Data for Black America
Building a More Inclusive Agenda: A Survey of Congressional Priorities Across Race — Racial Equity Priorities
By LaShonda Brenson, Ph.D. and Kimberly Victor
Discussions about race-conscious policies, the policies that address systemic barriers facing people of color, have experienced a resurgence in recent years. Proponents of race-conscious policies cite the benefits these policies provide racial and ethnic groups, and the benefits of diversity to society as a whole.1 However, some critics believe that any “race-consciousness” in educational and employment decisions is inherently discriminatory, as these decisions should be focused strictly on merit.2 On June 29, 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions, which overturned over 40 years of precedent.3 Following this decision, advocates on both sides of the debate have increasingly raised arguments for and against race-conscious policymaking.
To investigate attitudes towards racial equity in policymaking by race, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and NORC at the University of Chicago included questions about racial equity priorities for Congress in a nationwide survey. The survey included responses from over 1,200 Black, Hispanic, white, multiracial, and Asian Americans. The data was collected online from Jan. 26 to 30, 2023, using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel.4
The survey asked how members of Congress should prioritize several issues, including those related to racial equity. The racial equity issues included: hiring staff representative of them and their interests, hiring a staff that reflects the diversity in their community, making sure that the laws Congress passes do not discriminate against groups by race, passing legislation that helps to decrease racial inequality, and passing legislation to make sure that every American has the right to vote. On each of these topics, the survey asked respondents to identify whether the issue should be a top priority, an important but lower priority, not too important a priority, or something that should not be done.
On average, the preferences for prioritizing racial equity priorities varied by race and ethnicity. Across racial groups, Black respondents are most likely to rank all the race-conscious issues as top priorities for members of Congress. The top priority for Hispanic respondents, Black respondents, as well as Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents is making sure that Congress passes anti-discrimination laws. The top priority for white respondents is passing legislation to ensure every American has a right to vote.
Preferences for prioritizing racial equity priorities varied by gender and educational attainment. Women are more likely than men to rank race-conscious priorities as top priorities. Respondents with a bachelor’s degree ranked race-conscious policy priorities higher than those with no high school diploma.
We analyzed two distinct categories of race-conscious policy questions. The first category pertains to personnel policies such as hiring diverse, representative staff. The second category focuses on policy issues centered on Congress passing legislation on racial equity issues (e.g., passing legislation that helps to decrease racial inequality).
Attitudes Toward Congressional Staff Diversity and Representation
Half of all respondents say that hiring a staff who reflects the diversity in their community should be an important or top priority for Congress. Support for prioritizing diversity in hiring staff who reflects their community varied by race, gender, and educational attainment. Black respondents (76 percent) are significantly more likely than white respondents (44 percent), Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents (55 percent), and Hispanic respondents (45 percent) to believe that hiring a staff who reflects the diversity in their community should be an important or top priority for Congress. Women (54 percent) are more likely than men (44 percent) to think that hiring a staff who reflects the diversity in their community should be an important or top priority. Respondents with at least a bachelor’s degree (54 percent) are significantly more likely than respondents who do not have a high school diploma (41 percent) to believe that hiring a staff who reflects the diversity in their community should be an important or top priority for Congress. There are no significant differences according to income and age.
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent, as some of the survey response options like “don’t know” or “no opinion” are not displayed in the chart above. The “Other/2+, NH” category refers to Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents.
Over half of all respondents (54 percent) say that hiring a staff who is representative of them and their interests should be an important or top priority for Congress. Respondents’ support for the prioritization of hiring staff representative of them and their interests varied by race and educational attainment. Black respondents (68 percent) are significantly more likely than Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents (56 percent), Hispanic respondents (54 percent), and white respondents (52 percent) to believe that hiring a staff who is representative of them and their interests should be an important or top priority for Congress. Respondents with at least a bachelor's degree (57 percent) are significantly more likely than respondents with no high school diploma (43 percent) to say that hiring a staff who is representative of them and their interests should be an important or top priority for Congress. Only nine percent of those surveyed said that Congress should not hire staff who are representative of them and their interests. There are no significant differences according to gender.
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent, as some of the survey response options like “don’t know” or “no opinion” are not displayed in the chart above. The “Other/2+, NH” category refers to Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents.
Attitudes Toward Considering Racial Inequality and Non-Discrimination Laws
Over 60 percent of all respondents say that passing legislation that helps to decrease racial inequality should be an important or top priority for Congress. Support for passing legislation that helps decrease racial inequality varied notably by race and gender. Black (73 percent) and Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents (70 percent) are more likely than Hispanic respondents (63 percent) and white respondents (57 percent) to believe that passing legislation that helps to decrease racial inequality should be an important or top priority for Congress. Women (68 percent) are more likely than men (53 percent) to think that Congress should pass legislation that helps to decrease racial inequality. Eleven percent of those surveyed said that Congress should not pass legislation that helps to decrease racial inequality. There are no significant differences according to income, education, and age.
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent, as some of the survey response options like “don’t know” or “no opinion” are not displayed in the chart above. The “Other/2+, NH” category refers to Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents.
Attitudes on Non-Discrimination Legislation
Almost three-quarters of all respondents (72 percent) thought that making sure the laws passed by Congress do not discriminate against groups by race should be an important or top priority. Only five percent of respondents stated that they believe Congress should not make sure that the laws they pass do not discriminate against groups by race.
Support for prioritizing non-discrimination in legislation varied significantly by race. Hispanic respondents (63 percent) had the lowest rates of support for Congress making sure to make laws that do not discriminate against groups by race. Seventy-nine percent of Black respondents thought that making sure the laws passed by Congress do not discriminate against groups by race should be an important or top priority.
Support for prioritizing non-discrimination also varied notably by educational attainment and age. Respondents with at least a bachelor’s degree (80 percent) are significantly more likely than respondents who do not have a high school diploma (60 percent) to believe that making sure that the laws they pass do not discriminate against groups by race should be an important or top priority for Congress. Respondents 60 years old and older (83 percent) are significantly more likely than younger respondents ages 18 to 29 (61 percent) to say that making sure the laws passed by Congress do not discriminate against groups by race should be an important or top priority. There are no significant differences according to gender.
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent, as some of the survey response options like “don’t know” or “no opinion” are not displayed in the chart above. The “Other/2+, NH” category refers to Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents.
Attitudes on Voting Legislation
Over 70 percent of respondents (73 percent) believe that passing legislation to make sure that every American has the right to vote should be an important or top priority for Congress. Support for passing legislation to make sure that every American has the right to vote varied notably by race, educational attainment, and age. Black respondents (80 percent) and Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents (87 percent) are more likely than white respondents (74 percent) and Hispanic respondents (61 percent) to believe that passing legislation to make sure that every American has the right to vote should be an important or top priority for Congress. Respondents with at least a bachelor's degree (80 percent) are significantly more likely than respondents with no high school diploma (64 percent) to say that passing legislation to make sure that every American has the right to vote should be an important or top priority for Congress. Respondents who are at least 60 years or older (80 percent) are significantly more likely than younger respondents ages 18 to 29 (67 percent) to say that passing legislation to make sure that every American has the right to vote should be an important or top priority for Congress. Only six percent of those surveyed believe that Congress should not pass legislation to make sure that every American has the right to vote should be an important or top priority for Congress. There are no significant differences according to income and gender.
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent, as some of the survey response options like “don’t know” or “no opinion” are not displayed in the chart above. The “Other/2+, NH” category refers to Asian American/Pacific Islander, multiracial, other non-Hispanic respondents.
This blog post is a part of a series under our Data for Black America Project. Forthcoming blog posts will analyze survey data related to respondents’ attitudes towards jobs and skills training, tax policy, and regulating technology policy.
Methodology
The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and NORC at the University of Chicago staff collaborated on this study. NORC fielded the survey using its AmeriSpeak® panel. Interviews for this survey were conducted between Jan. 26-30, 2023. The survey included 1,231 adults across the country. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.2 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level among all adults. The Omnibus survey is administered in mixed mode; (online) web (CAWI) and phone (CATI). About 90 percent of the interviews and conducted online and about 10 percent are conducted by phone.
Funded and operated by NORC at the University of Chicago, AmeriSpeak® is a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the US household population. Randomly selected US households are sampled using area probability and address-based sampling, with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Sample Frame. These sampled households are then contacted by US mail, telephone, and field interviewers (face to face). The panel provides sample coverage of approximately 97 percent of the U.S. household population. Those excluded from the sample include people with P.O. Box only addresses, some addresses not listed in the USPS Delivery Sequence File, and some newly constructed dwellings. While most AmeriSpeak households participate in surveys by web, non-internet households can participate in AmeriSpeak surveys by telephone. Households without conventional internet access but having web access via smartphones are allowed to participate in AmeriSpeak surveys by web. AmeriSpeak panelists participate in NORC studies or studies conducted by NORC on behalf of governmental agencies, academic researchers, and media and commercial organizations. For more information, email AmeriSpeak-BD@norc.org or visit AmeriSpeak.norc.org.
1 These benefits include increase in the number of doctors who are more likely to provide care to patients of color and lower-income patients, an increase in quality of education, an increase in thinking skills, increased cross-racial understanding and cultural awareness, and better preparation for employment and leadership in the workforce. See Holzer, H. J., & Neumark, D. (2006). Affirmative Action: What Do We Know? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 463–490. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30162729; Holzer, H., & Neumark, D. (2000). Assessing Affirmative Action. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 483–568. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2565419; Garces, L. M. (2014). Aligning Diversity, Quality, and Equity: The Implications of Legal and Public Policy Developments for Promoting Racial Diversity in Graduate Studies. American Journal of Education, 120(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1086/676909.
2 Holzer, H. J., & Neumark, D. (2006). Affirmative Action: What Do We Know? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 463–490. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30162729
3 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
4 AmeriSpeak is a probability-based panel, with households selected from a documented sample list (technically called a “sample frame”). Randomly selected households are sampled with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Frame and address-based sample, and then contacted by U.S. mail and by NORC telephone and field interviewers.
