Colorado voters preserve affirmative action
By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published November 6, 2008 at 3:18 p.m.
Updated November 7, 2008 at 9:10 a.m.
Chris Schneider © The Rocky
Poll worker Carletta King holds up a U.S. flag Tuesday to answer a question about a voter's ballot at Montbello High School in Denver.
Coloradans voted down Amendment 46, becoming the first state to reject an initiative being pushed across the nation that would have eliminated race- and gender- based affirmative action programs.
By a slim margin that widened as results continued to dribble in, voters defeated the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative.
Backed by California millionaire Ward Connerly and a local committee headed by Jessica Corry of the Independence Institute, the amendment is modeled after one passed in California, Washington, Michigan and, just this week, by Nebraska.
"It's a great testament to the people of Colorado that when they understood the truth about the initiative, they rejected it," said Melissa Hart, leader of the No on 46 campaign.
It had been comfortably ahead in pre-election polls although it hovered just above 50 percent with a large block of undecideds.
"I was nervous about it two weeks ago," said Connerly, who already has filed papers to run the initiative next year in another state he wouldn't identify. "I thought the polls were misleading. The one that showed us up 63 to 20-something made me laugh."
He is undecided about pursuing it again in Colorado, he said.
Opponents called the amendment deceptive because, while packaged as a measure to outlaw discrimination, its aim was to ban "preferential treatment" by government, effectively ending affirmative action programs.
Corry vowed to continue the effort and declined to concede it had lost as long as provisional ballots remained to be counted.
"We remain as energized and passionate as ever to ensure that no child, worker, small business owner or family ever suffers again from government sponsored discrimination," Corry said. "We will explore every avenue available to us — another ballot initiative, litigation or just working with government leaders to show them there's a better way."
A mandatory recount would be held if the results show less than a half percent separation. On Thursday, the difference was more than twice that.
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.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
November 6, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
A truly proud moment for those who judge people by the color of their skin and NOT by the content of their character.
Scott
November 6, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
sstnt writes:
And discrimination lives on in "affirmative action"
November 6, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
chaka419 writes:
How is this equal opportunity if I am more qualified for a job but get passed over because I am not the right color? Quotas are outdated!! We have a black president, do we need affirmative action anymore???!!!
November 6, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Ward Connerly is a great American.
Today, affirmative action programs punish the hardworking and reward the lazy.
November 6, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
I KNOW the Left really wanted everyone to be equal,and they do.But they wanted to(and now get to) choose those who are more equal than others.
November 6, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Actually,MileHighGuy,the term is "mulatto".
November 6, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Yes, lets continue to lower the bar so everyone can get over it. And then we wonder why we're being passed by most other countries in math, science, and the like. Idiots.
Who is John Galt?
November 6, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I was going to say how proud today I am to be from Colorado (and am), but I'm not surprised I guess, to read incredibly stupid remarks like:
"Today, affirmative action programs punish the hardworking and reward the lazy"
How that? Be specific.
I know I won't get an answer.
November 6, 2008
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
I think that the lib "intelligentsia" has declared that the word mulatto is racist. Who are we, the unwashed, to dispute what the lib intelligentsia has declared? Even if it is absolutely correct! See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
BTW, The comment "some more equal than others" is from George Orwell's book Animal Farm. See: http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/arti...
Scott
November 6, 2008
3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
sstnt writes:
And how, exactly, is it that if you give preference to a person because their skin is white, that's discrimination. But if you give preference to a person because their skin is black or brown, that's "affirmative action"?
How's that? Be specific.
I know I won't get an (understandable) answer.
November 6, 2008
3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I can tell my out-of-state friends that Coloradans were able to see through this red meat issue, unlike some other states.
November 6, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
sstnt writes:
Maybe they didn't see through it. Could be that just like the liberals said, people were confused and thought it was FOR Affirmative action and voted AGAINST it.
November 6, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wallacat writes:
Discrimination (I'm not afraid to call it what it is) is still necessary to make up for past ills. It may not be fair, but it is good.
When will we be able to do away with affirmative action? The leaders of the minority communities will let us know. I think the call for affirmative action will slowly peter out. We are not there yet.
I disagree with FCZ on it rewarding "the lazy." It would be nice if issues were so black and white, but there are varying degrees of hard work and laziness. And these things aren't always reflected in resumes.
November 6, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
anderson,
ANSWER: Two white male (neither was me) that worked hard for a promotion were passed over, BUT an less competent non-white female got promoted based upon her sex and skin color. This happened at Bell Labs Denver. The promotion of a Black female just looked toooooo good for the reverse discrimination quota board. Bell Labs, one of the most reverse discriminatory employer in the nation.
Scott
November 6, 2008
4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
sstnt,
ROFLMAO!
Scott
November 6, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Students who study hard in high school, do their homework, play sports and do other activities should get a decent shot at college.
However, lazy high school students who did not do their homework often get into college because of their skin color.
Today, affirmative action programs punish the hardworking and reward the lazy
November 6, 2008
4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
maverick7 writes:
Milehighguy...
I applaud you, I agree totally to your post. I voted for Obama but have not liked how the media and others have dimissed his white heritage and upbringing! Don't get me wrong I believe the moment on Tuesday was historic and rightfully presented that way but lets celebrate him as an American and his multicultural backgroud!
November 6, 2008
4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Good for the majority. They prevailed.
November 6, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
I'm white, my wife is half black, 1/4 Portuguese, and 1/4 dutch. Do my kids who are 1/4 black, 1/8 Portuguese, 1/8 dutch and 1/2 white get any benefits through affirmative action? Is my wife black enough to be considered black?
November 6, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
CDenver writes:
When big gaps continue to exist in income, employment or educational attainment, we should be examining the causes, and taking steps to remove barriers. We can't just imagine ourselves to equality of opportunity, we need to take steps. Those steps are called "affirmative action".
