Get Ready For A Survey

Surveys are wonderful. They give you a chance to to be heard. Maybe, just maybe, you can make a difference and have an impact on something. If you’re on the city council, your chances of making a difference are much better (just ask councilwoman Jennifer Bruzan Taylor); you only have to convince four other council members to support your quest. However being a member of the common-folk in the ‘peanut gallery’ and speaking-up during your three minutes of public forum is typically met with silence  from the council or a polite “thank you for your comment” and that’s it, be on your way or have a seat.

Naperville prides itself in surveys, not necessarily the changes that result. During the last 17 years surveys have been conducted in 2006, then two years later in 2008, four years later in 2012, followed four years later in 2016, and now seven years later in 2023. If you see a trend of more years between surveys you would be correct.

The plan is to have postcards mailed this week to households randomly chosen geographically allowing the survey to be accessed.  Then approximately the beginning of August, the survey will be open for the entire community to access online, with the results provided to the city council in October. The survey will focus on the public works department, police and fire departments and the overall quality of life in Naperville including health care, schools and parks. The results of the survey will be compared to communities with similar demographics throughout the United States.

It will be interesting to see if any improvements will be made, or if the entire effort will be nothing more than socially acceptable non-productive behavior resulting in nothing more than a feel-good exercise.

Show 5 Comments


  1. Anonymous

    It’s a shame you have to wonder if a black student made it into the Ivy League due to their qualifications or just because of the color of their skin.

    “Affirmative Action Bred 50 Years of ‘Mismatch’
    Thinking elite schools are the only path to success for students is a form of intellectual snobbery.
    By Heather Mac Donald
    Updated July 10, 2023 2:50 pm ET

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor had harsh words for her colleagues who voted last month to bar the use of race in college admissions. She alleged in her dissenting opinion that the six-justice majority in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard had subverted the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, not upheld it, by “further entrenching racial inequality in education.” Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion slammed shut the door of opportunity to underrepresented minorities, especially black students, who still fight against a society that is “inherently unequal,” she wrote.

    Many in academia agreed with Justice Sotomayor. Incoming Harvard president Claudine Gay warned in a video statement that the decision “means the real possibility that opportunities will be foreclosed.” David A. Thomas, president of historically black Morehouse College, asserted that in the absence of racial preferences, black students will rightly conclude that they are “not wanted.” Students “of color” may not feel that they “matter,” according to Angel B. Pérez, chief executive of the National Association for College Admission Counseling.

    The charge that colorblind admissions will foreclose educational opportunities for blacks rests on a breathtakingly elitist view of education. And the idea that minority students should now conclude that they aren’t “wanted” on college campuses defies reality. Black students will attend college in the same numbers after affirmative action as they did before, if they so choose. Colleges will be as eager to have them. The only difference, assuming compliance with the ruling (a big if), is that such students will attend college on the same footing as most students from unpreferred racial groups: admitted to schools for which their academic skills qualify them.

    Racial preferences catapulted many minority students into colleges for which they were academically unprepared. As Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. demonstrated in “Mismatch,” their 2012 book on affirmative action, there are very few black students in the top academic cohorts from which highly selective colleges draw most of their students. Black high-school seniors are one-tenth as likely to be in the top tenth of college applicants nationwide as nonblack applicants. The average black SAT score in 2022 was 926 on a 1600 point scale. The average Asian score was 1229 and the average white score was 1098.

    Activists have for decades scoured standardized tests for questions that might presume race-specific cultural knowledge; any references to regattas, say, if they ever existed, have long since been eliminated. The College Board has also eliminated questions with too-wide a racial variance in correct answers.

    Because elite colleges are determined to engineer racially diverse student bodies, they have reached deep down into the black applicant pool to fill their quotas. They end up admitting black students who, in a world without affirmative action, would attend less selective but perfectly respectable schools. Harvard’s own research in 2013 showed that the black share of its undergraduate population would drop from 10% to less than 1% if it admitted students according to academic skills only. Harvard has the pick of the black U.S. high-school population, but even it can’t fill its desired quota without double standards.

