SPEAKOUT: Civil rights initiative under constant fire
By Jessica Peck Corry
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The time has come for Colorado to have an honest debate over affirmative action. Unfortunately, for voters across the state, radical opponents to the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening.
In recent weeks and months, the Denver media has been covering false accusations made against our campaign. Here are the facts.
First, COCRI is a proposed statewide constitutional amendment that seeks to ban race and gender discrimination and preferential treatment in public hiring, contracting and education.
The amendment would ban the current government practice that grants preferential treatment to one racial or gender group over another.
The amendment would not - as our opponents want you to believe - ban valid race-neutral or gender-neutral outreach programs targeting economically disadvantaged individuals. Programs that currently target applicants specifically on race or gender could still exist - and could thrive - but would be required to be open to all if taxpayer funds are involved.
This is a scary prospect for our opponents. They are part of a national coalition that includes a far-left radical group called By Any Means Necessary, the Feminist Majority and others who are fighting to defeat civil rights initiatives across the country. Even before we began gathering signatures, they attempted to discredit our initiative through charges of "fraud," "deception" and trickery.
Our opponents believe that government should continue to treat women and minorities like second-class citizens incapable of competing in the marketplace.
In recent years, similar civil rights initiatives have been met with overwhelming voter support in other states, including California, Washington and Michigan. In the aftermath of the Michigan victory, opponents there conceded that one of the only ways to strike down such amendments successfully is by preventing them from getting on the ballot. That is exactly what our opposition is attempting to do here.
In 2007, when we first proposed our initiative language, our opponents challenged us all the way up to the Colorado Supreme Court. We won.
In February, our opponents attempted to get a competing amendment onto the ballot. We won again after the state's Initiative Title Setting Review Board struck down their misleading and confusing language.
On April Fool's Day, our opponents staged a widely covered press conference where dozens of activists falsely alleged that our signature gatherers had engaged in voter fraud. Just three of these individuals actually filed complaints.
And now our opponents are again trying to present a competing amendment - a move we are challenging. We are confident that we will prevail once again.
Few, if any, of these facts have been reported in the mainstream media. As the multipronged attack continues against COCRI, only our opposition's allegations are reported. Recently, a group called Vote No on 46 filed a lawsuit alleging that Secretary of State Mike Coffman made a mistake when he ruled that we had enough valid signatures to appear on this November's ballot.
While the allegations may be tantalizing, such accusations should be subject to serious skepticism, having been merely recycled from other failed opposition campaigns.
At the outset of this campaign, we knew our opposition would be tenacious. While we accept that we are attempting to tackle a controversial problem, only our side has remained steadfastly committed to running an honest campaign. We can only hope that the media will now allow voters to hear both sides.
Jessica Peck Corry serves as the executive director of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
April 30, 2008
12:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
RS writes:
Jessica, Excellent column!
April 30, 2008
6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
I'm for this amendment, with letter writer Jessica Peck and Ward Connerly. Who can be against 'civil rights?'
April 30, 2008
7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
I see Independence Institute gadabout , Jessica Cory , has branched out and is now heading up the new Upper Class Supremacy Amendment initiative. This so called Civil Rights amendment is all about denying opportunity and keeping the riffraff out of the hallowed institutions of the upper class. Race and Gender are not the target, they are the smokescreen.
Especially, in a highly competitive world, where we are trying to create sustainable jobs in a global economy, education is mandatory and critical for economic success. Setting barriers and roadblocks is just plain mean and selfish.
April 30, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
One denies opportunity when the process demands a predetermined outcome based upon factors other than relevant skill and ability. When someone gets a job or a contract because of their color or race then someone else is being denied an opportunity based upon ability. Contrary to the uran myths, most of the color-race-gender based "initiative" contracts went to small businesses before the initiatives were passed. So, whose is being denied opportunity? Hard working small businesses whose only offense is that they work hard and are not female or of color. I vote for the amnedment.
April 30, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Liberals, whether they realize or not, discriminate with the bigotry of low expectations for minorities. It makes Liberals "feel good" to think they "helped" someone get a job. This amendment is about ending discrimination and having the most qualified person get the job without regard to skin color, gender or bad clothes.