November 6, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
diggtbks writes:
With the election of Hussein Obama, all affirmative action programs have become obsolete.
November 6, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
justaskme writes:
Milehighguy, since Mulatto is now out, how about Bi-racial or Half-breed? I know the last one is not PC or even considered nice but it is a term that has been used with mixed race people (before PC). Now, before someone calls me names, a racist(first learn the real definition) or insane, is this not what Progressives always want - open dialogue.
November 6, 2008
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
maverick7 writes:
Hey FCZ, everyone has color to their skin, i do, it just happens to be peach colored.
I voted yes to stop AA but I kind of agree with sstnt that maybe the voters were confused with a yes or no vote. Maybe next time, the amendment will be clearly written.
November 6, 2008
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
5thgennative writes:
I completely agree, affirmative action programs punish the hardworking and go and reward the lazy. Must be nice.
November 6, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
I always vote AGAINST things backed by the Independence Institute. Thankfully the majority of their destructive initiatives get soundly defeated. But they have very deep corporate pockets - they'll be back with more bad ideas next time.
November 6, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
cfk writes:
Are you folks freaking nuts or just plain STUPID????? At the moment, I'm not too happy to say I was a Colorado native. I thought Florida (my home now) was brain dead, but you folks take the cake!!!!!
November 6, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Should Medical School Requirements vary according to skin color?
How about a sliding scale depending on the skin shade. A full pass for some , then partial passes for others ?
Require one year of:
General Biology
General Chemistry with Laboratory
Physics
Organic Chemistry with Laboratory
English
Calculus
with a GPA of above 3.5 for some , but not requiring certain classes based on the percentage of the 'politically correct' approved skin color?
November 6, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
jstott1,
Darn good question. About twenty years ago a couple of Boston firemen wannabes tried to get on the department by claiming they were Black. They claimed that their great-grandmother was Black, therefore they were Black. These guys looked 100% honky to me. I can't remember how it came out in the end.
What I'm getting at is that when the benevolent libs forced affirmative action down our throats they never came up with a measure of what how much <insert race> make a person <insert race>. That would have been playing with nitro to try and define that and like many libs they avoided the tough stuff.
My response to the Boston issue was that seeing how affirmative action is nothing more than discrimination the libs should consult with professional race discriminators, the Aparthid South African government (remember, this was in the 80s) to define how much <insert race> makes a person <insert race>. Don't worry, I was not serious in my response, but it painfully pointed out the issues of using racial quotas.
Scott
November 6, 2008
4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Scott, aren't you the one who on another thread called someone's lawyer (who you obviously don't know) a "prostitute"? With your sort of attitude, I'd send you out the door, rather than up the ladder.
sstnt, for starters, you have to acknowledge something about American history that isn't too difficult to understand. The fact that you don't, speaks volumes about where you're coming from. Second, you have to know what affirmative action is, and I see some (chapka, fcz, shaupeen) are tripping all over themselves in a effort to misrepresent it.
At the job or school level, organizations don't hire or promote or let in people who aren't qualified. So when you have a pool of *qualified* people, affirmative action may be applied. Note, Scott said he was passed over by someone who was less competent than him, not less qualified.
As a white son of a blue collar worker who's never had any trouble getting jobs or getting into grad school (or if I did, didn't know it) I can feel your pain. In retrospect, those job denial letters musta been on account of affirmative action. How else can I explain it?
So let's all hold hands and join in a song (to the tune of Yellow Submarine):
Let's all join in
the school of white resentment,
the school of white resentment,
man, how I resent it.
Let's all join in...
November 6, 2008
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
ccs80suz650 writes:
Wow, the level of naivety is high if one actually believes that Obama or Connerley actually achieved their status without the benefits of affirmative action. Not to mention the affirmative action that Bush and others received that continues to go unchallenged. Finally, most of the definitions cited above are simply wrong and out of touch with what the law allows and what the Department of Labor and HUD have found.
November 6, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
I'm sure it was the slow count in Boulder county that kept this from being obvious on election day. I will vote to end affirmative action when all colleges and universities are required to stop accepting legacy students. The good old boys club still controls a lot of business and higher education by deciding who gets an interview in the first place. That is simply affirmative action for white males.
If all affirmative action comes to an end, be prepared for universities to be overwhelming female - because women perform better in high school and on standardized tests than men. This is a case of "be careful what you wish for - you just might get it".
Oh yes - I'm from Boulder and I voted against 46 - as, it appears, did over 60% of my fellow citizens in Boulder county.
November 6, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
anderson points out one of the reasons why the U.S. is falling behind.
"So when you have a pool of *qualified* people, affirmative action may be applied. Note, Scott said he was passed over by someone who was less competent than him, not less qualified." BTW, the "he" was not me. It was two other white males.
So we promote the less competent/qualified instead of the BEST! In the name of reverse discrimination the libs force us to tolerates mediocrity. No wonder the U.S. is falling behind.
BTW anderson, many times before I've stated why I refer to ALL lawers (except one) as prostitutes. Go back and read some of the old threads.
Scott
November 6, 2008
4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
5thgennative: "I completely agree, affirmative action programs punish the hardworking and go and reward the lazy."
I'm still waiting for some specific examples of "punishment" of the hardworking (oh my!) or "rewarding" of the lazy (No! you don't say!). I knew there wouldn't be any.
November 6, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
So my son who is 1/4 black, 1/8 Portuguese, and 1/8 Dutch, and 1/2 white unfortunately came out with white skin. I'm pissed. I'm going to raise hell if my son who has black ancestors gets passed up for med school just because he looks as white as all of his white cousins who are 1/2 white and 1/2 asian. First of all Asians don't need AA, yes if they were in asia they'd be as poor as inner city blacks, but as soon as they get to the US they are too smart. So they don't deserve AA. So if my partially black son has to compete to get into med school against his partially asian cousin, my son better win, because he has ties to a better AA ancestry.
November 6, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
What's better in Affirmative Action?
To be black, asian, or native american? Or are they all treated the same?
November 6, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
jstott1: to answer your question, you have to know a little American history. It isn't rocket science. If your wife or children showed up at the university (and this occured in my lifetime), no one asked them such complicated questions about descendance. There was the one drop rule and the answer was: get outta here.
November 6, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
conniesz,
A few years ago I was having the "end affirmative action" debate with a coworker and friend who is liberal in most of his views, including affirmative action.
He pointed out to me that if colleges ONLY used SAT, ACT, etc., scores to determine who was accepted first, then the white boys would be rather far down on the list because, as a group, Orientals whip the white boys butts darn near every time.
My response to him was, "Well, I guess the white boys had better start hitting the books if they want to get into college."
So yes, I was and still am an avid proponent of using a common metric, e.g. ACT scores, as the measure of who gets the acceptance offer and scholarship money. If a group doesn't do well, then they had better start hitting those books!
Scott
November 6, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
juddchoate writes:
Even though I am opening myself up to being lambasted, I will tell you why Colorado was correct to vote down 46.
Prop 46 was less about affirmative action (which means that when two candidates are essentially equal, the minority or female candidate should be hired - as an attempt to help "lift up" those historically harmed by discrimination) than it is about the elimination of a virtually every state program for minority or female Colorado residents. For instance, were 46 to have passed, the annual Colorado girls science fair would have been terminated, as would programs to help at risk Black children in Five Points Denver. It's disingenuous to in one breath decry the fact that the City of Denver needs to do more to get Black and Hispanic kids in schools and out of gangs while simultaneously eliminating the only tools the city has with which to do it. Similarly, you can't clamor for more female scientists and not provide girls the opportunity to be exposed to science in a fashion that suits their learning style (research shows that male and female students have different learning styles - and current pedagogical techniques tend to favor the male learning style in math and science classes over the female learning style. Hence, women can benefit from short-term learning opportunities away from male students).
Anyway, the point is that schools, agencies, etc. need the flexibility to design programs so that every Colorado resident can be served. The world is designed around pper-middle class Whites - this gives government the power to create programs that fall outside this existing paradigm.
So, great job Colorado. #46 was a bad idea. You (or at least 50.45% of you) made the correct decision in voting it down.
November 6, 2008
4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
If my wife is 1/2 black but from south america, would she be called African American? She doesn't have US citizenship, so she's really not American, can someone clarify this identity crisis? Would she be African South American?
November 6, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
jstott1,
American Indian is Numero Uno! They are the most "under represented" in darn near every profession. But beware, you need the certification from the tribe that you are claiming membership in for consideration as an American Indian.
Scott
November 6, 2008
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Scott, I see you're misrepresenting it again. I said AA means qualified. Not less than qualified. Your low brow approach, however, will certainly garner some converts.
jstott, if your questions are serious, and you're not just looking for a reason to be mad, or to hate Asians, talk to a school.
November 6, 2008
4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
justaskme writes:
cfk
Yes, they are stupid. Consider this, MANY not all the people that have moved here from CA. because of the many stupid rules and regs. and issues they have, brought their same ideals and values with them and now vote the same way they did in CA. making CO into another CA with stupid rule / regs & issues that will turn us into what they ran away from.
Gonzopozo
People like you are the ones that ALWAYS vote the way Unions tell you to. Lemmings.
November 6, 2008
4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
ktbelievable writes:
For the first time in my life I am embarassed to be a native of Colorado! Thanks so much all of you deplorable transplants and Boulder lunatics.
November 6, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
jstott1,
Please keep in mind that what I'm about to write is in NO WAY disrespectful to your wife. I'm just trying to give you a straight answer to your straight question.
The question is, how "Black" does your wife look? If it is darn obvious that she has some Black in her, then she can claim Black. Obama, Colin Powell and Tiger Woods skin color would be a "no sweat" for claiming to be Black. As you get lighter in skin tone the less likely a person is considered to be Black by the bigots that determine if a person is "Black enough" for the quota boards.
Add to it that she can claim "female" and you've got what I call a "double whammy". A minority female is just as good as claiming American Indian.
Scott
November 6, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Should Medical School Requirements vary according to skin color?
How about a sliding scale depending on the skin shade.
A REWARD of a full pass for some , then a REWARD of partial passes for others ?
PUNISHMENT against those with the wrong 'pc' color.
November 6, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
Why would I hate asians? All of my nieces and nephews are 1/2 asian.
All of my questions are just to point out the ridiculousness of AA. When you've got a situation like mine you see that the color of skin, whether it's dark asian skin, or dark african skin, or dark white skin from too much tanning is a terrible way to figure out who should go to our medical schools. Diversity has nothing to do with skin color.
I'd still like to find out how Americans would classify my wife's race.
November 6, 2008
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
anderson,
You really need to get out into the real world. Reverse Discrimination (a.k.a AA) is practiced as, who is non-white that can at least barely meet the requirements. If they can't meet the requirements, the we'll get a waver.
Climb down from your ivory tower and take a look around at the companies that practice AA and all of the government agencies
Scott
November 6, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Scott, I see you're misrepresenting the basis for how people get into school (where competition is a factor). If we're talking about grad school, they typically (again only if it's competitive) take GPA x grad test score (weighted). Those above a thresehold score are in. For those on the margins, other factors may come into play. The really really competitive schools like the Ivies or Stanford or Berkeley may have different criteria, but let's face it, we're talking about a really small group of slots, and I'm not going to resent for all my life the fact I couldn't get into Harvard because I was white. The reason I didn't go there is because I'm not smart enough and my parents didn't have enough money or blue blood. If you want to be a doctor or lawyer or engineer, you have to work to get there, regardless of your skin color, and if you work for it, you won't be excluded because of your skin color.
November 6, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Salsmom writes:
Accepting the decision of the voters is a bummer when you are on the losing side!
November 6, 2008
5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
I haven't seen Cowboy post on this, and maybe he has no opinion per se, but I'll echo what he wrote about the failure of Prop 8 in California. The voters have spoken. End of story.
November 6, 2008
5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
Scott,
Thanks for your response. Are Indians (from India) considered black? My wife doesn't have really curly hair, so sometimes she gets confused for an Indian.
If my wife applied for medical school would she need to explain herself that she's not Indian she's really black?
November 6, 2008
5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
jstott, there's nothing about your family's skin color that will keep them from getting into med school. But keep playing like you don't understand. C'mon, feeel that resentment. Ah can feel your pain! Tell us how terribly awful it is to be a white person in America.
Scott, I don't live in an ivory tower, although I do have an education. I told you I was from a blue collar family.
November 6, 2008
5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
justaskme writes:
Just think, we all get to vent and give opinions that nobody really cares about after they sign off.
November 6, 2008
5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
opinionatedcolo writes:
Lots of bluster from the anti-affirmative action folks but no actual statistics that affirmative action really causes some diminished quality in education employment or contracting. People act as if qualifications were some kind of absolute, but having done much hiring (and some firing) balancing different qualifications is far from clear. There is rarely one "best" person, just a best judgment as to who fits the position now.
I thought this amendment was an ax where a scalpel was needed. In carefully circumscribed circumstances to either relieve past discrimination or to encourage participation in public benefits by an under served community race might be one factor to be considered. I think that is how those factors are used for the most part in Colorado. This amendment was too broad. If there are specific uses that need to be modified or even dropped, take those one at a time so the specific circumstances can be dealt with.
I personally would prefer that in higher education that we hire more evaluators to judge admissions beyond grades and test scores and take into account the special circumstances of each student, their background and their school. I think a kid of any color that succeeds in a cruddy school or coming out of a terrible home should get different and special consideration over one (and I am one of those) that had all the breaks.
November 6, 2008
5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
Anderson,
Could you at least tell me the race of my wife according to Americans? Here's her ancestry.
1/2 black, 1/4 Portuguese, and 1/4 Dutch. She isn't an american citizen.
I don't think its bad being white or black or in between in America. Just that we're here, we should all consider ourselves lucky.
November 6, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
juddchoate writes:
Wait a minute. I go to a lot of trouble to write a reasoned "left" response and it's deleted 20 minutes later?
What's that all about?
November 6, 2008
5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
opinionatedcolo
I heard that Michigan is doing that now that AA is no longer in their state. The only real people that should get breaks are those that excelled in their life's situation as you described. A white person who was raised in an abusive home, yet got a 3.0 should be given just as much credence as a person who grew up in a perfect home and got a 4.0.
The thought that race, skin color, or any other outward appearance (except maybe handicaps) helps in quantifying someone's hardships is antiquated, and wrong.
November 6, 2008
5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"A white person who was raised in an abusive home, yet got a 3.0 should be given just as much credence as a person who grew up in a perfect home and got a 4.0."
what shall we use as an "abuse" scale to determine which poor, abused white people should get a better deal than someone who wasn't absued, jscott?
November 6, 2008
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Oprah tried to get Tiger Woods to proclaim himself as an African American on her tv show.
Tiger refused because he did not want to disrespect his mother.
Tiger called himself : an American.
No Hybrid.
Oprah *the racist* was mad.
Look it up.
November 6, 2008
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
juddchoate writes:
I remember that interview - Oprah did not get mad. She questioned him on it, but took his opinions in stride. Here's more on it...
http://www.salon.com/april97/tiger970...
November 6, 2008
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Does it make you mad when someone talks about race, except when their talk about race consists of disparaging others who talk about race? Not that you lost your job, or your house, or were denied an education, or anything because someone talked about race. It's just that the *talk* itself makes it pretty darn tough to be white in America doesn't it? You know, people looking at you the wrong way and all and maybe saying things behind your back. I know, I've suffered for years.
November 6, 2008
6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
My father grew up white poor, in the South. He had a high school education and went into the service as soon as he graduated. Martin Luther King Jr (about the same age as my father) got a doctorate but most black men of his generation had a 6th grade education according to a book I read about him. That means if I'd been black instead of white, my father might have had a 6th grade instead of a high school education. Could that have affected my aspirations or educational achievements? I think so. That's why we have affirmative action.
November 6, 2008
6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaybyrd writes:
The "blue book" authors had a lot to do with this by deceptively entitling the amendment "Discrimination based on ...", which made most voters believe they were voting AGAINST discrimination by voting no. Let's see if these Blue Book clowns get away with their sh*t in 2010. Punks!
November 6, 2008
6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Martin Luther King :
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
AA is judged by the color .
November 6, 2008
6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
jstott1 writes:
Jay,
Of course abuse and even GPA's are subjective, is a 3.0 from CU Denver worth the same as a 3.0 from CU Boulder?
What I'm saying is that putting any type of appearance based quotas on selection processes does nothing to help promote real diversity nor help identify those who have overcome something significant in life.
November 6, 2008
6:25 p.m.
anderson writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
November 6, 2008
6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Losing on the facts :
Obama is President- elect.
The Colorado statehouse leaders are black.
WARD CONNERLY sees the light.
What is next ?
More personal insults to avoid an intelligent discussion.
November 6, 2008
6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
no, jscott, it's not an analogous argument.
November 6, 2008
6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Campbell writes:
Affirmative action is a crutch used by minorities (whatever that is) to gain an unfair advantage in life and in society. Affirmative action says that your weak, incapable and allows one to use their color or race as an excuse to get ahead without working for it, another no idiot left behind program. Union corruption and affirmative action programs are a match made for losers.
November 6, 2008
7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
commoncents writes:
Affirmative actions laws were put in place because of the discrimination practiced in the workplace against women and minorities. Not any one group, but basically all non-white people, who were classified as colored a while back, were relegated to low paying jobs with little or no chance of advancement. It was an attempt to correct a flawed situation. It is clear from the ignorance displayed on this site that there is still a need for it today. Whenever I hear this crap about not getting the job because of some AA rules I have to laugh. Is it possible that you just are not all that you think you are in the workplace??? Of course not, because to some of you pea brains you are better simply because you hatched white. Pitiful children
November 6, 2008
9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
commoncents writes: "Whenever I hear this crap about not getting the job because of some AA rules I have to laugh."
So there is never an actual instance in which one person is promoted over another due to an affirmative action program? If this never happens, why not abolish the dang programs then? What exactly do they accomplish?
November 6, 2008
9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
will writes:
Wow, all of you who oppose equal opportunity have some interesting (sub)urban legends, i.e. my third cousin's third cousin's best friend's nephew who was a rocket scientist lost his job to an unqualified African-American woman. These allegations are so far from truth - and so far from the majority of workplace discrimination that actually happens regularly to women and people of color. Amendment 46's defeat is a good thing for all rational people in Colorado who know that our economic success depends on a top quality workforce fueled by top quality colleges and universities. Affirmative action helps guarantee that hiring decisions aren't made on the golf course good old boys network and all college admissions aren't based on whose daddy gave a million dollars for a fancy new building. Amendment 46 is unnecessary, sponsored by a wealthy Californian meddling in Colorado politics, and pushed by the Independence Institute - standard bearer for bad ideas for a narrow conservative political minority at the expense of what is best for the broadest majority of Coloradans. Way to go Colorado voters!
November 6, 2008
10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
The defenders of racial preferences voice their usual rationalizations for discrimination. The usual defense is diversity as if diversity is defined by certain skin colors and nationalities. Their next defense is the nebulous term "qualified". Qualified is whatever an administrator can concoct to achieve some balance of protected group members. The third defense is that no one is harmed. Anyone denied an opportunity because a member of a protected group was given a lower standard has been harmed. There have been thousands of individuals harmed, many that may not even realize it. The fourth defense is that discrimination existed against these groups in the past. Discrimination existed against almost every group. We have had 40 years of racial preferences. Surely, we have had enough racial preferences. The fifth defense is the legacy accusation as though public institutions have legacy admissions. Legacy admissions in private institutions constitute a tiny fraction. Legacy admissions are just full paying customers.
The defenders of the racial spoil system won this round. We will return because we want a color blind society. Discrimination only encourages more discrimination. Discrimination against non favored groups is just as odious as discrimination against protected groups. Racial preferences perpetuate a victim mentality and suspicion from non protected groups. The constitution protects individual rights, not group rights. No group is entitled to some specific representation in any activity.
To those who voted against this amendment, please reconsider next time. The practice of racial preferences divides us, not unites us. African Americans should be wary of the coming amnesty. The wave of formerly illegal aliens will be competing with you for preferences. You are likely to be overwhelmed in number.
November 7, 2008
5:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Superstar writes:
If people are truly to be judged on their own merit, why would anyone need preferential treatment? How is it that people don't see this as discrimination? It's saying that minorities can't perservere on their own - that they need special treatment. What a slap in the face to them. And a slap in the face to white people who miss out on opportunities because someone was selected for something purely due to their skin color or last name. Something wrong with the system.
November 7, 2008
5:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Buffs writes:
Milehighguy writes:
We don't have a black president - we have a mixed race president. He is just as black as he is white. Why don't we call him a white president half the time, since that would be fair, but I have only heard incorrectly that he is black. A black president is probably not far off, however and I look forward to the day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, white men are the ones that came up with the "One Drop" rule and most people in this country consider him to be African American. If the media focused on his 1/2 white side and if the DEEP SOUTH truly thought of him as 1/2 white and not ALL black, they would have considered voting for him instead of spreading the racist comments that were uttered.
History of the one drop rule:
According to the United States' colloquial term one drop rule, a black is any person with any known African ancestry. The one drop rule is virtually unique to the United States and was applied almost exclusively to blacks. Outside of the US, definitions of who is black vary from country to country but generally, multiracial people are not required by society to identify themselves as black. The most significant consequence of the one drop rule was that many African Americans who had significant European ancestry, whose appearance was very European, would identify themselves as black.
So although he is 1/2 Black, throughout history 1/2 Black men and women were not treated at such in the U.S. and were discriminated against based solely on their skin color. Hope that answers your question as history has dictated what is black and white.
November 7, 2008
5:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Anderson, it's reverse discrimination, against the white people. Passing over more qualified white man to hire a minority. On TV yesterday, Will Smith, actor, black man, was on Oprah. He was asked how he felt when he found out Obama was elected, and answered, I cried. He also said to the world, "no more excuses" Blacks have cried and moaned for decades how their ancestors were slaves etc. White men held them down. Now we have elected a black President and it shows that when they get off their butts and apply themselves they can do it. A black man was behind this amendment, but the whites decided they don't need equal treatment, aren't equal, and that, in my opinion was a slap in their faces. Colorado calls itself progressive, but it just went back 40 years. A friend of mine spent 17 years as a police Officer, and was working as security Chief in a Casino, told me once that 90% of the public are stupid. I think he may be right, 25 years working with the public gave him that impression, and I can see why, reading some of these comments.
November 7, 2008
5:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Joke going around years ago, Jesse Jackson went into a firm and wanted to see the owner. he was sent into his office, and he proceeded to tell the owner that 10% of his workers are supposed to be black. OK, says owner, and called in the personnel manager and asked him what % of our workers are black? 12% was the reply. He told the personnel manager to fire 2% of them, looked at Jesse and said Happy now? You can bet it's happened. One of my heroes as a kid was the first black man I ever met, J.N. Pearson. I was 14, in a state where there were few of them, he worked with my step Dad. He was shot during WW2 three times, had a scar across his shoulder where a japanese soldier got him with a machete. I didn't see black, a seen a proud man who fought for his country. he was treated as such too, he deserved it. In my last 2 years of full time work, I seen more lazy whites than I ever did blacks, the me generation who figure they deserved something by just being there. I was sent these kids to show them how things were done, and 8 of 8 failed, didn't show up for work, on drugs, and not very smart. I finally told the Boss no more, unless you pay me 4 bucks more an hr for doing it. Most of the minorities want to stand on their own 2 feet, but Colorado says they can't.
November 7, 2008
7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
commoncents writes:
Davies, the point of my comment was that the rational behind not getting promoted just because of AA is usually another excuse by an underperforming person to excuse their own lack of initiative. Maybe it happens, but far less than the reverse that was practiced and still is. I will tell you my own experience with this situation. I was in the Navy and working with a guy that was the same rank as I was. He had taken the exam to advance to E5 3 times. When we tested together for advancement to E5, his 4th, my 1st. I passed and he didn't, however our division officer, his drinking buddy, put him in for merit advancement effective 1 day earlier than my promotion so that he would have seniority over me in the division. SO even with the laws in place people work around them to ensure those they favor get the best of opportunity. Always have and always will. The laws were put in place to try and stymie some of it, which it has.
If you really want to see what employers are all about put a tax break out there based on percentage of minority employees. No smart business person will lose production for a tax break, but they will definitely look for qualified people that would bring them one. Then you would see a truly diverse work force rather than one will a splash of color or skirts for effect.
I have seen minorities hired that certainly were not qualified in positions just to justify not putting minorities in those positions. Maybe this is what you saw, but you have to be beyond yourself to see how this fits into the big picture. The laws are not bad on their own, it is how employers apply them that usually is the problem.
November 7, 2008
7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
just stick to your quotas and all will be fine, the government obviously knows way more than we do right?
November 7, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
rip84 writes:
Wow!
I have to admit I felt a little uncomforable with this amendment but after having reviewed the racism on this job board I am quite happy with how this amendment turned out. If someone needs proof that prejudice exists then they need look no further than this comment page.
November 7, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
jstott1:
In response to your 5:12 PM from last night. India Indians are consider "Asian" on the Reverse Discrimination Quota Board. My advice is for your wife to label herself as Black Female. The reverse discriminationist will be falling all over themselves to get Black Female into Med School.
I know, I know, most of us would consider Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. as "Asian". Or actually "Orientals", but the PC thought control Gestapo has declared "Oriental" to be ... gasp ... racists. And if the Oriental group were implemented, then the reverse discriminationist would have to come up with yet another group for the people from India/Pakistan/etc..
So my question to the reverse discriminationist would be: "Are white Russians who live in Siberia 'Asian' or are you FINALLY going to admit to your racist games?" BTW, for those of you who hated geography, Siberia is in Asia. :-)
You may not have noticed, but a number of years ago the reverse discriminationist differentiated between Black Africans and "North" i.e. Arab/Berber/etc. Africans. Seems that those of Arab/Berber/etc. African decent here in the U.S. were claiming to be "African-American", and rightfully so. The reverse discriminationist could not tolerate that someone who was "too white" would dare to claim to be "African-American". Ah, the joys of be a liberal racism.
Scott
November 7, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
oofda writes:
I have heard from many that the way it was written made it unclear how you were voting. maybe run it up the flag pole again and word it better.
November 7, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
ghoax, there are no "quotas" or "set asides" for minorities or women. Those have been illegal for a long time. Basically, affirmative action means you *must* consider minorities and women along with white males. It's not what all you critics think.
In government contracting, for instance, all you have to do as a general bidder is certify that you made a good faith effort to solicit subcontracting bids from minority or women owned companies -- even if you end up not using them because of price. Without affirmative action, these companies often would be locked out of bidding by racism and discrimination. I don't want my government participating in racism by handing out millions to companies that discriminated against a broad segment of the community.
November 7, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
Amendment 46 went too far. They swung for the fence and struck out.
That's what the "Independence Institute" does. Good thing they can't hit. If they would use the concept of "moderation" in developing their proposals they might stand a chance.
November 7, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
The title to this article should've read:
"Colorado voters preserve legalized disrimination"
November 7, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Buffs writes:
rip84 writes:
Wow!
I have to admit I felt a little uncomforable with this amendment but after having reviewed the racism on this job board I am quite happy with how this amendment turned out. If someone needs proof that prejudice exists then they need look no further than this comment page.
---------------------------------------------
My sentiments exactly. Interesting how it's proven time and time again. Most on here have no clue.
November 7, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
wallacat, if we wait on the minority community leaders to let us know when affirmative action should end, it'll never happen. They like the crutch to support the people they keep telling about how bad things are because they're not white. And to think, I thought we were all one race, the human race.
anderson, I'm proud to be a native of Colorado, and it goes back several generations. I'm ashamed to say that many of the residents of Colorado voted for legalized discrimination....... but then, we do get the California and Texas citizens moving here who don't share our same values. Too much hate against the white man! Can we call Colorado a "hate state" due to legalized discrimination?
November 7, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
LOL, conniesz, the rest of the state of Colorado knows just how out of touch with normal society Boulder is. Oh, and how "black" is Boulder anyway? Not much at all, huh?
November 7, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
AC writes: "ghoax, there are no "quotas" or "set asides" for minorities or women. Those have been illegal for a long time. Basically, affirmative action means you *must* consider minorities and women along with white males. It's not what all you critics think."
WRONGO AC! While the words "quotas" and "set asides" are illegal, the reverse discriminationist came up with a new name, "GOALS". Different name, same old sorry discriminatory policies. Just because its "illegal" does not mean that the reverse discriminationist have stopped the practice. Also, your second sentence describes Equal Employment Opportunity, EEO, NOT "affirmative action." AA (a.k.a "diversity") is all about "goals" (a.k.a. "quotas").
Scott
November 7, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Douglasdoesit writes:
OBAMA BABY! Whether this man is black, white, 1/2 black, 1/2 white, 1/2 dog, 1/2 cat, he is our President! It does not matter! Let's just pray he represents himself as our President the same way he represented himself during the campaign. There are always going to be complaints about AA whether the answer was yes or no. Somebody will complain. You can't please everybody all of the time.
November 7, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
commoncents writes:
The idea of equal treatment seems to be the real offense to many of the critics here. What real harm has ever come to anyone complaining? At least you all still have computers and internet access, life has to be really tough because someone else got a chance to succeed.
November 7, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
maverick7 writes:
Sorry to say, but doesn't just claiming to be African American pigeon hole you as black? What about a large population of white South Africans living/having citizenship in America. Are they African American? I think the term itself then again racist, because people automatically think you are black, whats the point? I have a mixed european background but I'm not looking for a label to call my self, I am American.
November 7, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
ptorres writes:
I would not panic over the defeat of this amendment 46. Minority contractors rarely get contracts with the state of Colorado. As for “Lazy people” all you have to do drive around Denver a see with your “big eyes” who is working on you highways and building your homes, its minorities. When large Anglo contractors bid on state jobs they include minority contractors to meet the goals to get a bid. That means the minority contractors might get 15% of the bid. Guess what about 90% of the Anglo workers are minorities and that good for our local economy. So next time you vote for a crazy amendment have your facts together before you change our Colorado State constitution.
November 7, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
commoncents, exactly......... why are people offended at the idea of ending affirmative action so that everyone DOES get equal treatment?
ptorres, if I drive around Denver looking at the people working on the roads, I usually see more people standing around watching a few work than work actually being done by all. Thanks for pointing that out. Oh, and my ex brother-in-law....... better qualified in construction than most who are in it, was denied a supervisor position because he couldn't speak spanish to accomodate those who don't want to learn to speak English. Discrimination DOES exist..... against the white male, and government allows it to happen by affirmative action.
November 7, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
The day that America wipes the last of its racist and sexist laws from the books will be a far greater moment in time than electing a black president.
November 7, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wallacat writes:
Cwillyrun1,
You need to put things into a broader perspective and listen to your fellow humans. Historically, majority whites have oppressed minority groups. The lesson to be learned from this is not: "Discrimination is universally bad." Showing favoritism in a manner that is tempered by reason is the right thing to do to make up for the sins of our fathers.
As others have pointed out, affirmative action is tempered by reason in that it states that "all other things being equal."
As for your brother-in-law, speaking spanish is a qualification. That is in no way discriminatory.
Put things into a broader perspective. Think.
November 7, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Wallacat, that's called HISTORY. Tell us, how many minorities today were slaves of the white man? Oh yeah, there aren't any. Okay, on to the next one. It's not discriminatory to ask an employee to learn how to speak Spanish to qualify for a job, but it IS discriminatory to ask a spanish speaking person to learn English. Okay, I see where you're coming from. You're wrong, but I see where you're coming from.
Simply put, AA is legalized discrimination!
November 7, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Reason: "The day that America wipes the last of its racist and sexist laws from the books will be a far greater moment in time than electing a black president."
I voted for this amendment, but I strongly disagree with that statement. The US originally only allowed white men to vote and fought a civil war over slavery. As recently as 50 years ago there was still legal segregation based on race. We have gone an incredibly long way since then to the point of electing a black president.
Even if the amendment had succeeded it wouldn't have solved the original problem, it simply would have signified that we either have given up on the problem or given up on that type of solution to the problem. Regardless, the problem is still manifest as evidenced by any number of factors (disproportionate number of African Americans in prison, unemployed, not represented in Congress--Obama was the only black senator, not running fortune 500 companies, need I go on?).
That sounds more like sour grapes to me. There are still large economic differences between ethnic groups in the US. However, I voted for this amendment because I don't think affirmative action is currently very effective and is treating the symptom of a problem without addressing its cause. I think we need to put a much stronger focus on education in the US, especially in poorer areas with poor schools.
November 7, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wallacat writes:
I'm not saying that AA is not legalized discrimination. It is. I'm saying that discrimination is not always bad. It can be good, especially when attempting to correct historical wrongs. I know, sounds radical.
November 7, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
Funny thing about Boulder - the rest of the state is finally catching up with us. I've been in Boulder since January 1969 - it's a lovely place with forward thinking people. If you don't like Boulder - don't live there. So, watch Boulder to see the future direction of the whole state - it may take a while, but as this past election shows, it will happen.
November 7, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Wallacat,
So what is "not bad" about discriminating against me for something that some other or old (dead?) white guy did?
Scott
November 7, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
rip84 writes:
Scott,
You or the majority of people like you and I likely reaped the benefits of such discrimination. This could be in the form of inheritance or the better neighborhood you grew up in or the school you went to. Many today are direct beneificiaries from slavery through the transfer of property ownership or forms of wealth transfer.
Do you think it would be OK for the son of mafia don to keep the money earned from extortion and violence? Same thing with slavery but a few generations removed.
Assisting the underclass is a national security issue as well. When the underclass has more opportunities for economic success, it is less likely to engage in criminal activity which is a by product of having few or no opportunities. Henceforth, support for affirmative action is support for national security.
November 7, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
enginerd writes:
Over 50% of the electorate favors discrimination on the basis of skin color. MLK's dream is still nowhere near a reality.
Melissa Hart justified the unjust and unjustifiable, and the sheep followed her.
Have those of you writing to justify your "NO" vote stopped to think at all? Do you not see the sarcasm in "Some are more equal than others"? Do you believe that all forms of discimination are good, or does it depend on who is being discriminated against?
November 7, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
dergnmexico writes:
I was not motivated by the affirmative action part. I voted no because of the unforeseen implications. I am a teacher and would no longer be able to try for grants for things like a science club for boys, or a girl’s journalism club.
November 7, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
conniesz, I wouldn't live in Boulder for anything as long as the granola crowd runs it into the ground. It's beautiful there, but so are quite a few other places in this state. I don't think there's such a thing as "catching up to Boulder" because the city is out of touch with normalcy. Boulder is the twilight zone of Colorado.
November 7, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wallacat writes:
Scott,
It is not always about you. The reason it is not bad is because of how it helps those who are still suffering because of what that dead white guy did. How are they still suffering? (I have a feeling you would ask.) The generations of oppression caused lasting damage that has lessened, but is still not gone. I understand those that say, "They should just get over it and work to overcome it." I feel that way sometimes to, but it is our responsibility, as humans, to make sure we do everything in our power to make things right. Tempering charity with reason, of course.
November 7, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
"Make up for the sins of our fathers"......... not a good argument Wallacat. I'm not responsible for what the ancestors of white people did, nor is anyone else. It's not like the acts get passed on from generation to generation, just like a son and his son and so on aren't responsible for the father that killed another human being. It doesn't work that way.
November 7, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Cwillyrun1: "Boulder is the twilight zone of Colorado."
Yea, if you say so. I lived for a couple of years in Colorado Springs and over 10 years in or near Boulder (and lived in a very conservative area in the country in Texas before coming to Colorado). Boulder is, by far, the best place I've ever lived. Great scenery, great public spaces and cycling access, great bus system, and friendly people. Almost every Friday there's some sort of activity going on right outside my office window where parents bring their kids to play in some festival or live music performance, etc. (on the Pearl Street Mall)
In Colorado Springs the bus system was horrible and there weren't nearly as many bike lanes (if any at all). The trails were also not maintained whatsoever, at least not in Palmer Park. When I went to high school there they wouldn't even let you play hardly any games at lunch, like Magic (the card game) presumably because it was a gambling game, despite the fact that that was not something critical to the game at all (theoretically you could gamble a card based on who won the game, but heck you can do that with chess too if you wanted to). I went to another high school in Texas previously where lots of kids played Magic and other games at lunch, but in Colorado Springs nobody played any games at all except for a few geeks/nerds playing chess in a classroom. The Colorado Springs school also had much less funding than the Texas one with few school instruments and no good ones and overflowing class rooms with a couple of permanent 'temporary' buildings and no bus service, whereas the one in Texas had many school instruments including a substantial number of excellent ones, was able to easily pass a bond measure to increase the size of the school and had a large fleet of buses. Frankly, it was rather depressing living in Colorado Springs, at least as a high school kid.
November 7, 2008
3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wallacat writes:
Cwillyrun1,
The hatred and oppression do get passed on from generation to generation though. And it is not about punishing us for our father's wrongdoings, it is about us taking responsibility and doing what is right and good (tempered with reason, of course).
November 7, 2008
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
tbizzy writes:
Why is it that "people of color", in terms of preferential treatment, will always refer to blacks and hispanics, but not Indian (from India) or Asian?
Did you know that medical school entrance score standards are lowered for Blacks and Hispanics, but not for Asians or Indians? Asians and Indians are a much smaller minority, yet they are treated like white students. Why is that?
All this does is set them behind once they enter school and are not able to succeed:
http://www.academia.org/campus_report...
November 7, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
tbizzy: You're offering some softball questions.
'Why is it that "people of color", in terms of preferential treatment, will always refer to blacks and hispanics, but not Indian (from India) or Asian?'
They have a different history. The Hispanics and Asians weren't brought to America as slaves. Obviously it's been over a hundred years since it was legal to have slaves in the US, but history matters (just look at how East Asian countries tend to really dislike each other based on their ancient history--it long predates WWII).
They also have different socioeconomic factors.
"Asians and Indians are a much smaller minority, yet they are treated like white students. Why is that?"
Asians (and possibly Indians, I'd have to check) substantially outperform every other ethnic group in the US in academics (even whites). Hispanics and African Americans underperform. In addition, rural kids underperform (compared to suburban ones) and there's various scholarships and programs that target them as well.
November 7, 2008
6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
LiveWell writes:
juddchoate-
Thank you for your well-articulated argument. I, too, struggled with the dissolution of those special programs and the long term implications. The time you put into your post was appreciated.
November 7, 2008
9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
NikkiB writes:
I hate to bust your bubble, but African-Americans are not the group that benefited most from Affirmative Action. Are you guys ready for this??? It is White Women. Do your research.
November 8, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
RS writes:
With the endorsement of discrimination, by refusing to pass Amendment 46, Colorado will be known once again as the "hate state". I have a simpler view - if I'm not good enough to be treated equally by Colorado government, then that government can do without my tax dollars. My plan to start a new business has now changed drastically after Tuesday's election. How ironic the state chose to continue discrimination even as the nation proved it is no longer necessary!