CARROLL: Confused by English

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 4, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Does the following story sound credible to you?

"I am a political science major at the University of Colorado-Denver. At the light rail station I venture to every day I was approached by a petition circulator who asked me to sign a petition that would end discrimination in Colorado within institutions, workforce, etc. I questioned this petitioner knowing that we already had laws to prevent this but he told me that they would no longer be effective in the following months. I signed the petition because I believe in preventing discrimination anywhere."

Let's be charitable and just say that this student of political science, who lives in Aurora, might want to consider another major if she really thought it possible that anti-discrimination laws "would no longer be effective in the following months" - if that indeed is what she was told.

She might also want to review the wisdom of signing documents before she understands their meaning.

But of course she would rather not take responsibility for her naivete and ignorance. Instead, she has filed a complaint with the secretary of state's office demanding that her name be taken off the petitions for Amendment 46 - a request akin to asking a county clerk to change a vote.

She is not alone, either. An Arvada woman filed a complaint in the same office "regarding the misleading tactics used to get people to sign the petition for the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative." And what were these despicable tactics? Why, the petition circulator had the gall to let the woman read the measure.

"I do not make it a habit to sign petitions," her complaint says, "but I read this and it seemed reasonable. In addition, the petitioner, a person of color, explained that it was an initiative to help end discrimination against all people."

And so it is, by "prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." But of course some people - such as this Arvada woman, apparently - genuinely don't believe programs granting preferences to certain groups in public contracts or college admissions qualify as discrimination. Or rather, such preferences qualify as the good sort of discrimination that goes under the more genteel term of affirmative action.

A group called Colorado Unity, which opposes Amendment 46, is urging every other poor lamb who didn't learn the meaning of "preferential treatment" until after signing a petition to come forward and complain to the secretary of state, too. It's a sad state of affairs when people must fight a ballot initiative by admitting they were bamboozled by simple English.

Crying in their 3.2 beer

Lawmakers had a chance this year to put consumers first by legalizing the sale of liquor on Sunday and letting groceries and convenience stores sell full-strength beer and wine. Convinced that liquor stores couldn't compete with larger grocery outlets, lawmakers chose to do one but not the other. Consumers got half a loaf.

Now the grocery stores that lost naturally are pleading with Gov. Bill Ritter to veto the Sunday liquor sales bill on the ground that it will grant specialty stores a seven-day "monopoly" on sales of full-strength beer while sales of 3.2 beer take a dive.

They're right on both counts but a veto should be out of the question. You cannot open a market, any market, without favoring some merchants and harming others. By enacting half of the possible reform, lawmakers will hurt some merchants but benefit consumers. By enacting all of it, they would also hurt some merchants but help consumers even more.

From a public policy point of view, that should be an easy call.

Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

April 4, 2008

7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

I wonder why they don't just tell people they want to get rid of affirmative action?
April 4, 2008

8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Same kind of morons got confused when voting in Florida in 2000. Since Democrats are too stupid to know how to vote, or read initiatives, then they should just stay out of the process altogether. Why allow retarded people to influence public policy or elections?
April 4, 2008

8:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

The whining petition signers are being dicriminated against because they can't read or understand what they are signing. They only need to claim they didn't understand and were duped because they have had a series of unfortunate events , one being educated in Colorado.
April 4, 2008

9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIdC5v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-3axW...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu1zy2...

Women...
April 4, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Great question, Spencer. If the initiative organizers are proud of what they're doing, why not just tell potential signers "We oppose discrimination and we want to end affirmative action."?
rickg, you can't possibly believe that Republicans have never fallen for misrepresentation and false promises. Remember "No new taxes"?
Bottom line, don't sign any petition unless you know exactly what it means. If you can't understand it, don't sign it.
April 4, 2008

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

peterpi,

The petition stated exactly what it intended to do:

"prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

So, in effect, the petition functions as a Venus fly trap for hypocritical liberals. Liberals are for whatever sounds good; ending discrimination? Yes. Favor affirmative action? Yes. Tell them that the latter conflicts with the former, and they choose the term that is the most politically correct.
April 4, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

oatis writes:

My wish is that Mr. Carroll speak, not with sideways sarcasm, but with direct I-statements. I want him to acknowledge that the petition in question is written in an intentionally misleading manner, meant to fool well-meaning people into putting some bigotted, anti-affirmative action measure on the ballot. I want him to further concede that the authors of the petion are well aware that an honest and straightforward approach makes success unlikely, so that is why they are resorting to trickery. An I want Mr. Carroll to go further, and declare plainly that he applauds and supports the aims of the initiative.

Honesty, sir. You hold yourself up to us a pragon of clear thinking and virtue. Just say what you mean.
April 4, 2008

1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

oatis,

What is not honest about this:

"prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

That seems pretty clear to me.
April 4, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

you're dodging John II. Wouldn't it be more clear just to state you would like to do away with Affirmative Action?
April 4, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

How am I dodging? I think what is written is very clear. The petition seeks to end discrimination. Is it really necessary to say "oh, by the way, affirmative action is a form of discrimination"? Do people really need to have their hands held? Like I said before, the petition catches hypocrites. If you truly want to end discrimination, you should not be a supporter of affirmative action.

I think people have gotten so used to certain terminology that they have become disconnected from the reality of many government programs. I'm sure there are a lot of accurate descriptions of many government programs that most fair minded people would oppose before they were told what the actual title of those programs is.

It is not the petitioners fault that so many citizens have simply stopped thinking about the types of laws they support and the consequences of those laws.

Frankly, I do not know why anyone would put their signature to anything on the spot like that. Even if the petition looked reasonable, I would never sign something without putting some serious thought into first. I am guessing that these women wanted to show the poor black man how sympathetic they were so they just signed without thinking. The funny thing is that their initial urge to sign was the correct action. It is only when they thought about it some more did they change their minds from the correct decision to the wrong one. I guess they needed more time to make the wrong decision. Go figure.
April 4, 2008

2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

I don't have a problem understanding what they are saying, however, I think it is prudent to ask why they are not just saying what they want. Why don't they just say "end Affirmative Action" on the petition? What is the underlying reason for not making it clear?
April 4, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

Maybe they think that a lot of people do not realize that affirmative action is, indeed, government sponsored discrimination.

Like I said before, many people have disconnected themselves from the reality of many government programs. They are almost programmed to respond a certain way when they hear certain words.

Affirmative Action was brilliantly named. After all, do you really want to be associated with ending something that is "affirmative"? Many people would rather not say so in public. But, tell people what AA actually is, and they are much more likely to sign the petition.

Again, the petition said exactly what it intended to do. If citizens are not smart enough to connect the dots on such a simple issue, they should not offer their signatures so easily.

This reminds me of that H2O prank a couple of years ago. Penn and Teller got people to sign a petition to ban water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erd...
April 4, 2008

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

It has become the norm on many ballot initiatives to have misleading titles and verbiage where one needs to vote yes if they are against the initiative and vote no if they are for it. To me though, this one seems to be more clear than most. It is a matter of reading and understanding what you read.
April 4, 2008

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Kind of like the "Clean Air" act which actually made it easier for polluters. I didn't have this problem but I remember there were people confused by the anti-gay Amendment 2 several years ago. Some people believed they were voting for gay rights when they were doing just the opposite.
April 4, 2008

4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Good points Spencer. From now on Planned Parenthood should be in favor of "Baby killing" rather than being "Pro-Choice". Is that the kind of straight talk you're in favor of?
April 4, 2008

6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

The initiative is properly titled and worded. By spelling out what discrimination is instead of using a name invented by those who originally wanted to mask the purpose of favoring specific people or groups, they make it easy for people to understand and difficult to circumvent with further legislation.

Don't blame the petition carriers for the ignorance of the signers. I'm sure there are an equal number who refuse to sign out of equal ignorance.

Petitions are only the first step in the public process. All those moaning and whining about being "fooled" have nothing on those who voted for Ref C. Yep, even if it makes the ballot it must be approved by the voters. I'm sure the opponents of the measure won't mind making a public case against it including a public debate on the effects and intentions. Heck, they might even go so far as to deal with the reason the matter came up.

Remember, the title of any initiative must be approved before any signatures are gathered.
April 6, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

if their anti-affirmative action stance is worthy...why all the trickery?

reminds me of the clean skies initiative and no child left behind act...if your position is solid...you don't need the smoke and mirrors
April 6, 2008

7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

I agree that it is a matter of reading and understanding what you read. And then ask some questions if you don't understand it; don't sign anything until you fully understand it.
April 7, 2008

7:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Trythinking, don't forget about "Pro-Lifers" who are pro-execution. Of course, once the baby is born they could care less about them. So how about "Pro-fetus"?
April 7, 2008

2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mtnlover writes:

I think if we could just go back and rename Affirmative Action as Discrimination In Favor Of People Who Deserve It, or perhaps Discrimination Against People Who Deserve It, then most everybody would know what they have voted for in the past and they wouldn't have to be 'tricked' into voting against it.
April 7, 2008

6:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

oatis writes:

Again: The important thing is to plainly declare your beliefs and not suggest a thing by innuendo.

The ballot initiative is intentionally misleading. This is prohibited by the Colorado Supreme Court, and voter-approved amendments have been successfully overturned when a petitoner can prove the tactics are deceptive. It is clearly the intention of the group backing the initiative to end affirmitave action by burying it in the middle of innocent-sounding, libertarian language.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

CARROLL: Confused by English

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 4, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs