Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

March-11-96

Support Declines for California Ban on Affirmative Action

As Californias become increasingly aware of the anti-affirmative action initiative on the November ballot and learn about its ramifications, support for the measure declines, according to a Field Poll released Monday (3-11). Knowledge of the existence of the self-titled "California Civil Rights Initiative" rose from 57 percent in December to 67 percent. Of those, support for the measure fell from 29 percent to 27 percent while opposition rose from 20 percent to 24 percent. According to the poll, when voters read the simple language of the bill they are more likely to support it because it does not mention the fact that it would outlaw affirmative action programs for women and people of color. "As voters learn about the initiative, sentiment is much more evenly divided than after you read them the rather simple language," said Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll.

The Feminist Majority Foundation's 1995 Women's Equality Poll, conducted by Louis Harris and the Peter Harris Research Group, was the first poll to find the precipitous decline in support for the CCRI once voters realize it will outlaw affirmative action programs. The Campaign for Women's Rights and Civil Rights, sponsored by the Feminist Majority and a coalition of more than 80 other organizations, is educating Californians on the issue in order to defeat the measure in November.

Although the San Francisco Chronicle article on the poll covered the issue of tricky language, it too referred to affirmative action programs misleadingly as "preferential treatment." Similarly, an extensive front-page article in the Washington Post entitled "Struggling to Maintain Diversity: UC Berkeley Takes Steps to Offset Ban on Affirmative Action" made no mention of how eliminating affirmative action programs in the University of California system affects women.

Media Resources: The San Francisco Chronicle - March 11, 1996; The Washington Post - March 11, 1996


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1. The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
 
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case. UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
 
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall. The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies. Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .