Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

KING: Amendment 46 is crucial for civil rights

By Charles King

Published November 3, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

Amendment 46 requires that in their “operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting" our state agencies treat all people equitably without regard to “race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” In short, Amendment 46 would make it illegal for our state government agencies to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender.

That is essentially what both the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment to our National Constitution , and Article VII, Section (j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require of government agencies. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have been necessary had our national government not failed to enforce the requirements of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (passed in 1864). Consequently, Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights movement of the early '60s resulting in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I was working in Washington, D.C., at the time, and actively supported the act.

Remember Hubert H. Humphrey’s words that he would eat every page of the bill if anyone could show him that the law required quotas, or any other kind of discrimination on account of race (my op-ed, “Universities in Colorado should follow California,” Greeley Tribune, Dec.7, 1996)?

Just how the Civil Rights Act has all but been nullified by our crafty politicians during the past 44 years remains for an honest historian to tell us. All three sides of our government, but especially the Executive and Judicial sides of our national government, began violating its true intent. Seeking to justify their actions, they sought to blur the difference between “equal opportunity” and “equal success.” Two examples come to mind: An Executive Order by President Nixon in 1971 which “in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act, ordered set-asides for minority businesses,” and a ruling by the Supreme Court “that employers, public and private, must justify the ‘racial imbalance’ zealous civil rights investigators found in their employment practices” (quotes from my op-ed in the Pueblo Chieftain, June 29, 1997). And “Back in 1971, President Nixon imposed ‘goals and timetables’ (quotas) on federal hiring and contracting programs. In the 25 years since, quota programs have proliferated like jack rabbits, 160 or more of them, just at the federal level” ( op-ed of mine in the Greeley Tribune, Dec. 7, 1996).

While President Clinton claimed that we must “mend, not end” affirmative action, little, if any “mending” occurred. Quotas, whether called that or not, continued to be imposed in our state governments, and especially by our higher education institutions. A book in 1996 by Larry Stratton and Paul Craig Roberts, The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, documents "the transformation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act from a statute explicitly forbidding racial preferences into a weapon used to coerce employees to adopt quotas" ( Greeley Tribune, Dec. 7, 1996).

The purpose of Amendment 46 is simply that our state agencies, and especially our universities and colleges, start observing the clause in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which clearly bans treating employees and students on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Amendment 46 does not ban special mentoring programs for socioeconomically disadvantaged students so long as they are open equally to ALL, repeat, all students — white, yellow, brown, red or black. Period.

Equal protection under the law means that all applicants who have scores equal or higher than the minimum established for admission to the University of Colorado will be accepted, and that all who fail to meet minimal scores will be rejected.

A final quote from my Greeley Tribune opinion editorial (Dec. 7, 1996): “A study of student admission policies by the Boulder campus made by the Center for Equal Opportunity in 1995 conclusively proved that many blacks and Hispanics who failed to meet the minimal standards for admission were admitted while many white applicants who exceeded the standards were rejected. Had the rejected applicants been black or Hispanic they would have been admitted.”

A request by the Center for Equal Opportunity for a study of racial preferences on the campuses of all of Colorado’s institutions of higher education was rejected by the Colorado Commission of Higher Education (CCHE). No reason was given.

UCB administrators apparently still think that their “diversity goals” outweigh all ethical and legal considerations. The end, they imply, justifies the means. Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan got it right in his excellent book, Naked Racial Preference (1995): “Classification by race for the distribution of goods or opportunities is intrinsically odious , always invidious, and morally impermissible, no matter how laudable the goals in view.” Vote for Amendment 46, the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative.

Charles King is a senior fellow for the Independence Institute. He is a professor of Spanish emeritus at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Comments

  • November 3, 2008

    5:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmjohnson writes:

    Racism cannot be corrected with further racism. Once white males are the minority (in approximately 5-10 years from what I've read) will affirmative action re-kick in to give them the same so-called equality that opponents of 46 are claiming affirmative action corrects?

    Somehow I doubt that the opponents of 46 would want to extend the same benefits to white males when they are the minority as their ultimate goals seems to be to disadvantage all white males, no matter their socio-economic status.

  • November 3, 2008

    6:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Oh_Wise_One writes:

    jmjohnson- You are incorrect in assuming those affirmative action/equal opportunity laws and regulations will ever apply to white hetero males. That will never be allowed to happen. In the liberal world, those same white hetero males are to be blamed for every evil that has ever kept the 'people' down.
    Viva Obamessiah. Change that destroys our country.

  • November 3, 2008

    6:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Isn't blaming white males for all of the racism in the world similar to saying all Southerners are members of the KKK or that all blacks shuffle and are ignorant?

    That wide brush is the problem and the reason we need laws like #46 to protect against those weilding the wide brush. All of my ancestors came to the US after the Civil War but I have been assulted with the question, "Don't you feel guilty for what YOUR ancestors did to MY ancestors?" Lumping all white males into that racist category is racism but it is politically correct to many to do so.

    Bull hockey. #46 isn't a solution but it's a good start. I have voted for Amendment 46.

  • November 3, 2008

    7:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    people should mad as heck they wouldn't do the study, are we going to sit back and let them get away with it? Sure, we will.
    why does the public let these politicans get away with this junk?
    We need to keep putting out thoughts into these forums, but if just 10% of the people that participate, would send a few letters to them maybe they would pay attention.

  • November 3, 2008

    7:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dhawk0948 writes:

    The assumption that the playing field is level rationalizes 46; however, the playing field is so unlevel (let's face it, white people control virtually everything) it's ridiculous. And, as a white, hetro male, I get sick and tired of other white hetro males whining and crying about their lousy lot in life. With all the advantages afforded them, to fail is a reflection on their own lack of gumption and ability, not the fault of affirmative action.

    Doug Hawk

  • November 3, 2008

    8:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    kristof65 writes:

    Dhawk - it's not that the playing field is level, its that these programs don't seem to be working. While I agree that us white males still have an advantage, the programs that are supposed to "level the playing field" are being abused, underutilized or contributing to keeping things unlevel.

    While working my way through college during the 90s, there were virtually no financial aid programs available to me to help pay my tuition and expenses as a white male in my late 20s/early 30s. Beleive me, I looked. That's ok, I still managed to afford it, and get my degree, though it took 10 years.

    However, had I been female, a minority, or both, grants and low cost loans would have covered anywhere from 10 to 100% (or more) of my expenses. Aid like that would have helped me finish a lot sooner. Yet 70-90% of the people I witnessed taking advantage of that aid either squandered it and didn't get a degree _despite_ the help, or started off with the same economic advantages I had, and thus got a leg up on me. I bear those who used the programs to get their own degrees no ill will, but those who squandered the advantages given to them really tick me off.

    I'm not convinced Ammendment 46 is the answer, however, the current situation isn't working, and IMO, is in someways serving to hold those it's supposed to help down just as much as no protection would.

  • November 3, 2008

    9:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Dhawk0948,

    There are ample laws and government agencies providing protection against discrimination. Injured individuals have many outlets for legitimate grievances.

    The situation with racial preferences assumes that every member of a protected class is a victim. The vast majority of members of protected classes are not victims of discrimination. Life is not fair in many ways that are not addressable in civil rights laws. Life will never be fair in many ways because of the diverse nature of individuals and society.

    Racial preferences promote separatism, a victim mentality, and distrust. Racial preference programs exclude others outside of the group thus Balkanizing society. These programs preach victimhood making individuals believe that discrimination is everywhere. Standards are often substantially lower for members of protected groups. The larger society understands the lower standards and becomes skeptical about members of protected groups.

    Amendment 46 is the clear choice for Colorado now. The state will be out of the racial preference business. The state will no longer be able to promote separatism and victimhood. State resources can still be directed to areas based on socio economic status so that outreach and social programs can still be effective.

  • November 3, 2008

    4:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cowboy63 writes:

    Affirmative Action will be with us in one form or another until the end of time.

    It's far easier to blame "The MAN" for all your problems than to actually take ownership of your CHOICES and do something about it.

  • November 3, 2008

    7:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    fencergal writes:

    Affirmative Action: " The soft bigotry of low expectations"
    With credit to ElRushbo.

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.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints