52%-32% Support for Court's Decision "Restricting the Use of Race as a Factor in College Admissions"

The ABC News/Ipsos poll reports 52%-32% support for the decision ("Do you approve or disapprove of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions"):

The majority includes majorities of both white (60%) and Asian (58%) Americans. Latino and Hispanic Americans are split on the ruling (40% approve vs. 40% disapprove), and the majority of Black Americans disapprove ([25% approve vs.] 52% [disapprove]).

Note that the margin of error is necessarily higher for racial subgroups, especially smaller ones, than for the sample as a whole (for that, it's reported as ±3.5%), even though they were slightly oversampled (with the oversamples being statistically accounted for in the overall results). Note also that, despite the race gap, it's clear that no racial group is even close to homogeneous in its views.

The poll also reports …

45%-40% support for the decision "striking down the Biden Administration's student loan forgiveness program" and 43%-42%—basically an even split—as to the decision "that a website designer can deny services to same-sex customers seeking a wedding website." Note also that the questions are somewhat imprecise in their descriptions of the programs, perhaps inevitably so. For last year's post on the abortion decision, see here.

Naturally, none of this tells us what the right answer is; but public opinion is practically significant in various ways, regardless of whether one thinks that it should be.

UPDATE: I originally posted this post with the title "Survey Respondents Support Court's Decision Barring Race Preferences in Higher Education by 52%-32% Margin," but then decided to recast the headline to include the exact language of the question (which seems like a fairly accurate summary of the Court's decision). I had from the outset included the language in the post itself.

Comments

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Not a surprise, been polling that way for ages.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that 100% of the violent thugs support Affirmative Retribution, and everyone knows that they'll burn the campus flat if you don't appease them...

[Gandydancer]

The motive for this bullshit is not that.

[John F. Carr]

You could ask about

1. affirmative action
2. racial preferences
3. racial discrimination

and get three different answers.

[Eugene Volokh]

Indeed, that's right. But I think that here the question is formulated pretty accurately and fairly: "Do you approve or disapprove of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions." It doesn't frame this as "affirmative action" in the abstract (which might be seen as covering things such as broad outreach programs), but also doesn't frame it in terms of "quotas." Indeed, the statement that various admissions programs use race just as "a factor" is often given by defenders of such programs, who want to stress that a particular program isn't organized as a formal quota.

[Brett Bellmore]

But at this point I think everybody who has been paying attention knows that these really are de facto quotas, because the weight of that 'factor' will be tweaked to hit the predetermined numbers.

[hoppy025]

The problem for the diversity fanatics is that any measure other than race, such as first generation college student, growing up in poverty, or whatever, is going to favor poor whites. So the only way to get blacks in any significant number is to lower the standards for them, and only them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Diversity fanatics such as . . . Heterodox Academy?

And the Volokh Conspiracy?

[Gandydancer]

Go ahead, play stupid. We know how easy that is for you/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why is affirmative action for bigoted conservative law professors any better than, or different from, affirmative action for anyone else?

[Gandydancer]

Facts not in evidence is your specialty.

[ChrisC]

As a former university administrator I can tell you that this is completely correct. The practical result of affirmative action as currently practiced is - neutral or slightly beneficial for white males, slightly negative for white females, and hugely negative for Asians. While being positive for blacks and hispanics.

[Krayt]

If the questions were as described in the article, I only have problem with one. The one about speech and lgbtq was formulated as an attack on them, rather than a defense of speech. Or stronger still, as defending against an attack on speech.

Even just presenting it as lgbtq vs. free speech would have been more honest.

What difference does it make? If it were up to me, you'd have had gay rights in 1990 instead of chucking them into jail.

[Gandydancer]

"The one about speech and lgbtq was formulated as an attack on them..."

From your comment no one can tell what the hell you are talking about.

[Kleppe]

He's talking about the way poll questions are framed, I think.

[Gandydancer]

Of course he is.
But he needs to quote what he’s whining about.
We can’t all be bothered to go dig it up when he could just quote it.

[Ben_]

The web site question might have gotten higher approval if it had stated reasoning. The question was

"Do you approve or disapprove of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that a website designer can deny services to same-sex customers seeking a wedding website?"

A better question would be:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that a website designer may deny services to same-sex customers seeking a website for a wedding contrary to the designer's religious beliefs?"

