The Supreme Court has banned colleges from using race as criteria for admissions. Essentially ending the 50-year run of affirmative action programs. California banned public colleges like Berkeley and UCLA from using race in their admissions in the 1990s. Since then, a large study measuring the academic success and earnings of students before and after the ban has shown what effects “race-neutral” admissions policies have on minority students. WSJ explains how affirmative action worked, why the Supreme Court struck it down — and what we can learn from California about how higher education might look without it.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Better but not stellar: Pollsters faced familiar complaints, difficulties in assessing Trump-Harris race
Nov 21, 2024
An oracle erred badly. The most impressive results were turned in by a little-known company in Brazil. A nagging problem reemerged, and some media critics turned profane in their assessments.
So it went for pollsters in the 2024 presidential election. Their collective performance, while not stellar, was improved from that of four years earlier. Overall, polls signaled a close outcome in the race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
That is what the election produced: a modest win for Trump.
With votes still being counted in California and a few other states more than a week after Election Day, Trump had received 50.1% of the popular vote to Harris’ 48.1%, a difference of 2 points. That margin was closer than Joe Biden’s win by 4.5 points over Trump in 2020. It was closer than Hillary Clinton’s popular vote victory in 2016, closer than Barack Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012.
There were, moreover, no errors among national pollsters quite as dramatic as CNN’s estimate in 2020 that Biden led Trump by 12 points.
This time, CNN’s final national poll said the race was deadlocked – an outcome anticipated by six other pollsters, according to data compiled by RealClearPolitics.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The most striking discrepancy this year was the Marist College poll, conducted for NPR and PBS. It estimated Harris held a 4-point lead nationally at campaign’s end.
‘Oracle’ of Iowa’s big miss
In any event, a sense lingered among critics that the Trump-Harris election had resulted in yet another polling embarrassment, another entry in the catalog of survey failures in presidential elections, which is the topic of my latest book, “Lost in a Gallup.”
Comedian Jon Stewart gave harsh voice to such sentiments, saying of pollsters on his late-night program on election night, “I don’t ever want to fucking hear from you again. Ever. … You don’t know shit about shit, and I don’t care for you.”
Megyn Kelly, a former Fox News host, also denounced pollsters, declaring on her podcast the day after the election: “Polling is a lie. They don’t know anything.”
Two factors seemed to encourage such derision – a widely discussed survey of Iowa voters released the weekend before the election and Trump’s sweep of the seven states where the outcome turned.
The Iowa poll injected shock and surprise into the campaign’s endgame, reporting that Harris had taken a 3-point lead in the state over Trump. The result was likened to a “bombshell” and its implications seemed clear: If Harris had opened a lead in a state with Iowa’s partisan profile, her prospects of winning elsewhere seemed strong, especially in the Great Lakes swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
The survey was conducted for the Des Moines Register by J. Ann Selzer, a veteran Iowa-based pollster with an outstanding reputation in opinion research. In a commentary in The New York Times in mid-September, Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson declared Selzer “the oracle of Iowa.” Rachel Maddow of MSNBC praised Selzer’s polls before the election for their “uncanny predictive accuracy.” Ratings released in June by data guru Nate Silver gave Selzer’s polls an A-plus grade.
But this time, Selzer’s poll missed dramatically.
Trump carried Iowa by 13 points, meaning the poll was off by 16 points – a stunning divergence for an accomplished pollster.
“Even the mighty have been humbled” by Trump’s victory, the Times of London said of Selzer’s polling failure.
Selzer said afterward she will “be reviewing data from multiple sources with hopes of learning why that (discrepancy) happened.”
It is possible, other pollsters suggested, that Selzer’s reliance on telephone-based surveying contributed to the polling failure. “Phone polling alone … isn’t going to reach low-propensity voters or politically disengaged nonwhite men,” Tom Lubbock and James Johnson wrote in a commentary for The Wall Street Journal.
These days, few pollsters rely exclusively on the phone to conduct election surveys; many of them have opted for hybrid approaches that combine, for example, phone, text and online sampling techniques.
Surprise sweep of swing states
Trump’s sweep of the seven vigorously contested swing states surely contributed to perceptions that polls had misfired again.
According to RealClearPolitics, Harris held slender, end-of-campaign polling leads in Michigan and Wisconsin, while Trump was narrowly ahead in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Nevada.
Trump won them all, an outcome no pollster anticipated – except for AtlasIntel of Sao Paulo, Brazil, a firm “about which little is known,” as The New Republic noted.
AtlasIntel estimated Trump was ahead in all seven swing states by margins that hewed closely to the voting outcomes. In none of the swing states did AtlasIntel’s polling deviate from the final vote tally by more than 1.3 points, an impressive performance.
AtlasIntel did not respond to email requests I sent requesting information about its background and polling technique. The company describes itself as “a leading innovator in online polling” and says it uses “a proprietary methodology,” without revealing much about it.
Its founder and chief executive is Andrei Roman, who earned a doctorate in government at Harvard University. Roman took to X, formerly Twitter, in the election’s aftermath to post a chart that touted AtlasIntel as “the most accurate pollster of the US Presidential Election.”
It was a burst of pollster braggadocio reminiscent of a kind that has emerged periodically since the 1940s. That was when polling pioneer George Gallup placed two-page advertising spreads in the journalism trade publication “Editor & Publisher” to assert the accuracy of his polls in presidential elections.
Underestimating Trump’s support again
A significant question facing pollsters this year – their great known unknown – was whether modifications made to sampling techniques would allow them to avoid underestimating Trump’s support, as they had in 2016 and 2020.
Misjudging Trump’s backing is a nagging problem for pollsters. The results of the 2024 election indicate that the shortcoming persists. By margins ranging from 0.9 points to 2.7 points, polls overall understated Trump’s support in the seven swing states, for example.
Some polls misjudged Trump’s backing by even greater margins. CNN, for example, underestimated Trump’s vote by 4.3 points in North Carolina, by more than 6 points in Michigan and Wisconsin as well as Arizona.
Results that misfire in the same direction suggest that adjustments to sampling methodologies were inadequate or ineffective for pollsters in seeking to reach Trump backers of all stripes.
Campbell, is professor emeritus of communication at the American University School of Communication.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Why understanding the ‘other side’ is more important than ever
Nov 20, 2024
For some of us, just reading the title of this piece may be irritating — even maddening. If you’re scared about Trump’s election, being asked to understand the “other side” can seem a distant concern compared to your fears of what might happen during his presidency. If you’re glad Trump won, you may be tempted to say, “We’ve won; we don’t need to listen” — or maybe you’re angry about the pushback you see on the “other side.”
As was true before the election, many of us fear what the “other side” wants and what they’ll do. But even in the midst of our fears and anger, we must see that understanding each other is more important than ever. When we fail to understand each other, we push each other away and amplify our divides.
It’s easier than we think for Americans to end up on either side of our political chasm. The narratives we embrace can depend on the people around us, the media we consume, specific issues we care about, among other factors.
You could think of our two main political narratives as two streams forming at the top of a mountain. When rain falls, water will flow one way or the other due to various initial conditions and obstacles. Some water will go directly into the stream; some will find its way via unexpected paths and backchannels.
And once you’re in that stream, seeing or understanding that other path can be hard. The various ways the other stream formed and flows is hard to understand: it’s on the other side of the mountain, obscured from our view.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
To be clear, we aren’t saying that every stance is equally rational; we’re only talking about the ease with which we can find ourselves on opposite sides of that mountain.
We know that many Americans have distorted views of those on the “other side.” Even as we may have fears about specific leaders, we should see it as important to distinguish leaders from their voters. We should be curious about the concerns of our fellow citizens. We should be willing to consider if our views of “them” may be overly pessimistic — and if that pessimism may act as fuel for the fire of our divides.
It’s critical — no matter our political goals or fears — to resist the temptation of always assuming the worst about the “other side.”
Anti-Trump Americans should see that supporting Trump doesn’t equal racism or bigotry. They should try to understand Trump voters' many defensible concerns: this can include dislike of liberal-associated stances, concerns about illegal immigration, and views that Trump and Republicans have been treatedunfairly by liberal-leaning institutions.
Pro-Trump Americans should try to see the reasons why many Americans — and not just those with liberal-associated views — are concerned about Trump and see him as a serious threat. They should try to understand the view that Republican-side distrust of the 2020 election was wrong and dangerous.
Americans can and will strongly disagree on these matters, but when we act as if all of our opponents’ concerns are completely irrational, we amplify our divides. When we contemptuously ignore and mock each others’ concerns, we communally gaslight each other.
If you find yourself describing “them” in the worst possible light — if you refer to your opponents as cultmembers, or brainwashed, or use similar insults — you must see that drives the wedge further between us. That is how you make your opponents see you as the “bad guys.” In this tone-deaf battle, no one wins.
We must keep in mind our opponents rarely support all the things on “their side” that we see as extreme and harmful. These days, our behaviors are not so much about supporting “our side” but about fighting against the “other side.” (And sometimes our enthusiasm about specific leaders is based on a view that they’re fighting hard against “them.”) Keeping this in mind helps us see our political opponents in more nuanced, less judgmental ways.
Our hostility toward each other can even influence our beliefs: it can lead us to take more extreme stances. Our inability to understand each other can transform issues into rigid “good vs. evil” choices. Hostility can act like a centrifuge, pushing our ideas to the outside and making conversation and compromise feel impossible. (One harmful way that can play out: hostility can make us more likely to distrust election results we don’t like.)
Our emotions can also lead us to arrive at unreasonably certain views of the future. As psychologist Adam Grant wrote, “If you think you know how the next four years are going to play out, you’re wrong.” (Grant writes from an anti-Trump perspective, but no matter your politics, we hope you see the wisdom in his point.) Reaching for certain and pessimistic predictions amplifies the cycle of conflict, pushing both sides into an arms race of emotion and action.
With more understanding of each other, we’ll reduce the demand for divisive political approaches. We’ll disagree in better ways. At the very least, we’ll avoid further widening the rifts between us. Despite what our instincts may tell us, seeing the best in each other does not mean abdicating our principles. It’s a strength, not a weakness — one that can even aid political activism.
For more articles like this, sign up for the Builders newsletter.
Elwood works with Builders, a nonpartisan organization aimed at overcoming toxic polarization, and is the author of “Defusing American Anger.”
Keep ReadingShow less
Learning to make a difference between elections
Nov 20, 2024
This is part of a series focused on better understanding transformational advocacy — citizens awakening to their power.
For most Americans this election has brought exhaustion, divisiveness and, for many, fear and deep pain. After the election Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic: “Americans must stay engaged and make their voices heard at every turn.” And Liz Cheney tweeted, “Citizens across this country … must now be the guardrails of democracy.”
But most Americans still wonder how, and even if, they can make a difference between elections. What are the options? 1) Protesting? Important, but usually not the long game. 2) Signing email form letters, which only 3 percent of Congressional staffers say is highly effective? Just gestures. 3) Taking a two-year nap until the next election? Sadly, the preferred route for many. But few Americans know about option 4: transformational advocacy, which helps you change an issue and changes you in the process.
If transformational advocacy can have an impact on issues we care about and on our own souls, why do so few of us engage?
Let’s be honest — almost everyone shies away from advocacy as a way to make a difference. We donate to climate change organizations, but we don’t meet with a member of Congress or write a letter to the editor. We donate to groups working to end gun violence, anti-hunger organizations, groups dedicated to racial justice and many others, but we don’t become advocates on those issues beyond signing an online petition or going to an occasional rally. Why? Because most of us see advocacy as too hard or too frustrating, too complicated or too partisan, too dirty or too time-consuming, too ineffective or too costly.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But what if that’s all wrong? What if deep engagement dissolves discouragement and can actually bring joy? What if you can become an advocate for a cause you care about and feel fulfilled, not frustrated? And what if engaging as an advocate is essential to protecting our democracy?
It is essential, but we’re constantly receiving the wrong signals from people who should know better.
In a 2023 Salon interview, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor said, “Few people can meaningfully participate in national politics beyond voting (this is just as true of political scientists as it is of regular folks).” Really? We should just hang up our hats? No thank you!
“People want to be a part of something bigger than themselves,” said Bill O’Keefe, executive vice president of mission, mobilization and advocacy at Catholic Relief Services. With that realization, in 2019 CRS launched a program to develop chapters that would deeply engage their members in transformational advocacy and fundraising. CRS wanted to support their members in doing much more than just voting and signing petitions.
During President-elect Donald Trump’s first term, chapter members began working to pass the Global Child Thrive Act, a bill that would require the administration to integrate early childhood development techniques into all child-focused international aid programs — activities like reading and singing to children, playing with colorful objects and providing better nutrition. The simple things we do to help our own children and grandchildren thrive would make a world of difference for children globally, especially those living in refugee camps and in other difficult circumstances.
At the end of a grueling campaign, one CRS volunteer shared how she felt when her House member, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), spoke during passage of the bill in 2020:
“When [we met with the congressman in 2019 to ask him to introduce the bill], I was a nervous wreck. It was my first time truly advocating ... and I wanted to get it right ... [but] seeing him speak today [on the House floor] and knowing that he actually listened, learned and worked for something that meant so much to the people he represents has given me renewed hope in the future of our government. I feel privileged to be a part of this experience.”
The Global Child Thrive Act passed with veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate as part of the much larger National Defense Authorization Act. The bill was vetoed by Trump, but the veto was overridden by Congress, and the bill became law on Jan. 1, 2021.
Most Americans still wonder how, and even if, they can make a difference between elections. It’s time for nonprofits to offer transformational advocacy and help us save our democracy.
Daley-Harris is the author of “Reclaiming Our Democracy: Every Citizen’s Guide to Transformational Advocacy” and the founder of RESULTS and Civic Courage.
Keep ReadingShow less
Officials and nonprofits seek solutions for Chicago’s housing crisis
Nov 20, 2024
Elected city officials and nonprofit organizations in Chicago have come together to create affordable housing for homeless, low-income and migrant residents in the city’s West Side.
So far, solutions include using tax increment financing and land trusts to help fund affordable housing.
The Housing Roundtable, organized this month by state Rep. Lilian Jiménez (D), gathered the Chicago Department of Housing, the Department of Family and Support Services, the Law Center for Better Housing, Cornerstone Community Outreach, Here to Stay Community Land Trust, Association Housing of Chicago and others. It was the second such convening of the year.
Their goal is to work with the West Side community to find various solutions for permanent, affordable housing. Jiménez, who sits on Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s (D) Interagency Task Force on Homelessness, hopes to host a roundtable before every legislative session to gauge what the community has done and needs. The first roundtable was focused on property tax relief. Jiménez said they are continuing to work with partners to make sure that property tax relief becomes a reality.
“We’re trying to create spaces for people to know where to come to help us, to introduce ideas, vet ideas, and to let the community know what we’re working on,” she said.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
According to the Point in Time count, the migrant crisis has increased the number of people experiencing homelessness in Chicago. With 13,891 new individuals experiencing homelessness since 2023, the total comes to 18,836 individuals. According to Housing Action Illinois, there is a shortage of 289,419 affordable homes. In Chicago, the shortage of affordable rental homes stands at 126,125.
Pritzker’s fiscal 2024 budget dedicates $360 million to ending homelessness and improving housing solutions. Jiménez directs funds to impactful projects in her district.
The idea of a community land trust is, for Jiménez, one of the best solutions, using state grants to buy properties.
Lucy Gomez, community engagement specialist for Here to Stay Community Land Trust, said many of the roundtable participants “advocated for a $5 million grant from the state for Here to Stay last year, and we’re happy to report that we spent it!”
With the grant, they acquired 12 properties, mostly for families. According to Gomez, this is the only active community land trust in Chicago. Four homes have been sold since 2022, but many properties have been acquired and are in the rehabilitation process.
Here to Stay owns the land in trust. First-time buyers can purchase the home built on it. The buyers then lease the land from Here to Stay, meaning they only pay for the structure and not the land itself. This arrangement significantly reduces housing costs. Low-income families who have lived in these neighborhoods their whole lives can now stay and be protected from the rapid gentrification.
“We have to think of creative ways to basically outwit the market because these market forces are very exploitative and extractive,” says Jiménez.
Through the state’s and the city’s continued efforts, Alderperson Jessie Fuentes is applying public funding to purchase the New Life Covenant church building in Humboldt Park and turn it into a non-congregate shelter. Jiménez is trying to acquire $500,000 in state funds for this project. On top of means obtained through Chicago’s non-congregate shelter acquisition program and Tax Increment Financing, Fuentes will be able to provide 50 to 60 new rooms.
Beneficiaries will have private space and access to many services, including on-site case workers, meals, gyms, professional development workshops and other resources.
“The model has been proven to support individuals’ well-being but also improve transition to long-term housing,” says Meredith Muir, program manager of the Chicago Recovery Plan at the Department of Housing.
The Chicago Recovery Plan aims to help implement additional non-congregate shelters and has awarded grants to organizations that want to make that effort.
Cornerstone Community Outreach is a nonprofit organization working to find permanent housing solutions for people experiencing homelessness. Through the Chicago Recovery Plan, it will receive $4 million to rehabilitate a facility that will accommodate 40 men in need of affordable housing.
“This is a very courageous project with the Department of Housing, DFSS, Public Health, the 26th ward, the state of Illinois,” said Andrew Winter, executive director of CCO. “Cornerstone is forwarding this new model of housing in this neighborhood, and I am grateful to be a part of that.”
Although there is still significant progress to make, the momentum for affordable housing is
strong. “The governor has shown a commitment to ending homelessness, to addressing the
housing shortage in the last budget,” said Jiménez, “I hope that the governor will continue on
that path and make some announcements on how we can invest in more infrastructure.”
Huot-Marchand is a graduate student at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More