% to 30%), while men oppose it by a much closer 3 point margin
(48% to 45%).
Clearly, the gender gap is working decisively on this issue. Young women
under 30 oppose repeal by a 34 point margin, 59% to 25%. White Protestants
favor repeal while white Catholics oppose it. Conservatives favor repeal,
but moderates and liberals oppose it. Every region of the state would vote
against repeal.
A 64% majority would support a pro-Affirmative Action Imitative
A pro-Affirmative Action imitative was put before the cross-section and it
was favored by a 64% to 26% margin state-wide:
"The state may use affirmative action programs designed to help
women, minorities, and others who have not had equal opportunities in education,
employment, and in receiving government contracts to achieve equal opportunities."
This result means that two out of every three Californians would be satisfied
to see current affirmative action laws and programs continued -- if they have
a chance to express a straight-forward opinion in the subject.
By double-digit margins, affirmative action is supported state-wide
When asked directly, about programs for women, Latinos, and blacks, the public
supports affirmative action for women by 53% to 39%, for Latinos by 50% to
34%, and for blacks by 49% to 36%. These margins are slightly higher than
those who oppose a repeal of affirmative action. Men back affirmative action
by margins of from 5 to 9 points, while women back it by much larger 15 to
20 point margins, led by young women who back it by margins ranging from 37
to 51 points. Those who would vote Republican for Congress next year split
right down the middle on affirmative action, although those voting for Dole
oppose it by 17 to 24 points. Clearly, affirmative action cuts sharply politically.
However, the swing vote, those who say they would prefer Ross Perot as a third
party candidate, back affirmative action by 13 to 36 points.
Affirmative Action Wins More Votes for Candidates Who Back It
Each person surveyed was asked if they agreed with a candidate for president
next year on most issues but disagreed completely with that candidate's stand
on affirmative action if they would vote against that candidate on that issue
alone. When only those who say they are "certain to vote against" such a candidate
are counted, the results shape up this way. Among the 15% of the electorate
who say they would vote against a candidate who took a position opposite theirs
on affirmative action, the total vote affected by this issue would divide
60% to 40% on the pro-affirmative action side. Similarly, in the cases of
affirmative action for Latinos and blacks, the 14% who say their vote could
be affected by affirmative action divide 61% to 39% on the side of the pro-affirmative
action candidate.
Thus, it is evident that what William Safire estimated would be an anti-Democratic
"wedge issue" appears to have precisely the opposite impact in California.
"Preferential Treatment" is sharply different from "Affirmative Action"
Sizable numbers of Californians associate "preferential treatment" with reverse
discrimination against white men (41%) and with "hiring minorities and women
who are not otherwise qualified" (42%). Among whites, an 8 point plurality
feels "preferential treatment" means getting jobs for unqualified women and
minorities and a 14 point plurality thinks it means reverse discrimination.
Clearly, "preferential treatment" is taken to mean giving women and minorities
advantages they don't deserve, which is widely viewed as unfair.
By contrast, "affirmative action" is viewed as "making equal opportunities
for everyone, including women and minorities" by a 70% to 23% majority state-wide
and by a 61% to 29% majority of whites. Even more significant, by 64% to 24%
among all the public and by 62% to 27% among whites, the pubic rejects the
claim that "affirmative action gives one race or one group an advantage they
don't deserve."
Clearly, "affirmative action is seen as not being unfair but instead as
a real help to women and minorities in helping them achieve more equal opportunities,
while "preferential treatment" is viewed as giving unfair and unwarranted
advantage arbitrarily to women and minorities at the expense of white men.
To use both terms interchangeably does a vast disservice to affirmative action,
bordering on deception.
"Preferential Treatment" Cannot Muster Majority Support
When the cross-section was asked if it would favor or oppose federal laws
requiring "preferential treatment," in the case of women, it is favored by
49% to 42%. In the case of Latinos, preferential treatment laws are favored
by 46% to 45%, but in the case of blacks, they are opposed by 46% to 44%.
However, in many ways, these overall results are misleading, since blacks
and Latinos favor them heavily, while whites oppose them all. Specifically,
whites would oppose requiring "preferential treatment" for women by 50% to
40%, for Latinos by 52% to 36%, and for blacks by 54% to 36%.