[Eugene Volokh]

Well, but that would have suggested that this was a Free Exercise Clause case. It's instead a Free Speech Clause case, which generally secures rights to speech creators whether they are religious or secular.

[Ben_]

Yeah, maybe leave out the word "religious" then.

[Gandydancer]

No, that doesn't fix it. The opinion is about compelled speech and neither formulation makes this clear.

Dunno why this is so hard. Sotomayor's brain-dead dissent also refuses to acknowledge this, despite the fact that she must have seen Gorsuck's rebuke of her for this in the majority opinion.

[hoppy025]

What if you asked "Do you approve or disapprove of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that a private website designer may deny services he doesn't want to provide provided that there are numerous other providers of that service?"

[Gandydancer]

The number of other providers plays no part in the opinion that I noticed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Might have been a higher approval rate if they'd characterized it as banning the use of race in college admissions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But it didn't, Brett. It didn't.

No more than Baake did back in 1978....

[Gandydancer]

But it might have received a higher approval rate if ABC News/Ipsos had (even wrongly) characterized it as banning the use of race in college admissions.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://vdare.com/radio-derb/if-harvard-went-meritocratic-a-feast-for-cynics-and-when-racial-favoritism-is-ok-etc
see here:
11:38 A feast for cynics. (Channeling George Wallace.)

[DaveM]

Of what value is an opinion poll regarding the Supreme Court?

Other than the obvious (click-bait), I mean.

[Eugene Volokh]

Public opinion matters in various ways. It may bear on how Congress and the President react to the decision, whether one likes such reactions or not. It may affect, for instance, proposals for structural reform (e.g., packing the Court). And it may affect particular legislative or executive decisions (e.g., whether Congress or the President tries to work around a Court's decision, tries to reverse it by constitutional amendment, tries to do more to enforce it, etc.).

It may also bear on how state and local institutions react to the decision, for instance whether state legislatures act to block attempts by state universities to work around it (or whether state legislatures support those attempts). And it may also bear on how private institutions react to the decision.

Now of course a particular poll will only give us limited perspective on any of these factors. But put together the polls tell us something about public opinion, and public opinion matters in a democracy, even if it doesn't affect the law directly.

[FivebySixThree]

I no longer believe public opinion matters to either party but the Democratic Party seems to dismiss it even more. They have long been in the mode of repeating the same statement over and over until the public believes it to be true.

If anything both sides simply are more extreme in their tone but one side is more willing to use veiled threat and innuendo "wouldn't it be just horrible if so and so suffered for their opinion not that we are saying they should... "

[santamonica811]

Not sure if your theory explains two of the most emotion-laden social issues of the past 50+ years: abortion right and gun control. Both are overwhelmingly supported (at least, when those proposed laws are fairly modest in scope), but Republicans have been faithfully opposing them for this entire half-century.

Do you think these two issues are anomalies? I suspect that, with a few minutes of thought you and I could come up with a pretty extensive list of other issues where Republican politicians on the federal and state level are pushing legislation that run contrary to the "will of the people." Raising taxes on the filthy rich is probably one. Certain types of environmental protection. (Used to also be, for decades, decriminalization of pot--but seems like the dam finally broke on that one.)

I think both parties can show plenty of examples where Ds or Rs are "out of step" with 51%, or 60%, or 70+% of Americans. And, of course, that's often a huge feature, not a bug, in our political system...there's great value in protecting the rights of those in any particular minority.

[ChrisC]

Defund the police and sexualizing young children in public schools are two of the most unpopular political positions in the history of the world. So, they prove your point.

[Gandydancer]

Missing from your list of the effects of public opinion is the unwillingness of the squishy Justices to buck it.

[DaveM]

These would all be very sensible points if we weren’t talking about opinion polls specifically. For example, if we were talking about roundtables, discussion threads, or nearly any other form of conversation where opinions could actually be expressed and discussed, then we’d get all these benefits you’ve described.

But polls don’t deliver. First, the results of a poll are rarely useful because the answers you get depend so much on how the questions are framed. In a back-and-forth medium, you can challenge that framing, and have it clarified. Not so in a poll. What you see is what you get.

And second, polls which are released immediately before or after something major are clearly very much driven by emotions such as partisanship. Those just aren’t very useful. We already know that people have sharp, heated opinions. What would actually help is, again, dialog.

Put together, polls tell us something about the poll-takers and the poll-watchers, but little, I think, about actual public opinion. Maybe wait for two news cycles, and then take the poll? That would certainly be an improvement.

[Kazinski]

It's not hard to see why affirmative action is so unpopular it hurts blacks more than it helps them.

According to Thomas Sowell the average black admitted to MIT is in the top 10% of the country in math scores, but in the bottom 10% of their class at MIT.

You are setting a talented student up for failure by throwing him into a class that is in the top 99.5% of the country in math scores rather than letting them go to a regional university where they could thrive.

Vintage video, but I don't think the numbers or the premise have changed much.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1674454446770728963?t=T2sop2GINF4JiHfRKs02Nw&s=19

[Sarcastr0]

According to Thomas Sowell the average black
While I do think that just easing admissions without more support is setting blacks up for failure, I would require a citation.
Sowell has said inaccurate stuff before, specifically about AA. It's how he butters his bread.

[Gandydancer]

"Sowell has said inaccurate stuff before,"
Of course you provide no evidence of that whatsoever.
I would require a citation, since your word for that isn't worth shit.
An asshole liker you doesn't anyway get to require anything of anyone.
No one is interested in taking on the fool's errand of getting you to admit anything you don't want to admit to.
Sowell's numbers sound right to me, and unlike you he's not likely to have pulled motivated opinions out of his ass. If you don't like them come up with your own.

[Gandydancer]

Numbers, that is. Jackassery opinions you've got in multitudes.

[Gandydancer]

Here’s a similar number Sowell provides for Cornell.

“[There is] an insufficient pool of minority students qualified for the top-tier colleges. I came across this at Cornell back in the ’60s. I learned that half the black students there were on academic probation, so I went to the office and looked up the records. The average black student had SAT scores in the 75th percentile nationally, while the average white student scored in the 99th percentile.”https://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1990/09/10/86090/index.htm

MIT is of course further off the charts in terms of Math SAT scores, so the average black admit being in the top 90% nationally but bottom 10% at MIT is not surprising at all. And Sowell, giving this number repeatedly (as the video shows) and it being in an area of longstanding interest to him, is unlikely to have gotten it wrong. If he had you would have no trouble finding it contradicted by some critic. But you’ve got nothing except baseless snark, as usual.

“

[F.D. Wolf]

I noticed, in the affirmative action case, that Roberts, writing for the Court, and Thomas, concurring, did not capitalize "black" when referring to the race, but Sotomayor and Jackson, in their dissents, did honor this very recent leftist convention of capitalizing "Black". Additionally (and absurdly), Sotomayor, when quoting older Court opinions, would replace "Negro" with "[Black]". Jackson, on the other hand, did use "Negro" when quoting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Leftist conventions will soon enough be conventions.

Winning a culture war, prevailing at the modern marketplace of ideas, and being on the right side of history have consequences.

Cheer up, though, clingers . . . you still get to use "Democrat Party and "Democrat Senator," and to whine about all of this damned progress and modernity as much as you like.

[Frank Drackman]

So "Coach" Jerry, I know your "Relationship" with the current Penn State Coaching Stiff is umm "Complicated" but you gotta have some read on this years D-Fence... Only 9 weeks until "Foot meets Leather" against one of the Hew-gest "Klinger" states, West Virginia....
Jeezus, Penn State/West Virginia??, do you get a free tube of Poligrip with your ticket??

Frank

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I like it when Republicans feign outrage about Dred Scott when slavery was enshrined in the Constitution…buh Taney.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Massachusetts abolished it in 1801 -- BECAUSE OF the new state constitution....

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, but it was legal in Maryland, Delaware (HT Sleepy), Virginia, North/South Carolina, Georgia..
Last Slaves in New Yawk were freed July 4, 1827 (maybe a new Holiday?? "July-Teenth"????

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it is whatever style manual they learned in college.

I flip between APA (American Psychological Association) for my Education stuff, Turabian (Univ of Chicago) for the stuff I write for conservative academia, and AP (Associated Press) for stuff I write for general publication.

You gotta pay attention because they are NOT the same and that is what you are seeing here.

Memory (and I’d have to check) is that APA says capitalize, and UoC says not to. I’m really not surprised to see this difference.

As an aside, all I ask my students is to be consistent -- I really don't care which manual they use. Now as to starting most sentences with a capitol letter and ending most of them with some form of punctuation, that I do appreciate...

[F.D. Wolf]

The AP Style Guide made the change to capitalize "Black" (but not "white", of course) in June 2020. Needless to say, they follow both suggestions. You should capitalize "Indigenous" too, says the AP. This was all just post-George Floyd riots nonsense.

I'm going to go check Sotomayor and Jackson writings/opinions before that date to see if they were capitalizing "black" or not.

https://apnews.com/article/71386b46dbff8190e71493a763e8f45a

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As long as capitalization conventions are consistent - i. e., not racist - then they should be OK.

[F.D. Wolf]

As long as they don't change as frequently as the Newspeak dictionary.

[Brett Bellmore]

How exactly, though, is capitalizing "black" but not "white" consistent? Of course it's racist! It's not the worse form of racism around, but it's among the most blatant and unapologetic.

[F.D. Wolf]

Indeed, it would appear that Justice Sotomayor is a recent convert to the capitalization of "black". In her concurring opinion in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), she repeatedly uses "black" in its racial since without capitalization. But by her dissenting opinion in Jones v. Mississippi,141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021), she is capitalizing "Black".

As for Justice Jackson, since I don't have Westlaw or Lexis, and with "Jackson" being such a common name, I am not inclined to search her district court opinions to see if she has also just recently adopted the capitalization of "black".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's reasonable to assume the capital "B" thing is new for her too.

Just like I'm sure in 2014 she knew what a woman was, but now she doesn't. Liberals are political first and foremost. Not principled.

[F.D. Wolf]

Well, I found four of her district court opinions between February 2014 and May 2016, and, curiously enough, she capitalized "Black" once (in the second case), but did not in the other three.

Martin v. U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, 19 F.Supp. 3d 291, 295 (D.D.C. 2014) ("black male"); Cofield v. United States, 64 F. Supp. 3d 206, 210 (D.D.C. 2014) ("Plaintiff states he is Black."); Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 79 F.Supp. 3d 174, 203 (D.D.C. 2015) ("black and white people"); Njang v. Whitestone Grp., Inc., 187 F.Supp.3d 172, 187, (D.D.C. 2016) ("black employees").

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's interesting. I wonder which was the typo.

[Frank Drackman]

HEY!!!!!! I'm supposed to be the one who molests the Engrish Langrage!!!!!

[Tom for equal rights]

I also noticed sotomayor mischaracterized the reconstruction laws to benefit former slaves. Almost as if she intentionally did it to make a false claim regarding 14a. Would think a SC justice wouldnt lie about history

[Kazinski]

Seems strange Sotomayor doesn't know negro means black in Spanish.

I would think that's the sort of thing a wise latina would know.

[Tom for equal rights]

[Stephen Lathrop]

I participated for years in a federal advisory situation involving Logan Airport expansion, with an eye to finding ways to minimize community noise impacts, or at least to constrain their increase. Other participants were drawn from communities throughout the Boston area. Rivalry between towns and neighborhoods, and an uneasy sense of a risky zero-sum contest haunted the proceedings. Representatives, unsurprisingly, brought their neighborhoods' cultural character with them to the meetings.

Folks familiar with Boston area history will expect that some of that baggage had to do with tacit racism characteristic of some white neighborhoods. Which was a problem for more than the usual reasons. Previous air traffic policy decisions had already disproportionately afflicted largely black neighborhoods. That was the status quo in place at the start of the project. Everyone knew that, and everyone expected reps from afflicted black neighborhoods to advocate for a broader distribution of impacts.

Thus, when reps from those black neighborhoods had something to say, reps from some other neighborhoods got restive. The way that manifested was always the same: after the briefest possible show of patience, someone would say, "We've heard enough already, let's vote on it." Time and again.

Professor Volokh, if the charge is racist policy making which disproportionately afflicts a historically disadvantaged minority, it is hardly a defense to insist on opinion preferences favoring a majority. No would-be champion of human rights ought to be unclear about that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Racism? In Boston? (/sarc)

But before getting into tit-for tat Balkanization, and arguing over whose racism is purer (spoiler – nobody’s), why not try improving *pre* college education?

The Balkanization analogy is actually a good example of tit-for-tat racism. The Croat government murdered Serbs during WWII, making a case for retaliatory discrimination by Serbs against Croats. If you want to look at a history of systemic discrimination, take a look at the Turkish treatment of their subject Balkan peoples. What could be more intelligent (/sarc) than retaliatory discrimination against Muslim ethnic/religious groups?

