DUELING OP-EDS OVER RACIST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN CALIFORNIA

In a L.A. Times op-ed piece, Yunlei Yang, a committee member of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association, answered another L.A. Times op-ed by Karthick Ramakrishnan, a Ph.D. in politics from Princeton University who now works at UC Riverside. Yang takes offense against Ramakrishnan's claim that self-identifying Asians support unconstitutional Affirmative Action in California. Ramakrishnan makes his claim based on purported survey results from The National Asian American Survey, for which Ramakrishnan is the director.

Both in 2012 and in 2014, The National Asian American Survey had their survey contractor, Field, ask this:

"Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women and other minorities get better jobs and education?"

That question suffers intense question bias and thus cannot get used to project to a universe of respondents. Specifically, the question contains biasing words: help, blacks, women, minorities, better. In short, because of the biasing words, the results from that question are little more than opinions of respondents, opinions which cannot get used to predict what self-identifying Asians believe as a whole.

To be valid, the question should have been asked this way:

"Do you favor or oppose law, which gives some individuals advantages for admissions to college or university because of their race, ethnicity or sex?"

"Do you favor or oppose law, which gives some individuals advantages to be hired for work because of their race, ethnicity or sex?"

As well, half of the respondents should have been asked, "Do you oppose or favor" while the other half should have been asked, "Do you favor or oppose."



Many surveys, especially those related to politics suffer from questionnaire bias, sampling bias and other flaws. News media all too often publish results as gospel truth rather than examining questionnaires for flaws.

Misleading polling participants with biased question and then getting bogus findings published as pseudo-scientific fact so to shape public opinion through media is what push polling is all about. Those behind push polling suffer from moral bankruptcy.

Back in 2009, enlightened California voters passed California Proposition 209, which  amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.

Since the passage of Proposition 209, the African American graduation rate at the University of California, Berkeley increased by 6.5%. As well,  the African American graduation rate rose from 26% to 52% at the University of California, San Diego.

Regardless of rhetoric, race-based affirmative action is racism. Sex-based affirmative action is still racism.

Letting stupid people attend public colleges and universities at taxpayers' expense merely because they have African ancestors or have Central American ancestors who bred with Spanish speakers rather than letting those with Asian ancestors or Western European ancestors who earned their admissions on merit is, well, racist. As well, it is little more than sex racism to give preferential treatment to women for college admissions or public employment.

NAACP blacks, NOW feminists, Act UP! homosexists, La Raza Latinos — they are the racists. The rest of us are not.

Diversity is rhetorical code-speak for seeking racist advantage against a falsely perceived enemy — "white" males of primarily of Northern European ancestry and Anglo-Norman culture.

We're living in the 21st century. Isn't it time Americans call for an end to racism by putting an end to politicians who pander to people using rhetorical appeals and financial bribes merely because of their ancestry?

Disclosure: My career includes work as a director of public opinion polling and a director of marketing research. I completed graduate level coursework with distinction in Advertising Research and Public Opinion polling at the fabled S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communication.