It is patently apparent that most whites will not vote for preferential
treatment because larger numbers of them feel it is inequitable and unfair,
giving preference to unqualified women and minorities at the expense of white
men. Thus, any legislation or polling question which uses the term "preferential
treatment" in place of "affirmative action" not only is stacking the deck
against affirmative action, but is misleading people to vote against affirmative
action when solid majorities want to maintain it. On an up or down basis in
California, affirmative action will win handily.
The Decisive Issue of A Woman's Right to Choose
While California might be split over a number of issues, there is no doubt
that the vast majority of people of this state come together in agreement
on the issue of a woman right to choose in the case of an abortion -- with
the advice of her doctor.
A 75% to 17% majority of Californians favor "a woman in this country having
the choice to have an abortion with the advice of her doctor." Big majorities,
ranging from 65% in LA County and 66% in Central Valley to 77% in Southern
California outside of LA, to 84% in the Bay Area, and 86% in Northern California
support that right. White Protestants favor it by 75% to 19%, as do white
Catholics by 76% to 19%. A substantial 72% of conservatives support it, although
a higher 87% of liberals also back it. By education, 84% with a four year
college education lead the way, though every key group is for it by almost
4 to 1.
By gender, 77% of men and a slightly lower 73% of women favor the right to
choose, although young under 30 and employed women lead the way among the
sexes, supporting a woman's right to choose by identical 79% to 14% margins.
The one issue which can evoke the most intense feeling of support and the
biggest turnout among women is that of choice. If women in California, for
example, were to feel that the attack on affirmative action is a prelude to
an attack on their right to choose in the matter of abortion, this would trigger
a massive outpouring in the 1996 election in this state. The support among
women and the views of women on both affirmative action and choice dovetail
into a powerful "wedge issue."
Politically, it is no surprise that 88% of those who voted for the Democrats
for Congress in 1994 are for choice, but it is surprising that 69% of those
who voted Republican also are for it, despite the sizable opposition from
organized forces within the Republican Party opposed to choice. In the 1996
presidential election, 75% of Clinton backers are for choice as are an identical
75% of Perot voters. But a high 70% of Dole voters also back it. In the 1996
House races, 80% of those voting Democratic support a woman's right to choose,
but a substantial majority of 68% of those who will vote for the Republicans
also feel that way. When an opposite proposition, "a constitutional amendment
to ban abortions" is tested, the result is equally decisive with a 77% to
17% majority rejecting such an amendment. Patterns on the constitutional amendment
are virtually identical to those on a woman's right to choose.
Finally, each person interviewed was asked the following question:
"Now suppose in the election next year, you found a candidate for
president whose views you mostly agreed with. Then suppose the same candidate
took a position on a woman's choice on abortion that you disagreed with completely.
Would you certainly not vote for that candidate, probably not vote for that
candidate, or would you still vote for that candidate?"
In all, 25% of the entire adult population of California say that if a candidate
takes a position contrary to their own, they would "certainly not" vote for
that candidate, even if they agreed with nearly everything else that candidate
stood for. This puts abortion close to the top on potentially decisive cutting
edge issues.
The vote division on this issue is decisive: of those who would switch their
vote on abortion, 71% come from the pro-choice side and only 29% from the
anti-choice side. It must be pointed out that there is much higher intensity
of feeling on the abortion issue by those opposed to choice. Fully 37% of
all those opposed to a woman having the choice to decide on abortion say they
would vote against a candidate whom they otherwise might agree on most other
issues, compared with 17% of those who favor a woman's choice. However, when
the overall division is 75% to 17% in favor of choice, there is simply no
way the higher intensity among the anti-choice people can make up the difference.
In turn, however, these results point up the deep dilemma for the Republican
Party, not simply in California but also in the nation over the abortion issue
in 1996. In the 1994 election, the religious right scored heavy gains inside
the Republican Party, gaining outright control in over 20 states. A bedrock
issue for the religious right is opposition to abortion. However, if opposition
to choice is made a front and center issue in 1996, and a showdown in the GOP
ended up with that party taking a position opposed to a woman's right to choose,
then the national and state-wide elections could be lost on that issue alone.
That is why, up to now, there has been tacit agreement among major Republican
candidates not to press on the abortion issue, either in Congress or on the
hustings. But high Republican vulnerability of this issue remains.
By the same token, if the advocates of choice were to take their case
aggressively to the voters, combining support for affirmative action and a
woman's right to choose, then it could spell real trouble for opponents of
affirmative action in California.