Tit-for-tat racism didn’t seem to work out in the Balkans – indeed, is there *any* example of a country where it worked?

[Kazinski]

Racism is not even close to the root of the violence problem i in the Balkans. Serbs, Croats, Bosnians and Montenegrins are virtually all the same race and ethnicity and speak the same language.

The problems root from the fact that the Serbs have maintained a traditional Orthodox religion, the Croatians came under the domination of Venice in the middle ages, and the Bosnians were oppressed for being a center of a Orthodox heresy and took the opportunity of the Ottoman dominance to covert to Islam.

The divisions are over religion and nationalist rivalries, not race.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Professor Volokh, if the charge is racist policy making which disproportionately afflicts a historically disadvantaged minority, it is hardly a defense to insist on opinion preferences favoring a majority."

It does nicely refute the claim that the Supreme court is acting in a democratically illegitimate manner, though.

From a human rights standpoint you justify it on the basis of EVERYBODY having the same rights, not just historically disadvantaged groups. And those rights being individual rights, so that the fact that Bob got disadvantaged by Ralf in no way justifies helping out Leroy at Jerry's expense.

In fact, modern racially discriminatory AA operates on the same theoretical basis as lynching did; Members of races are interchangeable, so you don't need to hand the right one from a tree!

[Michael Ejercito]

I heard a rumor that in 1953, Topeka, Kansas used race as a factor when admitting students to schools.

If that was not wrong, why would affirmative action be wrong?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Here we go with abortion rights being so popular. But the pro-choicers are doing a bait and switch. Abortion rights with reasonable time limits are popular, but that’s not what democrats are advocating for. They want abortion to be legal up to the moment of birth, which is brutally unpopular. You gotta be careful what you’re asking about as to abortion.

And don’t wah-wah at me about right-wing rhetoric. That’s what the bill they introduced in the Senate post-Dobbs called for. It’s the official party position.

[Rossami]

Actually, he did. Lots of people did. And, like these decisions, reactions to the Dobbs decision were mixed - and even more mixed when the questions were asked with enough nuance to be useful.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Sigh.

You sighed at the part we agreed with and ignored the part that makes the Dem proposal radioactive. But thank you for providing a link proving what I said instead of demanding that I do your leg work.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A 61% have no clue as to what it means to live in a FEDERAL REPUBLIC.

Lets put it in a way they can understand: If Ireland wants to do something that the EU says they can't, should the COUNTRY of Ireland be allowed to do it?

[Kazinski]

The supreme court allows abortion up till birth, if that's what your state wants then ahead and implement it.

But the 14th amendment bans racial discrimination by states, so North Carolina can't racially discriminate in admissions.

I think Harvard as a private institution should be able to discriminate on the basis of race if they want to, but Congress passed legislation saying they couldn't. Maybe Congress shouldn't have that power, maybe Harvard and the Woolworth's lunch counter should both be able to decide who to serve based on there own druthers. But I think that question was settled a long time ago.

[hoppy025]

Most people thought overturning Roe would immediately make abortion illegal everywhere. The average American is ignorant as to how the system works.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You “abortion is popular and Dobbs was not”

Me “True”

You “you stupid SOB let’s argue”.

No thank you.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Meh, zip codes are a solid proxy for demographics and so this changes very little. If RepooplicKKKunts need a proxy for white trash Trump voters they can just use Covid death rate since 12/2021. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

There ARE at the schools, such as UMass, that claim not to use affirmative action.

[Tom for equal rights]

Queen almathea 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Was there evidence of pre-determined numbers in these two schools?"

Queen - you obviously werent paying attention
Yes very definitely quota's in harvard unc and grutter - Grutter read the trial court opinion.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Yes, the evidence for predetermined numbers was consistent percentage of Asian admissions over the years coupled with a vastly higher rejection rate and that Asians had a higher minimum SAT score required for consideration.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court majority saw evidence in the consistent racial composition of incoming classes. That is what quotas would do. I am not persuaded because that is also what a relatively consistent applicant pool and quotaless admissions policy would do.

[Kazinski]

Why don't you address the statistics I alluded to:
The average Black student at MIT is in the 90th percentile in math for the entire country, but they are in the bottom 10% in their class.

I hope you can see why Dr. Sowell would think that would hurt most of the black students at MIT, where math is so important when they would be near the top of their class at most universities.

Elite universities are using black students as window dressing, and it's not to the benefit of the students.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey I wonder if banks can use proxies like zip codes for determining loan risk?

[grb]

bevis the lumberjack : "They want abortion to be legal up to the moment of birth"

1. That is a lie.
2. It has always been a lie.
3. It will always be a lie.
4. You know it is a lie.

But given American popular opinion, a lie is all you've got. Go out and find one person who demands the right you claim, and I'll find hundreds of thousands who demands the procedure be banned. There's no balance here. There never has been.

And remember, 98.7 percent of abortions are performed during the first 20 weeks. Going into the last trimester, the numbers get microscopically small and are driven by medical calamities. So your lie is a lie twice over.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/gop-claim-that-democrats-support-abortion-up-moment-birth/

[David Nieporent]

What does a confederation of independent countries have to do with a single country?

[hoppy025]

Because New York City and San Francisco's deviant proclivities (such as making it legal for people like the Rev. Kirkland to intentionally spread HIV at the bath houses) shouldn't be forced upon the whole country.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You really don't know?

[hoppy025]

I'll care about what they want when 75% of their children aren't bastards.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is your target audience, Volokh Conspirators. Bigots. Bigotty, bigoted conservative bigots. These are your people. And the reason you are doomed in the culture war.

Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Congress exempted itself from the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Whatever the reason, that's the text. Presumably Congress trusted itself more than it trusted the states.

Whatever the reason, Congressional precedents of racial discrimination don't let the states off the hook.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How so?

Ever hear of BAMN? They changed their name to ANTIFA, but they started out 20+ years ago as the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By An Means Necessary -- and that explicitly included violence.

And there is a big difference between organized (interstate) groups willing to use violence as a tactic and what a few intoxicated teenagers might do on their own. When historians review the demise of the FBI, its failure to deal with BAMN in the '90s will be mentioned.

And people ARE going to get killed....

[Toranth]

About 20% of people want zero restrictions on abortion, up to birth.
About 10% of people want abortion banned under all circumstances.
About 50% support abortion up to 6 weeks (plus 20% "exceptions") (including the 20% zero restrictions)
About 40% support abortion up to week 14 (plus 20% "exceptions") (including the 20% zero restrictions)
About 22% support abortion up to 24 weeks (plus 20% "exceptions") (including the 20% zero restrictions)

You'll find support for abortion has little to do with how many are performed during that period.
(Source: Pew 5/22)

[hoppy025]

Do you deny that 75% of black children are born to fatherless homes?

[Gandydancer]

Determinedly dumbass response, typical of you.

In fact the stability of the targets that are met demonstrates that they are quotas.

Dershowitz: "Elite schools such as Harvard, Yale, Wellesley, Stanford and Princeton denied employing religious quotas, but everyone knew the precise numbers that turned out every year."
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4000227-are-universities-preparing-to-circumvent-supreme-court-decision-banning-affirmative-action/

He's talking about anti-Jewish anti-Catholic quotas, but it hasn't changed and we all know that it hasn't changed.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, viewed "holistically" those that "look like" Obama just kick the ass of those "Asians" who get perfect scores on their SATs, never mind that they're only 0.7% of the top academic decile..

Tell me another.

[Kazinski]

I think it's unpopular because most Americans think the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

[Gandydancer]

"Simple question"? Kaz gave you exactly no excuse to imagine he was saying that "affirmative action" hurts blacks because it’s unpopular. You just pulled that out of your ass.

Actually, though, Kaz is wrong. AA is unpopular because it's anti-White and anti-Asian and the Whites and Asians (still around 65% of the population) don't like being targeted for racial discrimination. Sowell may have been right that it hurts blacks, too, but most of them like the idea of getting reparations.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know which typically dumb Dr. Ed idea you're promoting, no.

[Brett Bellmore]

An awful lot of work was put into making people think that.

[hoppy025]

True. Dishonesty and bad faith comes naturally to leftists.

[Frank Drackman]

Bastards!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some may decry the bigotry exhibited in this Volokh Conspiracy exchange (and others) today, but any thread in which neither Eugene Volokh nor one of his fans launches a vile racial slur must be considered an above-average one at the Volokh Conspiracy.