Majority of AAPI voters in CA support affirmative action — so, who are the ones that don’t?

Asian American supporters of affirmative action at a  recent rally. (Photo credit: OCA)
Asian American supporters of affirmative action at a recent rally. (Photo credit: OCA)

I was having dinner earlier this week with a member of my extended family when the topic of race-conscious affirmative action and SCA-5 came up. My family member (who is not Asian American) was surprised to learn that I support affirmative action; he was under the impression that all Asian Americans were monolithically opposed to race-conscious admissions considerations. “What?” he asked, somewhat teasingly, “don’t you want Asians to be able to get into college?”

I have written extensively about how affirmative action doesn’t prevent Asian Americans from accessing college:  1) affirmative action does not permit race to be used as a determinative factor in admissions decisions so any use of affirmative action to deny Asian American access to college based on race alone is unconstitutional, 2) there are several ethnic groups within the AAPI diaspora, including Southeast Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, who are contemporary active beneficiaries of race-conscious affirmative action, 3) East Asian Americans (e.g. Chinese Americans) who have been present in America longer than other AAPIs have traditionally been active beneficiaries of race-conscious affirmative action particularly in the mid-twentieth century when Chinese and Chinese American students were actively recruited to elite universities to end racial segregation; only in the last two or three decades have we no longer received additional consideration under race-conscious affirmative action, and 4) all students, regardless of race, benefit from the diverse student life that is achieved through race-conscious affirmative action considerations in college admissions through broader exposure to different viewpoints as well as better preparation for an increasingly globalized market.

All this aside, there is a persistent myth within the American political landscape that Asian Americans are universally opposed to affirmative action. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, the affirmative action issue is one that highlights the diversity in Asian American political thought.

AAPIs are perfectly capable of having disagreeing opinions with one another.
AAPIs are perfectly capable of having disagreeing opinions with one another.

During the SCA-5 debate, a broad coalition of progressive and liberal Asian American advocacy groups who stood in support of affirmative action found themselves pitted against a vocal community of Asian Americans organized predominantly through Asian-language forum boards and ethnic media outlets. In the mid-nineties, two-thirds of Asian American voters voted against Proposition 209 and in favour of preserving race-conscious affirmative action in California. Several large and small surveys have reported a similar two-to-one breakdown in support for affirmative action among AAPIs, including the National Asian American Survey (NAAS), the largest survey to-date of our community. In NAAS’ 2012 study, Dr. Karthick Ramakrishnan’s team surveyed over 4,000 registered AAPI voters from around the country, asking their opinion on a battery of contemporary political issues; they found that 75% of surveyed Asian Americans and 67% of surveyed Pacific Islanders support affirmative action.

asian-american-pro-affirmative-action

Taken together, these data — compiled from multiple sources yet all showing roughly the same breakdown in support for affirmative action — support the conclusion that approximately two-thirds of AAPI voters support affirmative action, while the remaining one-quarter to one-third oppose it. This is a finding that flies in the face of the presumption made by many asserting that Asian Americans are universally opposed to affirmative action.

To reinforce this finding, NAAS commissioned the Field Research Corporation to conduct an updated study, focused specifically on whether or not AAPI attitudes towards affirmative action had shifted in the wake of the SCA5 shakedown of earlier this year: virtually the entire state of California was wrapped up in a debate over campus diversity that saw its fair share of strong opinions, impassioned arguments, and more than a little bit of misinformation and flat-out over-sensationalized hyperbole.

The findings of the survey are surprising in that there has been very little discernible movement in AAPI attitudes towards affirmative action in the last two years, despite a very public Asian American outcry against it. In NAAS’ 2014 survey of AAPI California voters, released yesterday morning, 69% of AAPI voters still support affirmative action (compared to 83% African Americans and 57% Whites).

A majority of CA voters support affirmative action, including 70% of AAPI voters.
A majority of CA voters support affirmative action, including 70% of AAPI voters.

It appeared during the SCA-5 debate of this past year that the majority of those who were organizing efforts against the state constitutional amendment were Chinese Americans (and who were using the term “Asian American” and “Chinese American” both ethnocentrically and synonymously); so, perhaps if NAAS disaggregated the AAPI numbers down further by ethnicity, it might reveal a strong Chinese American opposition?

Yet, when these numbers are disaggregated by ethnicity, NAAS finds that Chinese Americans are still majority in favour of affirmative action, as are Korean Americans and Vietnamese Americans (this breakdown addresses three of the five largest AAPI ethnic communities in the state of California).

Even when disaggregated by ethnicity, a majority of AAPI voters support affirmative action.
Even when disaggregated by ethnicity, a majority of AAPI voters support affirmative action.

(An important point from this graph is that Korean Americans are more than twice as likely to have “no opinion” on affirmative action as are respondents of any other race or ethnicity. This strongly suggests to me that 1) the experiences of one or two major ethnicities — in this case Chinese Americans — have been inappropriately generalized to the larger AAPI diaspora, and 2) that there has been a significant and lamentable failure in political outreach from both sides of the SCA5 debate to engage non-Chinese AAPI voters like Korean Americans. That lack of voter outreach and consequent issue apathy will only exacerbate our community’s existing voter turnout problem, and cannot continue.)

NAAS went on to consider AAPI voters by gender, age, and even by birthplace; again, there was no group of AAPI voters that were predominantly opposed to affirmative action.

naas-2014-affirmative-action-birthplace
AAPI support for affirmative action was not dependent on national origin.

While this clear two-thirds support for affirmative action among AAPIs is heartening for me, it doesn’t particularly influence my personal opinion on affirmative action: I support affirmative action because I believe it is the moral and progressive position, not because it might be (or might not be) the popular position.  On the other hand, these findings appear to distress opponents to SCA-5, who adamantly assert that most Asian Americans oppose affirmative action. In May, conservative California State Senate candidate Peter Kuo who is campaigning on the affirmative action issue (and who recently opposed San Francisco’s landmark ban of anti-Asian abortion restrictions) told Mintpress a tall tale about monlithic AAPI opposition to SCA-5. Mintpress reports:

[Peter Kuo] insists that Asian Americans and other minorities he speaks to “all have the same opinion in this. I ask them the same question, ‘Do you want affirmative action here?’ One hundred percent of them say ‘No.’ They don’t want government helping to get them where they want to go.”

“We repealed it in 1996,” he said. “Don’t bring it back.”

Others argue that it is only the culturally out-of-touch liberal Asian American media academics and elite (which apparently includes me) who support affirmative action; “You’re simply not acknowleding most of the community“, Byron Wong of BigWOWO.com says of me in the context of SCA-5 (emphasis added). In regards to NAAS’ 2012 and 2014 survey findings, which refute the “one hundred percent” opposition cited by Peter Kuo, opponents instead question Dr. Ramakrishnan by asserting that he biased his findings based on his own personal prejudices on affirmative action. Byron Wong says:

I already pointed out that I don’t trust Karthick. That should have been a perfectly legitimate reason not to waste my time on him; I think it ought to be perfectly acceptable for me to reject ONE survey based on who is running it. But yes, I finally did look at the methodology, and it proves that I was right in my assessment, never mind my questions over the way it was carried out.

Wong and others cite concerns about NAAS’ affirmative action question wording (“Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better jobs and education?“), arguing that it is “loaded“. Yet, not only was this question wording adapted from a virtually identical question used by Pew Research Center (a non-partisan think tank that conducts hundreds, if not thousands, of similar surveys) in 2002 (and remains similar to the wording of their more contemporary affirmative action question), but in 2012, NAAS deliberately asked the question in multiple formats (using more or less preamble) in order to assess how the question wording impacted survey responses; they found virtually no impact of how the question was asked on the answer. Finally, as mentioned above, NAAS survey results confirm previously published AAPI opinions on affirmative action conducted on smaller scales. Bottom line: there is simply no reason to suspect the NAAS outcome has been biased by the investigators’ alleged partisan agenda. And, in the absence of obvious methodological problems, the survey results must be accepted.

So, if we are to believe that (once again) science shows two-thirds support for affirmative action among AAPIs, how can we interpret the impassioned and vocal opposition to SCA-5 earlier in the summer: an outcry so potent, it literally “killed the bill”?

A "No to SCA5" protest from earlier this year.
A “No to SCA5” protest from earlier this year.

I don’t have any issues reconciling this: that a majority of AAPI voters support affirmative action doesn’t negate the fraction of AAPIs who oppose it: 12.5% of California’s 5.3 million AAPI residents is still approximately 650,000 AAPI California voters who oppose affirmative action. Get even a fraction of those 650,000 in the same place, and it can still be an intimidating political show of force sufficient to pressure local elected officials. In fact, this is exactly how minority politics has operated against a numerical disadvantage in America for over a century.

The better question is why a one-third minority of AAPI voters who oppose affirmative action might fail to recognize that they might be in the minority? What might lead affirmative action opponents to perceive that they are not just in the majority, but in an overwhelming majority?

Another image of the same "No to SCA5" protest from above.
Another image of the same “No to SCA5” protest from above.

The modern political landscape is characterized by an increasing balkanization of thought, facilitated by the increasing power of individuals to choose to amplify voices that agree with one’s own opinions, and to block voices that disagree. Even mainstream news outlets — whether MSNBC or Fox News — are less interested in providing straight journalism over editorialized commentary that caters to audiences of specific political affiliation. Whether liberal or conservative, progressive or neo-Nazi, it is possible now to insulate oneself entirely within personalized media echo chambers that only reinforces one’s own personal viewpoints and creates the illusion that those opinions are shared by a majority of others.

The internet exacerbates this problem: we can now simply tune out, block, ban or unfriend people who fail to share our political outlooks — the digital equivalent of plugging one’s ears to things we don’t want to hear. I would assert that most of us are operating within intellectual and political echo chambers to some degree. For Asian Americans, this effect might only be enhanced by the linguistic isolation that affects nearly one-quarter of our community‘s households; linguistic isolation not only promotes geographic segregation within ethnic enclaves, but can also limit voter education to what is available primarily through in-language ethnic media outlets (which this past year covered the SCA-5 debate heavily, and often with an editorial stance in opposition).

It is a lot more uncomfortable to listen with an open mind to those who disagree with us than to surround ourselves with those who do. Echo chambers happen across the board.
It is a lot more uncomfortable to listen with an open mind to those who disagree with us than to surround ourselves with those who do. Echo chambers happen across the board.

But, intellectual balkanization is lethal for sophisticated argumentation. It is only through reasoned disagreement that one explores the logic of one’s own opinions and identifies fallacies, leading to either strengthening or abandonment of one’s own arguments. In the absence of forced exposure — or self-exposure — to a challenging peer, assumptions and misinformation persists and even dominates the dialogue; we routinely observed this problem in California this year from SCA-5 opponents who also argued that few “non-government” and “non-academic” AAPI within their personal social networks expressed support for affirmative action.

This observation regarding the detriments of intellectual balkanization is highly relevant to the debate over affirmative action: it is precisely this problem that diversity advocates hope to combat through underscoring the “compelling interest” of campus diversity alongside other interests in the college admissions process. The purpose of secondary education is to guide students towards developing a broader critical understanding of the world at-large, and the synthesis of multiple viewpoints related to any specific field of interest; this is a specific analytical skillset that is increasingly necessary in our information-based and globalized economy. This is also a mission that is greatly facilitated by a diverse student body

There are a lot of really cheesy stock photos that come up when you Google "campus diversity".
There are a lot of really cheesy stock photos that come up when you Google “campus diversity”.

In a diverse student body, intellectual balkanization is dismantled through routine formal and informal interactions with highly-qualified fellow students of different personal and academic backgrounds. Meanwhile, a culturally and racially homogeneous college campus — even one populated by remarkably intelligent individuals — only replicates the same echo chamber effects found in our off-campus (and online) worlds, and are directly antithetical to the goal of secondary education. When one is not exposed to different viewpoints, one’s own ideas suffer. A non-diverse student body is one that fails its students.

NAAS’ 2014 update of their 2012 national survey reveals something we kind of already knew: that AAPI voters (and particularly those living in California) are majority in favour of affirmative action. But the interpretation of these data require that we not conclude a monolithic or universal opinion on this subject: like most communities, AAPIs do not think monolithically on this or any other issue. Instead, there is a deep divide within the AAPI community over affirmative action, one with impassioned arguments coming from both sides. What we must take away from NAAS’ 2014 survey is not to focus just on what the majority opinion is, but to respect the difference, and to maintain the pursuit of respectful debate over those differences. That also means that we — affirmative action supporters within the AAPI community — must work harder to mobilize in light of that difference; an impassioned minority can clearly sway political outcomes if we do not.

AAPI aren’t all the same, so we need to stop allowing ourselves (or others) to treat our community as if we all think — or vote — the same.

Correction: An earlier version of this post reported national, not California-wide, AAPI demographics.

Did you like this post? Please support Reappropriate on Patreon!
  • asdefwqrty

    You have a real axe to grind with Byron.

  • asdef,

    You have a real axe to grind with Byron.

    Meh, not really. He just provided a quotable example of what I’m talking about. I wanted to refer to a different person making similar arguments who is actually a better citation for the argument I’m making given the group he represents, but it wasn’t clear if the email from this other person was private. Either way I couldn’t provide links to the quote if I used it. So Byron was just a convenient plan B. There aren’t a ton of AAPI bloggers out there, and almost none adopted the “No on SCA5” side of the argument, so if you’re trying to refute an argument like this while offering examples of what you’re talking about, it’s pretty slim pickings.

  • Yeah, sometimes it does seem you have a real axe to grind with me, Jenn. At least it looks that way to a lot of people. But I’ll let you know that it’s not mutual–there are no hard feelings on my end.

    Actually, I wish you’d gone with Plan A. I’d love to hear from more people who are against racial preferences in college admissions.

    Karthick’s survey question wasn’t similar to the Pew survey question. His survey was deceptive and misleading. I posted about that here:

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2014/08/national-asian-american-surveys-misleading-survey-on-affirmative-action/

    I myself may have answered in the affirmative on that question.

    Why would Karthick would ask such a loaded question and present it as unbiased? Maybe it’s because he wasn’t so sure he’d get the result he wanted. In any case, it’s clearly a loaded question.

  • Dr. Z

    Not to dismiss the seriousness of the conversation but the above exchange reminded me of this song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muOURjmBuOA

    Carry on. <3

  • Peter

    I enjoyed this entry. Especially the part about intellectual balkanization and echo chambers. I am for affirmative action except in the case of illegal immigrants and their children. I do not believe we should encourage preferred status for people who circumvent our laws or feel entitled to cut line. Have a read of this article as an interesting example and debate:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/24/i-told-harvard-i-was-an-undocumented-immigrant-they-gave-me-a-full-scholarship/

  • Yeah, sometimes it does seem you have a real axe to grind with me, Jenn. At least it looks that way to a lot of people. But I’ll let you know that it’s not mutual–there are no hard feelings on my end.

    Byron, there are no hard feelings on my end. You just happen to have conveniently posted about this topic in a way that was easy to find, and like I said, I didn’t feel comfortable citing an email I wasn’t sure was intended by the author to have been circulated widely. There is exactly one conservative AAPI blogger on the internet (besides Michelle Malkin, and I think of her more as a pundit), Byron, and that’s you. That means that sometimes you get cited when you say things that conveniently sample “the other side”; this is one of those times. My choice to cite you is no different than your choice to cite me in the link you provided. I have a hard time with the idea that I have an axe to grind because frankly, I’ve only cited you twice in the last month: once in this post, and once in the Culture Canard post (which appeared exactly one month ago).

    There have been a lot of posts in between, where you haven’t entered my mind or my writing.

    Karthick’s survey question wasn’t similar to the Pew survey question.

    It was. I provided the citation. You can’t just argue that it’s not because you don’t like the result.

    I myself may have answered in the affirmative on that question.

    I think that speaks to the degree to which you are a partisan. Your opposition to affirmative action is based on inaccuracy regarding affirmative action, in my opinion, and falls apart when faced with affirmative action presented in the absence of ideology, and instead as a straightforward definition of what the programs do.

    Why would Karthick would ask such a loaded question and present it as unbiased? Maybe it’s because he wasn’t so sure he’d get the result he wanted. In any case, it’s clearly a loaded question.

    Because it’s not “clearly” biased or loaded. It’s a definition, drawn from Supreme Court case law and state law, and good enough for Pew.

  • @Peter

    . I do not believe we should encourage preferred status for people who circumvent our laws or feel entitled to cut line.

    I’m a little bit confused about whether you are talking about affirmative action or scholarships, which are two related but still distinct issues.

  • Byron,

    I also read your link and found it extremely disingenuous to the point of counterfactual in its presentation of Pew’s findings regarding question wording. You write:

    Supposedly these questions were based on a 2002 Pew Research Center survey. I couldn’t find it online, but I did find this Pew survey. Notice the difference in the wording:

    In the most recent Pew Research Center values survey, released May 21, just 31% agreed that “we should make every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment.” More than twice as many (65%) disagreed with this statement. That balance of opinion has fluctuated only modestly through the 22-year history of the values survey.

    Notice how Pew presents both sides of the issue–both the preferential treatment and the improved position of blacks and minorities.

    – See more at: http://www.bigwowo.com/2014/08/national-asian-american-surveys-misleading-survey-on-affirmative-action/#sthash.uNyqlDIQ.dpuf

    The point of this question was not to ask about affirmative action programs, but about “preferential treatment”, which is not defined in the question (perhaps deliberately) This is not the current way that Pew is asking about affirmative action; this is a way that Pew was trying to explore attitudes that fall under affirmative action. That same link also provides the closest question wording as Karthick’s, in relation to their report of their 2007 data (scroll down to the second table to see what amounts to a virtually identical question to the NAAS question).

    Pew continues to use this wording for their questions on affirmative action: “In general, do you think affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses are a good thing or a bad thing?”. This is far more similar to Karthick’s question than their 2009 “preferential treatment” question. You have cited three concerns: two are not coherent (as in, you literally aren’t providing your connections from point A to point B so your logic is not understandable). As for the college admissions point, you have stated yourself that you would suspect that most people — including Asian Americans — would support affirmative action outside of college admissions; so this should be the question that should raise the strongest racial disparity, yet according to Pew in 2014, 63% of the general population support affirmative action when this question is asked. This is a similar two-thirds breakdown as Karthick’s data.

    I think issues over question wording are simply a red herring from folks who are having trouble dealing with the possibility that they might actually be in the political minority when it comes to this issue and AAPIs. It’s easier to raise unsubstantiated “concerns” over question wording and question Karthick’s credibility than to simply accept that the results might actually be true, and you really might be in the minority on this one.

    Addendum: that being said, Pew also reports that 60% of steadfast and business conservatives oppose affirmative action. This post is all about balkanization of thought. I think Pew’s findings might be relevant to you as to why you said in your comment that you feel as if you know so many Asian Americans who oppose affirmative action. This, again, may speak to the limitation of your social circle. We would all do well to remember that our personal experiences are not representative of the whole and cannot be used interchangeably with surveys of whole populations. Our anecdotes mostly reflect the boundaries of our social networks, and are most likely to reflect our own personal views. Anecdotes are useful to demonstrate the existence of a thing — for example, that there are AAPIs who oppose affirmative action — but not a prevalence of a thing — that, as Peter Kuo argues, that because he hasn’t met minorities who support affirmative action in California, that most minorities in California don’t support affirmative action.

  • Not to dismiss the seriousness of the conversation but the above exchange reminded me of this song:

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! Noooo, you’ve found us out!

  • Junwei

    Byron is actually right with his suspicion that this is an example of an loaded question:

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

    The survey codebook claims that they conduct a survey in English and various Asian languages. There is no evidence that they do a pilot study with different interviewer populations and native speakers of various Asian languages. But there are no versions of this question in native Asian languages.

    There a variety of errors and the survey methodology did not apply item-response theory correctly

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

    Compare it for example with these variations of the question

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

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

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

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

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

    (“Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs designed to help Asian American, women, and other minorities get better jobs and education?“

    (“Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs designed to help Asian Pacific Islanders, women, and other minorities get better jobs and education?“

    They ask their test persons to identify with various race, language groups and ethnic categories, but they do not test the variations of these identity categories in the wording of this questions. It is obvious that you can get different permutations of identity categories for wording in substituting “other minorities” or specifying the term “women”.

    So the question is actually really a loaded question. And additionaly the data is worthless, because there is obviously a strong presence of interviewer bias and it is not controlled.

    They ask the interviewer about his race identification (White, Afro American, Latino, Asian, Another Race, Don’t know, Refused), but if they ask the interview partner about his language, ethnic and race identity, they have to controll for language, ethnic and race identity and not lump all together in the category “Asian”. This is data manipulation, because recent immigrants do not think of themselves as “Asian race”, they think of themselves as belonging to a nation. It is not possible to calculate the influence of language and ethnic identity upon the response.

    The location-based sampling is poorly done, because it does not consider proper methodology. They do not even draw randomly from the counties and state, they do not even know how to do clustering and stratified random sample properly to use statistical inference to make such a bold prediction of voting preference and interest aggregation. It is obvious from the census data that the local income inquality and diversity index of various counties and state have dramatic variations.

    If you suspect that there are significant difference in attitudes between subgroups and you know that you must use random address sampling to calculate weighting factors with official census data and population statistics – I would expect that they use a proper randomized location and random dialing sampling strategy. But they do not divide streets of houses in cluster of ethnicities, language groups, race identity, income level and so on to make sure that the stratified sampling is representative.

    They ask the interview partner, if they have plans for US citizenship, but the data is not controll for Non-citizenship they simply lump everything together. Is it not obvious that there are clear incentives difference for caring about Affirmative Action between citizen and Non-Citizen.

    It is also very strange, why they ask the interview partner about the kind of visa and then forget to control for carefully aggregating the answer of this group with other native born interview partner. There is a self-selection bias with immigrantswith Visas or Greencards.

    They ask the interview partner if they own or rent, but there is no control for real estate tax payer. Is it not obvious that real estate owner pay real estate tax and because they cannot simply move the asset to another state that they contribute significantly higher to local ppublic goods like education than other groups. The bias is very striking.

    They ask people how many years they live in the current address, but they do not controll the response for it. There is an obvious incentive difference for poor and high income groups to prefer or oppose Affirmative Action. Poor family cannot choose neighborhoods with better education facilities and high income groups are very mobile. If there is a significance difference in education and income level among various Asian American subgroups I really wonder, why this variable is not use for clustering social milieus. The interviewer bias is also not control for this influence.

    I can continue with my critics about the survey methodology.

