About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quinnipiac misrepresents own poll to assert broad disagreement with Sotomayor

June 03, 2009 1:39 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: A Quinnipiac University release misrepresented its own poll question to claim that a significant majority of Americans disagree with Judge Sonia Sotomayor's position in Ricci v. DeStefano. MSNBC's Willie Geist and Monica Novotny similarly misrepresented the poll's findings.

13 Comments

A June 3 Quinnipiac University release misrepresented its own poll question to claim that "American voters ... disagree 71-19 percent with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in the New Haven firefighters' case [Ricci v. DeStefano], according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today." The headline of the Quinnipiac poll release similarly falsely claimed that "U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With Sotomayor On Key Case, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds." Likewise, during the June 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist misrepresented the poll's findings, asserting, "77 percent disagree with Sotomayor in that firefighter ruling. They say diversity's not a good enough reason to rule against the firefighters in that case." On MSNBC Live, anchor Monica Novotny also claimed that the poll "found 71 percent disagreed with Judge Sotomayor's ruling on the New Haven case." In fact, the poll question did not ask about Sotomayor's position in the case, in which the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the city of New Haven's decision to decline to certify exams taken by firefighters seeking promotion after concluding that the results of the test established a prima facie case of liability under Title VII; rather, the poll asked respondents whether they thought the Supreme Court should uphold or reverse the 2nd Circuit's decision. The distinction is crucial. The opinion Sotomayor joined said that 2nd Circuit precedent interpreting Title VII's prohibitions on race discrimination in employment led the court to uphold the decision by the city of New Haven. By contrast, the Supreme Court can reach a decision on whether to uphold the decision without regard to 2nd Circuit precedent.

The Quinnipiac University poll question stated:

As you may know, the United States Supreme Court will be deciding a case involving New Haven, CT's use of promotion tests for firefighters. Because no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion, the city decided to throw the test out. Do you think the Supreme Court should uphold the city or order the city to promote the 14 white and one Hispanic firefighters who scored high enough for promotion?

The poll question did not ask respondents whether they agreed with Sotomayor that Second Circuit precedent led to the conclusion that the city of New Haven was complying with Title VII's prohibition on employment discrimination. The poll asked respondents whether they thought the Supreme Court should find for the city or the firefighters.

Moreover, the poll question itself misrepresented the city of New Haven's position in the case. New Haven argued in its Supreme Court brief that the city's civil service board conducted a review of the test results, which "raised further concerns that the tests had not in fact identified the most qualified candidates and suggested less-discriminatory alternatives," and that the city was "faced with examination results that had a severe disparate impact and evidence substantiating the inference of discrimination." Indeed, Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- whom Sotomayor would replace -- made comments during oral argument in which he identified what he said was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation" faced by the city of New Haven in its efforts to comply with Title VII's prohibitions on employment discrimination.

From the June 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

GEIST: Talking about Judge Sotomayor, we have a new poll that just came into us -- Quinnipiac University poll -- about this New Haven firefighter case; the one thing that might cause her to get, you know, 89 votes instead of --

JOE SCARBOROUGH (host): Instead of 90.

GEIST: -- 90 votes.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.

GEIST: Let's see how people are responding to this. Do they disagree or agree with Sotomayor in the New Haven case? Do we have that poll? Oh, here it is: Seventy -- 77 percent disagree with Sotomayor in that firefighter ruling.

They say diversity's not a good enough reason --

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): That's interesting.

GEIST: -- to rule against the firefighters in that case.

SCARBOROUGH: And, by the way --

GEIST: So, interesting nugget.

From the June 3 edition of MSNBC Live:

CONTESSA BREWER (anchor): Sonia Sotomayor's controversial decision in that New Haven firefighters' case has sparked a new debate on affirmative action. Let's go to Monica at the politics desk with the result of a new poll that may surprise you -- Monica.

NOVOTNY: It does. The poll finds a majority of Americans want affirmative action abolished. Check out the numbers: 55 percent of those polled think we should do away with the practice; 36 percent say continue it.

Alicia Menendez is a Democratic strategist. John Feehery is a Republican strategist. John, I'll start with you. The same poll also found 71 percent disagreed with Judge Sotomayor's ruling on the New Haven case, but we've also seen polls that show that there's plenty of support for her nomination to the Supreme Court. Why do you think that is?

FEEHERY: Well, I think it's because Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich led the Republican assault on her in a way that was not helpful to their cause.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (June 03, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
         
      Let's be honest. The Corporate Media Bobbleheads want a knock-down drag-out fight over this nominee; it would be good for ratings. That's why they have adopted the Republitoad talking points.

      Liberal Media, my a$$.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (June 04, 2009 2:33 am ET)
           
        Also, the sympathy-laden term "firefighters" neglects to point out that the people who were discriminated against were firefighters too.

        Most people probably don't know this-- they see the term firefighters and think, how dare they get the shaft....
        Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (June 03, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
        2
      Had the poll question asked respondents whether they agreed with Sotomayor that Second Circuit precedent led to the conclusion that the city of New Haven was complying with Title VII's prohibition on employment discrimination do you think the results would have been different?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (June 03, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
        3  
        Had the poll asked if the decision to ALLOW the city of New Haven to take the steps THEY thought necessary to comply with Title VII. Which is what is relevant. The court didnt DEMAND this the city thought they should do it to be in compliance and Sotomayors court agreed they had the RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH A DECISION.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (June 04, 2009 2:35 am ET)
             
          Right. Sotomayor wasn't ruling on the test or the event, she was ruling on whether the city had the right to make their own decisions under precedent of law.

          The problem with this all is, most TV journalists are stupid and lazy. It's not a meritocracy over there.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (June 03, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
        2  
        Asked in that way, I think the average person would say "I don't know".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jon wisby (June 03, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
         
      ask an ignorant question get an ignorant answer
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (June 03, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
           
        It's very interesting that this case--as far as I know--has not been explained in this context.

        It's entirely possible that the media is simply not up-to-speed with regard to the workings of the law and how the judicial system works. How and why cases make their way to the Supreme Court.

        Instead of trying to inform the public on a nuance like this, we get the deranged ravings of buffoons like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan and Ted Baxter.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (June 04, 2009 2:41 am ET)
             
          77% disagree with Sotomayor in firefighter ruling

          I love that chyron: like MSNBC thinks that 77 percent of Americans are ruling on a legal technical point involving precedent, and disagree with Sotomayor's conclusion.

          How can a democracy work with such television?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by jon wisby (June 03, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
           
        Seems like someone at Quinipiac University should have known not to put a false pretext in a polling question.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Daniel Barber (June 03, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
         
      There's no real surprise here. As another poster said, ask an ignorant question, and you'll likely get an ignorant answer. Quinnipiac and these talking heads should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, I'm sure none of them give a damn.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 03, 2009 10:20 pm ET)
         
      I think its turning into another case of non-stick jello.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rsinebada7366 (June 05, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
         
      Where do we all think grading on "the curve" came from? Teachers, profs, administrators throughout our test taking lives have always recognized when it is a test that is faulty. Our teachers didn't usually throw them out but they sure adjusted the grade.
      Peg
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.