Why is that so hard to understand.
April 30, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
"Our opponents believe that government should continue to treat women and minorities like second-class citizens incapable of competing in the marketplace."
Speaking as an older woman, I don't think that I can think of any instance in which a government preference program helped me personally. I really don't think there are very many "women owned" businesses that get any sort of help.
Based on my personal experience I do think there is sex based discrimination in the marketplace. I think there are a lot of people who fight as dirty as possible in every arena using any way they can to get ahead at other people's expense including fraud, baiting, intimidation, retaliation, and slander. When I was younger I found men in the work place behaving improperly in a way that created a hostile work environment, although I did not sue for that. For instance, my boss would boast on the phone about the details of his sexual exploits when he knew that I was 4 feet away working. There were Playboy centerfolds hanging in the computer room. As soon as I hit 40, the menopause jokes started and will probably continue until I am 65. I think that maintenance of an acceptable work place and school environment is very important.
The recent social stability of our society is tied to perceptions of possible upward mobility. If that is lost then the public will react more strongly to problems with shortages and insurance company defaults, I think.
April 30, 2008
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Kay- first, you shouldn't use what appears to be your real name on the net. Second, this amendment doesn't have anything to do with sexual harassment in the work place. Do not tolerate it. This is about hiring and promotions.
April 30, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Kay, my bad. I just googled your name and you LOVE to use your real name on the net. You are why I don't use my real name on the net, your appear to be lawsuit happy and crazy. Congrats, you are famous on the net. Loser.
April 30, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
Lots of liberals still pimp racism under the cover of affirmative action. AA is big business and many of its proponents are living large while exploiting "white guilt." I belive CU pays its new race czarina about $165,000 a year--excluding her growing staff.
Its time to flush this bad act down the mahoola--along with Ward Churchill.
April 30, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
You know damned well employers still dicriminate based on race and gender. I know, because I work with people who would never hire a black, latino, Jew, or gay person no matter how qualified he/she might be. Discrimination is still abundent in this country. It's just not as overt as it used to be. Just what the hell are people affraid of. Its creepy!
April 30, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Marshdale: Discrimination will always be a part of life, but the Government should not endorse nor be a participant in discrimination as it currently is. This bill is completely moral and comports perfectly with Dr. King's, not color of skin, but content of character philosophy.
April 30, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
JYP3500 writes:
Jessica, great article & I totally agree.
What I find ironic is…the same group of far-left liberals who are screaming that Bush is taking away all our constitutional rights, are supporting affirmative action, which takes away rights from one group over another! Total hypocrisy.
April 30, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Froward69 writes:
I too agree with this Bill, as included within it are penalties against discrimination of Gay persons. lots of conservatives SAY that they do not discriminate. but will fight ferociously against any such law that gives Homosexuals "special rights".
I am glad to see so many conservatives support this bill. race color gender nor orientation should be allowed to determine preference for housing, hiring or acceptance anywhere!
April 30, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
PajamaPulitzer writes:
Careful Oh_Wise. You're in the cross hairs of the long arm of the pro se Sheriff.
April 30, 2008
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Forward69,
Thanks for the moral support, buddy If I may, as we are on the same side of this initiative, for once. We ought to do this more often.
May 1, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
AnarchoCapitalist writes:
For those that believe that women and minorities are paid less for doing equal work, I have but one fool-proof argument that even you might understand. Open a business of your choosing and hire ONLY women and minorities. According to your own irrational belief, you can pay them below their productivity, and therefore make larger than normal profits. It's a win-win. If you need a further explanation of this business model, let me try to dumb it down even further. Open a business, and instead of hiring white males, who make market wages, you hire only women and minorities, who you believe make less than market wages. This way, you can get the same productivity as those greedy white males at a lower cost. Thus, you earn higher profits than anyone else in your industry. It's genius! To wrap up, if you are irrational enough to truly believe this fallacy, put your money where your mouth is and open up a business and reap the extra large profits.