Time to ban preferences
Vote yes on Amendment 46
Rocky Mountain News
Published October 2, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Video: Ward Connerly speaks in support of Amendment 46. Watch »
Video: Melissa Hart, President of Coloradans for Equal Opportunity, speaks against Amendment 46. Watch »
A surge in interracial marriages and immigration has meant racial and ethnic lines - artificial strata defining us by the color of our skin and not by the content of our character, the ideal stressed by Martin Luther King Jr. - are blurring, and will only continue to get fuzzier.
Thinking beyond the narrow check boxes by which we are supposed to classify ourselves on census forms is a good thing. America is still the melting pot - but one that is more tolerant than ever of diverse cultural traditions.
Amendment 46 will reinforce this progress by ensuring that government maintains a level playing field for all Coloradans. It prohibits 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."
Opponents of Amendment 46 are issuing dire warnings regarding its impact on the state. Gov. Bill Ritter this week went so far as to claim that Amendment 46 "undercuts Colorado and destroys years of progress on education, health care and work-force development." Yet the amendment doesn't even cover "health care" - except maybe some programs in university medical or dental schools. And it's already illegal to discriminate when providing health services. You can't have a public dental clinic refusing to treat, say, white men or black women.
As for "work-force development," the governor may believe that the state must discriminate or grant preferential treatment based on race, sex or other categories in order to create a diverse workplace, but we disagree - and we bet most Coloradans do, too. You don't vanquish discrimination with more discrimination. You do it by enforcing equality before the law - a fundamental constitutional principle that Americans expect their government to uphold, not actively undermine.
Predictably, most state colleges and universities have joined the coalition attacking Amendment 46. Metro State trustees voted unanimously to oppose Amendment 46, and the head of the Colorado Community College System opposes 46, even though their essentially open enrollment policies mean they won't have to turn away any minority or female applicants as a result.
The University of Northern Colorado, meanwhile, contended in its resolution that the amendment "may have a significant chilling effect on efforts to promote diversity by means other than the granting of preferential treatment." But why, so long as the efforts referred to don't discriminate?
Some critics mention selective scholarships that could be threatened or cite the potential loss of programs encouraging girls to consider math and science careers. We find it rather jarring to hear people in this day and age defend ethnic-based scholarships - especially when it's clear that the major barrier to educational access is poverty and not ethnicity. Amendment 46 does nothing, of course, to prevent people from targeting aid to those in need.
If you want to extend a helping hand to kids growing up in disadvantaged neighborhoods, Amendment 46 will not prevent you from doing so. If you're a student coming from economic hardship, you could still have that considered on your college application.
Meanwhile, if private donors wish to support female-only programs aimed at shoring up the confidence of girls interested in math and science, they still can. But taxpayer dollars would not be used for such a purpose - at least not without similar programs being aimed at boys - because government has a special responsibility to uphold equal opportunity.
Amendment 46 opponents argue that after the passage of a similar measure two years ago in Michigan the percentage of minority contractors getting government work declined; they clearly believe discrimination accounts for the difference. Preferences are needed, they claim, to level the playing field and give women and minorities a fair shot at success.
We think a wealth of evidence across contemporary America - in government agencies as clearly as anywhere - undercuts this pessimism. Bigotry has hardly been banished from America, of course, but it is no longer credible to maintain that it is a major obstacle to creating a diverse state work force, university student body or faculty, or a nondiscriminatory system of contracting.
The man behind Amendment 46 is Ward Connerly, a black businessman who served 12 years on the University of California Board of Regents. As Connerly frequently points out, an African-American is one step away from the presidency. Talk about the ultimate glass ceiling being busted to smithereens.
Coloradans should take the cue to move beyond preferential treatment and embrace equal opportunity. Vote yes on Amendment 46.
NOTE: This story has been corrected from earlier versions. It mistakenly said that the trustees of the Colorado Community College System formally opposed the amendment; the president of the college system, Nancy McCallin, formally opposed Amendment 46. Also, three other states listed will not be voting on similar measures this fall.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
October 2, 2008
3:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
The day that the face of upper management (and hopefully Congress) reflects the "face" of the workforce will be the day that "so-called" preferential treatment should be done away with. There is still a glass ceiling for women - not to mention the race issue (did you know that it is easier for a white man just out of prison to get a job that for a black man WHO WAS NEVER IN PRISON but has the same qualifications to get one?). And let's not get started on age - IT folks who have had their jobs offshored who are over 50 (with 20-30 years experience) have virtually NO CHANCE of finding another job in the industry - even at a pay cut.
This amendment is to maintain the status quo of "give the bid/job" to the middle/upper class white guy. Does anyone else recall the screaming of "reverse discrimination" on the part of a construction company which already had about 90% of Colorado state construction jobs "sewed up" when the state had a "set-aside" of 5% of those jobs to women/minority owned/operated companies? It's a "Catch 22" for start up companies - you can't compete for cost on a bid UNLESS you are already large enough to get quantity discounts - and you can't get large enough to get those discounts without getting bids and it doesn't that the quality of the work is at least as good.
I am not a proponent of hiring quotas - but would truly love to see something put in place to the effect that "in 10 years (for instance) the face of management of a company must reflect the face of the workforce if they want a government contract" - which would force businesses to recruit, hire and mentor qualified women and minorities.
October 2, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
angka writes:
Connerly uses these initiatives to line his own pockets, and the local proponents of Amendment 46 are straight-up racists. Way to buy into that doublespeak, Rocky!
October 2, 2008
6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
VeryOpinionated writes:
angka, nice use of the race card! I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have voted for Amendment 46. His "I have a dream" speech certainly supports that assertion. You've been brainwashed by the Al Sharptons and the Jessie Jacksons of the world. All they promote is a "I'm a victim" mentality.
mrfxx, you obviously don't know much about business (at a mid to high-level of management). I have 35+ years of experience, and I'll guarantee you that GOOD management is a scarce commodity (witness our current financial crisis). Any successful company treasures GOOD TALENT regardless of M/F or skin color. In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that if you're talented, and are a minority, companies will fight over you. I've witnessed it. Sure, there are some "good-old-boys" companies that promote their buddies, but then, if you're serious about your career, you wouldn't want to work for that company, because they'll rarely succeed, and you'll eventually lose your job anyway.
October 2, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
Folks, the Rocky is WRONG on this one.
This amendment is fine until it includes "public contracting".
The State has programs in place that purposely give "preferential treatment" to local (in-State), women-owned, and minority-owned businesses in the bidding for State contracts. Without these advantages, our friends and neighbors will have limited ability to compete with the national (and multi-national) conglomerates for State work. It's the "Wal-Mart effect" and I think it's a big mistake.
Vote NO on 46. They'll be back next time and hopefully leave out the public contracting piece.
October 2, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elwood writes:
I guess I'm tired of being discriminated against, being a white male and all. I guess if this doesn't pass, in 10 years or so, I'll be a minority and have an advantage.
October 2, 2008
8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
So opponents of 46 believe that if you are against racism, sexism and bigotry, and believe in what MLK said, i.e., that what matters is not skin color but character content, that you are a racist. And if you are for racism, sexism and bigotry, i.e., you believe qualifications and merit should always take a back seat to skin color, etc., you are all squared away.
Got it.
Now we see why organizations like the Colorado Democracy Alliance, with their "covert operatives" like Romanoff, Dreyer, Fitzgerald and Madden, believe "minorities" are "idiots" whom they must "educate" to think the right way politically.
October 2, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Aren't a lot of the "minority/women-owned" businesses just fronts for white guys, anyway? The white guy's wife/girlfriend/mother is listed as "President and CEO" while he pulls the strings.
So, exactly how does the existing setup help minorities and females?
October 2, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
GunnyBob,
Just curious. Are you the GunnyBob who hosts talkshows on KOA? Or are you borrowing the screen name for posting on RMN?
Cool either way. Just wondering.
October 2, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
Spencerr:
No, it's me.
October 2, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Cool! I enjoy your show when I have a chance to listen. Unfortunately, you are on during a time that I normally spend with my family.
Good show!
October 2, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
angka writes:
The fact that Gunny Bob Newman, the guy who called recently for all Muslims in the US to be "fitted with GPS tracking bracelets" is here quoting Martin Luther King should tell you everything you need to know about Amendment 46. Why don't you pull out Rep. Jim "Lazy Black People" Welker to campaign for you and be done with it? What a pathetic steaming pile of race-baiting trickery.
Hey Rocky, did Jessica Peck Corry explain what she meant when she twice referred to Barack Obama as "Osama" with a little chuckle on the air a couple weeks ago while making the case for your endorsement? That's right folks, racism just ain't a problem anymore...
October 2, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Who would want equality in a failing system? One way to achieve equality is for everyone to become simultaneously impoverished. In a year, none of these artificial liberal inventions will matter, mission accomplished.
I don't want equality by others losing. Neither do I want grades I didn't earn nor a job I can't do. Don't give me diversity either. I want production. I want to compete. I'm tired of seeing the word, "Sony" on everything.
October 2, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
angka,
Here is my take on it...and perhaps I am acting a little selfishly, being a white man.
I find it ironic that people whose major gripe in life is that they are discriminated against based on race or ethnicity are the first to jump in line to call on government to "reverse discriminate"...if you will. There is an old addage, "two wrongs does not make a right."
I find it even more ironic that those same people who preach that white men and others, such as women and minorities, are equal in ability and thus should have "equal opportunities" sell out that view when they advocate for policies that would mean preferential hiring based on the premise that the woman or minority is less capable.
I say let people apply for positions in the workforce (whether it be public or private) and post secondary education based solely upon their ability.
October 2, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
Angka:
Nice lie. Got any more?
October 2, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Angka,
I'm actually curious where this stuff comes from. Is your mind made from your own observations, or from the classroom? Inquiring minds want to know.
You don't think consequences out seven generations or even five five minutes.
In a year you'll have no food. Your race concerns will have vanished.
October 2, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
bmenezes writes:
Angka wasn't lying about "Gunny Bob's" call to force Muslim immigrants -- including naturalized US citizens -- to wear GPS tracking bracelets and have their homes, mosques and community centers bugged. He did it on May 8, 2007, and the audio still is available if you want to listen to it at:
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
This idea, by the way, would constitute a violation of federal civil rights laws, so you can mark this former Marine down for promoting unlawful conduct on the air and for abrogating his Marine Corps oath by advocating the overthrow of parts of the U.S. Constitution.
"Gunny Bob" has lied about a lot of other things on the air since then, most recently about the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who asked Sen. Obama to wear a bracelet honoring her son.
He's also lied about immigration issues, what a variety of public figures have said on the record about policy issues...fact is, if "Gunny Bob's" lips are moving or his fingers are typing, you can assume he's lying.
His grasp of facts is so poor that the company that was about to publish his last book actually terminated the project after concerns were raised by its legal department.
October 2, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
Read the words of racist hate group activists very closely for the clever changes in words when referring to earlier posts. Then look into who some of the posters are, i.e. hate group spokespeople who fail to ID themselves in their posts. Also, the AP lied about the soldier's mother and changed its title of the article shortly after they printed it to reflect the editors' learning of the reporter's lie. The family is still demanding the Obamessiah stop exploiting their dead son for political purposes. Obama didn't even know the man's name on the bracelet. Fight the hate: support 46.
October 2, 2008
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
UPDATE: THE OBAMA-K.I.A. BRACELET SCANDAL
AP Changes Headline: Mother of Fallen Soldier Never Said She Was "Ecstatic" About Obama's Mentioning Her Son
Obama didn't even know the name on the bracelet during the debate and despite the family repeatedly asking that he stop exploiting their son for political gain, Obama refuses to cease and desist: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-t...
Obama exploits our dead soldiers for political gain and virtually tells the upset family to stick it.
He's a fine patriot who respects military families.
Right.
October 2, 2008
4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
Terrorists love Obama. Marxists love Obama. The racists of Trinity Church love Obama. Dictators around the world love Obama. They all want you to vote for him. Now ask yourself why.
His endorsers and supporters include: Hamas, Kim Jung-il, Moammar Gadhafi, Fidel Castro, admitted terrorist Bill Ayers, convicted felon Tony Rezko, and the like.
October 2, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
bmenezes writes:
Surprise! More lies from "Gunny Bob." He quotes a right-wing blog as the source of "facts," which naturally means something important was left out. Here's what the Wall Street Journal wrote about the bracelet, on Oct. 1:
"Brian Jopek told Wisconsin Public Radio that his ex-wife gave Mr. Obama the bracelet because 'she just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.' He said Ryan's mother had told him in an email she had actually asked Mr. Obama not to wear her son's bracelet any more in public. Tracy Jopek confirmed to the Associated Press that she asked him to stop wearing the bracelet, although she allowed she was 'satisfied' with how the candidate mentioned it during Friday's presidential debate."
In other words, Newman conspicuously leaves out that Mrs. Jopek has stated publicly that she was fine with Obama's mention of her son and the bracelet during the debate.
Now, why do you suppose that is? Probably the same reason Newman claimed on his September 9 program that illegal immigrants kill 12 Americans a day. As usual, he offered not a shred of proof -- not surprisingly, because it's a lie for which no evidence exists.
Ask Newman for any factual evidence to back up most of what he says or writes, and he'll be unable to provide it. He'll offer up some right-wing website as a red herring, but never provides verifiable substantiation from independent or credible sources.
His ertswhile book publisher realized this and killed his last book as it was on the verge of going on the market.
October 2, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
bmenezes writes:
Oh, and MSNBC apparently no longer uses Newman as a "military expert" since the network found out what a clown he really was.
October 2, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
Fight the liberal racist hate machine and their proxies. Fight their lies. Defend America and defend the Constitution: defeat the Obamessiah, defeat terrorism, defeat racism, keep the Iraqis free no matter what the liberal bigots say, who consider them brown-skinned Muslim filth who can't deal with freedom and democracy because they are inferior according to the left.
October 2, 2008
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
More lies from the hate mongers. And why won't he ID himself and his position with a hate group?
Hmmm.
October 2, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
bmenezes writes:
And fight the bigoted clowns like "Gunny Bob" Newman who would call for the persecution of those same Muslims in the United States, solely on the basis of their religion, and who openly insult the same Constitution they claim to want to defend.
October 2, 2008
5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
Note the racist still refuses to ID himself and his position with a leftist hate group. That says it all, folks.
Bye, Billy.
October 3, 2008
4:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sandy_S writes:
You need another correction, there, Temple. The Connerly-backed initiative failed in all the states you cited except for Nebraska. It never got on the ballot in Arizona, Missouri or Oklahoma. Fact-check much?
October 3, 2008
7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
angka writes:
Nice implosion, Gunny Bob. You should have quit when you were ahead. And naturally I stand behind everything I said.
The most audacious bigots in the state, like "Gunny" Bob Newman who called for Muslims to be fitted with GPS tracking devices and Jessica Peck "Obama bin Biden" Corry, support Amendment 46. A telling fact your can't bloviate your way out of.
October 3, 2008
10:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
ThomasThomas writes:
I remember Martin Luther King's words about being judged on the content of one's character instead of the color of one's skin. That's what Amendment 46 is all about - deconstructing "liberal" (I use the term advisedly) anti-white- and anti-male discrimination.
But I also see what is behind "preferences" - naked, unabashed anti-white-male bigotry. I saw that at the orientation session of a State of Colorado job that I held. The thinly-veiled argument is that white men are of lesser value, and therefore not entitled to civil rights (or much of anything else). I've seen the belly of the beast numerous times - and this dragon must be slain.
October 3, 2008
10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
ThomasThomas writes:
There's even more to the anti-white-male bigotry that underlies "preferences". The State public health has programs for women, but not for men. They also have a program that focuses on the disproportionate causes of death for minorities, but not for the disproportionate causes of deaths of whites, men, and white men.
I know the "liberal" crowd will talk about "white male privilege". Those were the same crowd that talked about "Jewish privilege" in Germany in the 1930s -- and look what happened then.
The other acid test that rebuts claims of "white male privilege" is the fact that white men account for 75% of both State and National suicides.
Let's eliminate institutionalized bigotry by passing Amendment 46!
October 3, 2008
10:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
ThomasThomas writes:
Maybe the best reason to vote for Amendment 46 is the fact that Barack Obama referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person". That PUBLIC comment underscores the depth of anti-white and anti-white male bigotry.
Vote YES on Amendment 46 and NO on Obama -- who may not even be an American citizen!
October 5, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
moedoeIV4 writes:
#1! Look at the track record of the Afirmative Action employees.
Denver has lowered standards for city jobs. The ability and intellect to complete the tasks at hand, (with Afirmative Action hirees) seems inept at best! Vote Obama,,,,please leave this country!
October 5, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
The debate on Amendment 46 is about racial preferences, not opportunity. Racial preferences divide groups, not unite groups. Racial preferences involve lower standards for preferred groups, segregation for preferred groups, and lower expectations of preferred groups. Every member of a preferred group is suspect because of racial preferences. Given free choice, individuals will not choose to obtain services from members of preferred groups when racial preferences pervade. Equality of results is bias in its pure form. There can never be equality of results because of large differences in individual ability, perserverance, and other traits that affect performance.
Beyond the biased notion of racial preferences, this election is about the racial grievance industry. This industry thrives on racial unrest. This industry foments racial unrest.
The alternative proposed by Ward Connelly is a positive image of racial relations. Tremendous progress has been made in treatment and opportunities for preferred groups. Opportunity abounds for those willing to work hard and fully apply oneself. Everyone will be held to the same standard. If a member of a preferred group achieves success, the individual can be assured that society will recognize the achievement.
October 5, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
ThomasThomas writes:
mmannino,
you are entirely correct about the preferences industry thriving on racial grievances and racial unrest.
I am a former government employee for a municipality in the San Francisco area. In the office I worked, employees self-segregated into racial "blocks", and this manifested into segregated departments. One department would be all-Chinese; another all-Black, etc. All groups hated Whites as a matter of principal (Whites have been habitually portrayed as the "enemy"; and all groups hated the Blacks because many of them were of very obnoxious. To put it in a nutshell, everyone hated everyone else on the basis of race. There were only a handful of White people in the office; the exodus of Whites in general from the San Francisco area is an open secret.
If these policies are allowed to continue here, I predict results similar to what happened in the San Francisco area.
October 25, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
blh1616 writes:
Sorry ThomasThomas, but California already passed the anti-affirmative action in the 90's!!!! I guess you didn't know that.
I am most worried about the kids that this will affect. When this law passed in California, minority enrollment in higher education institutions dropped over 50% in ten years. Scholarships for women, African-Americans, Native Americans, regional groups (Coloradans, southern Coloradans, etc.) and other minorities are intended to provide access to those among them who have proven themselves in school and in the community to be worthy of assistance that they need to go to college.
In Colorado, black children are about two and a half times as likely to be in poverty as their white peers (http://www.coloradokids.org/includes/...). This is a chance for these kids to make something of themselves.
I am white, and I worked hard to get scholarships to go to a small state school. That's what these kids are doing, too, but you are going to make it much harder for our kids to find the opportunity they need.
October 30, 2008
8:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
"Proponents of 46 are straight up rascists," claims angca. Folks this is a preview of an Obama White House. Anyone that disagrees with his administration, particularly on racial issues, will be called a rascist. An Obama administration could do wonders for race relations if Obama governs from the center and doesn't resort to these despicable tactics. If he does, it will set race relations back 25 years.