Read They Think You're Stupid for Free Online Page A

minority groups and women, and further, goals and timetables to which the contractor's good faith efforts must be directed to correct the deficiencies."
    In the decades that followed, government programs at the federal, state, and local levels mandated a variety of requirements specifying preference be given to minorities in employment and in awarding of certain contracts. In addition, some universities and local school systems, as well as fire, police, and other departments throughout the country, implemented their own policies that imposed racial quotas in acceptance and hiring procedures.
    Presidents Johnson and Nixon each made slight changes to President Kennedy's original executive order, though none used the word "quota." Most of the confusion over the affirmative action mandates today is the product of disparities in the numerous state and federal court rulings on the constitutionality of giving preferences based on government-mandated criteria.
    To many, affirmative action has come to mean preferential treatment for minorities and reverse discrimination for Whites. The term "affirmative action" has been demagogued by those opposed to the policy to mean quotas or mandates to hire or promote employees on factors other than merit. Due to the many and varied policies of government, educational, and private entities throughout the United States, as well as the many court rulings that have been made on these policies, "affirmative action" has become in practice a meaningless yet polarizing phrase.
    Even newspaper and television reporters fall prey to the use of labels and their multiple meanings. Reporters asked me numerous times during my campaign for U.S. Senate, "Do you support or oppose affirmative action?" My response was always, "That depends on what you mean by the term 'affirmative action.' Do you mean a policy of mandated hiring quotas based on sex and ethnicity, or do you mean equal access and opportunities for all citizens?"
    Some reporters thought I was trying to be defensive or trying to avoid the question. I was not, however, going to help perpetuate the use of this highly polarizing term. I may not be able to educate every reporter who asks a question, but I'm not going to say I'm for or against a label that has so many meanings to so many different groups. When I denounced quotas, I didn't offend all the Black people I know. Most people--Black, White, Asian, whatever--are against quotas. At the same time, most people support removing barriers and equalizing opportunities, not outcomes.
    Affirmative action stands with the economy as the most purposely confused and politicized issue in the modern political arena. When you ask an economist to define the economy or the current status of the economy, he or she will give you a much different answer than if you posed the same question to Leroy and Bessie Public. The economist will likely respond with a detailed account of current economic indicators, such as the Gross Domestic Product, unemployment rate, Consumer Confidence Index, corporate profit levels, and the status of the stock and bond markets.
    Leroy and Bessie Public, however, will give you a definition that relates to their personal economic situation. If Leroy and Bessie are employed, able to pay all their bills, and can save a little money for the future, the current state of the economy is great! If they happen to be in a bad economic condition, though, and perhaps one of them has been laid off and the dollar is not stretching as far as it used to, then the economy is doing terribly.
    The fact is, most people do not understand and are not aware of the myriad of metrics that provide us with the clearest possible perspective on the status of the economy. Most people tend to personalize the economic situation and feel that the status of the economy is a direct reflection on their current personal situation. Professional politicians know this, of course, and capitalize on voter misinformation and apathy with