Zogby: Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Race Preferences, Discrimination

[Carolab]

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=952

Released: January 20, 2005
Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Race Preferences, Discrimination; Would Support Ballot Initiatives Banning Both, New Zogby Poll Reveals

American voters overwhelmingly would support voter initiatives banning both discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, according to a new American Civil Rights Institute/Zogby International poll. The survey of 1,203 likely voters nationwide had a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

The poll found four-in-five (80%) likely voters would back an initiative stating that "the government shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Voter-backed initiatives like this have appeared on the ballot in California and Washington state. A similar initiative is expected to appear on the ballot in Michigan, and is being called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

While 80% say they would back such a law, just one-in-seven (14%) would oppose it. The remaining 6% are unsure.

The initiative's language enjoys similar levels of support among all ethnic groups polled: 82% of whites back such a law, as do 77% of African Americans and 81% of Hispanics. The ballot initiative is also supported by similar levels regardless of party affiliation: 81% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 79% of independents say they would support the measure.

"What's really relevant is that support is nearly identical across every demographic group, including race," said pollster John Zogby. "Americans seem ready to leave racial preferences and discrimination behind and move toward a more color-blind system."

Zogby International conducted interviews of 1,203 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from December 13 through 15, 2004. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

(1/20/2005)
-

< Click Here For Methodology >

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/index.cfm

[blm]

1. It sound great but it eliminates Affirmative Action. It's the wording

that sells it because it sounds ideal. But, it only works if the playing field is ALREADY even. which we know it is definitely NOT. Hell, Republicans still control how many hours a black person has to wait in line to vote.

[Carolab]

2. Well, that's true, but think about gays being fired just for being gay.

This has been happening with public employees who are gay, and they have no recourse. This would end that at least.

[qwghlmian]

3. Really? Since when is gay a "race"? n/t

[Carolab]

4. Of course not.

The initiatives refer to discrimination not limited to race. Initiatives could also refer to removing discrimination based on not only gender/sex but sexual orientation, for example.

It's a start, just knowing that Americans are less prejudicial regarding public employment that might perhaps be otherwise believed. I have some acquaintances who are gay who were going to move to Colorado, for example. They decided against it because they learned that in Colorado, Federal employees can be fired because they are gay, and there is no redress.

[qwghlmian]

5. The wording is:

"the government shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

Where exactly does being gay fit in there?

[Carolab]

6. Re-read my post.

I didn't say it did. I said it was possible to write an initiative prohibiting discrimination based on not only sex/gender but also on sexual preference. That is, that the study makes me believe that it might be possible that there are enough open-minded Americans regarding discrimination that perhaps they might pass an initiative containing such wording.

You are very literal, yes?

[qwghlmian]

7. I don't know why you keep insisting you meant stuff

that you didn't write. This is what you wrote:

"Well, that's true, but think about gays being fired just for being gay. This has been happening with public employees who are gay, and they have no recourse. This would end that at least."

The "this" referring to the initiative you posted in the original post, and whose wording has nothing to do with sexual preference.

I may be literal, but you can't admit when you make a mistake.

[Carolab]

8. I should have said "may" end that.

Not "would". Also, I should have been more explicit in what I meant. A bit tired tonight.

Sorry for the confusion.

[qwghlmian]

10. :) cool

sorry about that. Was testy for no good reason.

[Carolab]

12. No problem.

And thanks.

[FreepFryer]

9. "Americans Indifferent To Those Growing Up In A Ghetto Without Basic Care"

this is NOT a good development. This is crafty poll language at its' vilest, designed to marginalize those who support Affirmative Action into that 14%.

Sad.

[Carolab]

11. Do you think?

I hadn't looked at it that way. Maybe we should write Mr. Zogby and ask him to ask specifically about attitudes toward AA? (And maybe ask about sexual preference too, just for me?)