    At each lower tier of academic selectivity, colleges dip deeper into the black applicant pool to try to fill their quotas in what Messrs. Sander and Taylor call the “cascade effect.” The result isn’t a benefit to these students but a burden. Research shows they are more likely to end up in the bottom of their classes, if not to drop out of college and professional education entirely. This academic mismatch doesn’t dispel racial stereotypes; it reinforces them.

    In a post-preference world, more black students, not fewer, will graduate in STEM fields since aspiring black STEM majors will attend schools where the teaching is pitched to their level of academic preparedness.

    The reconfiguration of the black college population would signify the destruction of educational opportunity only if elite colleges alone provide the potential for upward mobility. But if it is so aspiration-crushing for a black or Latino student to attend a third- or fourth-tier college, why should any student suffer so dire a fate? Lower-tiered schools should be shut down so that all students can go to the highly selective universities that offer (we are to understand) the only route to life success.

    Major corporations deploy a similar snobbery. More than 70 of them—including Accenture, American Airlines, American Express, Bain & Co., General Dynamics, General Motors and PayPal—joined a friend-of-the-court brief to uphold racial preferences so that they can maintain a “diverse” workforce. But they could recruit the same black students no matter where those students went to college. Admittedly, those companies would have to broaden their recruiting itinerary to venues that may offend their elitist sensibilities. The mystery is why the thousands of colleges and universities that preference supporters deem beneath consideration haven’t stood up for themselves. They should let the world know that they are as capable of educating future leaders as Harvard and Yale are.

    Nearly 50 years of pro-preference rhetoric have convinced many black students that being rejected from a school because of low test scores is the same as being rejected because of race. That rhetoric persuaded some that they face a hostile educational environment, when the truth is the opposite: Every college in the country was desperate to enroll them and still is.

    The majority ruling doesn’t deny “equal educational opportunity,” as Justice Sotomayor asserts. It returns equal opportunity to its true meaning: the possibility of going as far as your effort and accomplishments can take you.”

    • Jim Haselhorst

      And once again you post on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with what the Watchdog is writing about.

      Sorry but I have a hard time taking anyone that has to use someone else’s platform to get an audience for their opinions seriously and even less so when they do so anonymously.

      The use of anonymous to post makes it difficult to be 100% certain the same person is behind all these posts, but based on the past content and behavior demonstrated in these posts I am highly confident these are the work of the same person or atleast coven of people.

      It would be nice if the Watchdog adopted the same policy as most websites like this, which is not approving posts that have nothing to do with the associated writing for publishing. This would eliminate your sorry attempt to hijack this website in pursuit of your own personal agenda.

      Here’s a novel idea for you, why don’t you put in the hard work and commitment needed to create you own website to push your personal agenda rather then trying to leach off the hard work and commitment of others.

    • Naperville conservative

      Clarence Thomas is a result of affirmative action.

      • Jim Haselhorst

        The SCOTUS and Congress do not have affirmative action policies or programs. In fact by law they are exempt from having to comply with any such legislation in this country.

        To claim a person was selected as a candidate by Republican president to replace Thurgood Marshall (a black Justice) and was confirmed by the Senate with 52 vote (41 of which were Republicans) in a Democrat controlled Senate was the product of affirmative action is ludicrous at best.

        The reality is that his wife Virginia is a very influential Republican from a very influential Republican family. She pulled all the threads needed within the GOP to make this nomination happen and insure his candidacy had the Republican vote need to get confirmed.

        If anything Thomas is an good example of how partisan politics works in DC (the swamp) were a candidate accused of rape (like Trump was) can get selected and confirmed by a GOP ticket which clear does not respect strong women who chose to take on none traditional social roles in our country.

  2. Concerned tax payer

    The survey is only to selected addresses. why only selected addresses? How are they choosing the addresses? Need some transparency on this. It gives the appearance of a rigged survey to come to a predetermined conclusion. Survey should be given to all taxpayers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *