Intense ideological polarization actively suppresses empirical research on affirmative action.

Evidence

Holzer and Neumark (1999) observe that “despite the intensity of the viewpoints held, the evidence to date on this issue [specifically, the underqualification of affirmative action beneficiaries] remains quite thin.” I agree with them on the intensity and the thinness; in my view, however, the evidence is thin because of rather than despite the intensity of the viewpoints. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 2028

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to similar claims about how high-stakes policy debate crowds out evidence in climate and welfare discourse.
• APHORISMS: The inversion — evidence is thin because of, not despite, the intensity of viewpoints — is a reusable diagnosis of how polarization degrades knowledge production.