    Pew Research Center is an private opinion research center and not staffed with scientific trained survey methodology specialist who works for official statistics. In official statistics you can force people with punishment to get low non-response rate. This is not possible for private opinion research center and addiotinaly opinion research center are not scientific. Only sociologist, psychologist and marketing folk can accept such a bad methodology as science – survey methodology is a specialized empirical field in sociology. Most sociologist, psychologist and marketing folks are never properly trained in survey methodology and the only thing that they can do is apply robotically statistical software programs like SPSS, SAS,…

    You have to learn proper Graphical methods in statistics and descriptive statistics first and know your domain to get familar with theoretical expectations and identify outliers. Then look for the anomaly and ask yourself is there are additional influences upon the outlier. Finally you should apply variable-centered survey methodology.

    No serious sociologist who is trained in narrative research and grounded theory say that anecdotes, life stories are not important data sources for interpreteting variable-centered approach in survey methodology.

    In fact in grounded theory and ethnographic research we go into the field for at least one year to gather categories and terms unitl we can find no new category and terms, then we conduct standardized survey methodology.

    Sociology cannot predict anything, because the causal mapping of various influences in an open system like society leads to emergence of weak causality. We develop various methodologies for multilinear models of causality, but the calculated correlation coefficients are very sensitive to small changes.

    Only psychologist with strange addiction the methodological individualism and equal strange experimental economists believe in the validity of their approach to humans. They are clearly go to far in their attempt to simulate STEM role model in physicists.

  • Junwei

    P.S.

    The answer set which target the income groups among the Asian American and Asian non-citizen to find similar attitudes to black poors and poor Latinos among South East Asian and Pacific Islanders is wothless also.

    Because in Non-Item response theory it is very important to use cultural sensibel wording of income question, because of the existence of different attitude to money.

    You also must contro the interviewer bias and ask the interviewer about his age, gender and education to calculate the social distance between the interviewer and the interview partner.

    The pairing of a female interviewer with a male interview partner results in lower response rate than man-man pairing.

    The pairing of a young interviewer with an older interview partner result in lower response rate than otherwise.

    Etc.

    In the codebook it is documented that they do not even now anything about Non-Response theory and this low quality of scientific credibility in the human capital of the staff of the Pew Researh Center is because they are not force to comply with the higher standards of official statistics and are forced by law to perform accurately. It is a private opinion research center which is for mission oriented research.

    It is very strange to hear such an opinion that the anecdotes of the social network is not important in election results. Social choice theory have a mathematical branch for interest aggregation and you get in serious decision anomaly with the simple summing up of individual utility functions.

    The story telling and identification with political narratives are very important to get out of the irrational outcome of election procedures, because you can sub-group identity utility functions which obviously depends uopn the topology of your peers network. Every democratic society needs story telling to legitimize the random outcome of majority rule, because of the existence of voting paradox in social choice theory: tyranny of the majority is not acceptable to minorities and story telling of minorities is a way to influence the irrationality of the voting paradox.

  • Soul_Survivor

    Reapproriate wrote: “So, if we are to believe that (once again) science shows two-thirds support for affirmative action among AAPIs, how can we interpret the impassioned and vocal opposition to SCA-5 earlier in the summer: an outcry so potent, it literally “killed the bill”?”

    From 23 Asian Am. L.J. 99:
    “Similarly troubling, affirmative action supporters have sought to gather support and legitimacy for their views by portraying Asian Americans as widely supportive of affirmative action. In pushing the image of widespread support, these interest groups have relied on the number of organizations that have co-signed their amicus briefs as well as public opinion polls. 165Link to the text of the note Yet these assertions are not only rife with methodological issues, 166Link to the text of the note but also contain a problematic presumption: amicus briefs and polls are premised on the belief that negative and affirmative action are completely separate policies.”

    “Moreover, the authors of the survey were likely very aware of this biased wording. Taeku Lee, one of the authors, recalled that the survey was specifically commissioned to provide support for affirmative action. 176Link to the text of the note Lee also acknowledged that he and the other authors purposefully avoided wordings that may have suggested that affirmative action harmed Asian [*128] Americans – out of concern that the results would not be as favorable. ”

    Jenn didn’t do her research and failed to analyze her own links.

    See what happens when I take out certain quotes of your argument and make blanket statements?