Rocky/CBS4 poll: Coloradans favor ending affirmative action

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 28, 2008 at 6:52 p.m.

Text size

More Local News

Comments

October 28, 2008

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

If it weren't for affirmative action, Obama would not be the messiah.
October 28, 2008

7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

ghoax writes:

that fairness, equality are truly achievable is pure fantasy. Newsflash the world isn't fair, and no matter how many laws are made to give groups special rights, special "protections", not much changes.

When they make sure to meet quota's someone gets discriminated against, by the simple act of attempting to prevent it.

Take equal pay for equal work, sure sounds great, okay, two people doing the same job, one has more practical experience, one has a higher level degree, who gets paid more...everyone knows that the more educated will automatically get more money for the same job...but where's the "fairness" crowd on that one.

The same goes for protections, one groups protection is at another's expense. Today's world is so consumed with being politically correct and diverse that common sense has become a rarity.

Even the latest slaughter of free speech and religion as in SB200 protecting gays from anything they perceive as being discriminatory, is at the expense of others. In this case, gays can demonstrate their belief freely, while those who disagree with the lifestyle are restricted in what they can say or do.

Making decisions based on affirmative action, diversity or quotas is discrimination and it's that simple.
October 28, 2008

7:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

rage_against_the_stupid writes:

Come on RMN, if Udall was up 53-40 you wouldn't call it a "soft", it would be a landslide. The RMN is a democrat company that is operating as a news organization. Yellow journalism is alive and well at in Denver and it stinks. At least the Denver Post admits its left leanings and is actually tougher on democrats because of it. Drop your RMN subscription now.
October 28, 2008

8:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

Kay, that is funny. I believe that Obama has been an affirmative action candidate his whole life. Too bad we can't prove that if he released his college records. What is he hiding?
October 28, 2008

8:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

ObiWan writes:

Thanks for your comments, KaySieverding!

You've proven why Amendment 46 needs to be passed! Because ANYONE can make it in America WITHOUT the help of government-endorsed preferences.
October 28, 2008

9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

akrmnbc writes:

What's your point about Obama and affirmative action? The guy has more talent and brains than McCain and Palin combined, and you're worried about exactly how he got into college. You should worry more about how John McCain and George Bush legacied into the Naval Academy and Yale. You should worry about Sarah Palin being dumb as a bag of rocks and being proud of it. Say what you will about the pros and cons of affirmative action, but don't make yourself look foolish by questioning the caliber of Barack Obama.
October 28, 2008

9:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

High achievers in protected classes should support Amendment 46. Preferences (racial, gender, and nationality) engender suspicion among others. If you think that an individual was admitted and pushed through becauser of a preference, you will be less likely to hire or use services from these individuals. High achievers must bear this suspicion because of the prevalence of preferences. In addition, preferences encourage lazy behavior. Individuals will only perform to the expected standards. Lower standards for specific groups encourage lower performance among members of the group.

If Amendment 46 passes, I propose that we build a monument to Ward Connelly. He is a true civil rights pioneer who has remained steadfast in the face of withering criticism.
October 28, 2008

9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

I question the Obama. Maybe you should have vetted this poser in the primary and avoided the embarrassment that will come from his hidden past, his missing years, his lack of friends from the past. You have no idea what he is.
I question the Obama, what are you going to do, investigate me like Joe the Plumber. There is a big storm coming for you liberals.
October 28, 2008

9:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

GhostofReagan writes:

Ah, but when you end AA, please be sure to increase government quotas for corporate welfare dollars that benefit my people in Halliburton and Bechtel.

After all, we deserve your money!

Yours from Hell,

RWR 666
October 28, 2008

9:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

akrmnbc writes:

what on earth is your point about Obama's hidden whatever? Do you not have a television or a radio? He's out there in the debates, general election and primaries. He's on Meet the Press and every other news show. Every question you throw at him reveals a deep and hard-thinking man. And by the way, there are countless articles and news accounts that interview his friends from the past. They all indicate a man who is extremely talented, earnest, and ambitious. Investigate you like Joe the plumber... what are you talking about?
October 28, 2008

9:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

gchc303 writes:

I am a minority and I support amendment 46. The time for AA has passed.
October 28, 2008

9:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mighty_Mile writes:

Rage,
Both papers are owned by the same company babe. Affirmative action tries to make up for the racists and bigots in positions of power.
October 28, 2008

10:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

akrmnbc- The Toledo Police Department confirms that one of its records clerks has been charged with performing an unlawful search of Joe The Plumber’s records.

That makes two Ohio government employees identified in the snooping case. (Obama donor Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, approved a separate search. More are being investigated.)

Obama hasn't had a news conference in a month. The guy is shallow and self centered, 2 autobiographies in his 45 years? Full. Of. It.
October 28, 2008

10:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

rage_against_the_stupid writes:

Mighty_Mile writes:

Rage,
Both papers are owned by the same company babe. Affirmative action tries to make up for the racists and bigots in positions of power

Mighty,

So that we can replace them with racists and bigots if AA is allowed to remain. Let's free ourselves from institutional racism.
October 28, 2008

10:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

Bigotry is not limited to any particular race or group. Racism and bigotry used to be easy to identify. We had laws and policies that promoted racial segregation and restrictions. We have long done away with such laws. We have had 40 years of racial preferences. It is time to stop preferences by race, gender, and nationality. We should strive for a color blind society. We have plenty of laws and government agencies that provide protection for individuals about racism. Amendment 46 does not prevent individuals from bringing claims of racist treatment. Absent particular racism claims, Amendment 46 insists on equal treatment.
October 28, 2008

10:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

akrmnbc writes:

Oh_Wise_One: I've just realized that you think that Joe the Plumber is being persecuted by the liberal elite for having non-liberal views, and that you are vulnerable to the same treatment. That's weird!
October 29, 2008

12:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

woods_b writes:

Absolutely!! Let's try personal responsability!
October 29, 2008

12:33 a.m.

aRe writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
October 29, 2008

1:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

In my life time, I have seen the world before the civil rights movement. It was not a very nice world if you were black or different. I remember the tragedies of the quest for equality and freedom. They were earned with the blood and suffering of countless, nameless people; people whose names we will never know. There were 4 little girls who died in a church that was bombed in Selma, AL and the lynching of young men who tried to make a difference. Young white men who came to the South to help the Civil Rights Movement were murdered and dumped out like so much garbage. Even when the President sent the military in to insure that young black men and women could enter segregated schools and citizens, even the Governor rose up against him defying the law.

Those were times that I will never forget. No one should. Good people were murdered, assassinated. They died for a dream. For some the dream came true. For others the struggle continued. Laws were made to try to balance out the injustice of some societies in the United States who would not see that we are all the same. They had contempt for the law, contempt for the people the law sought to protect, the people who needed help to get even the most common of jobs.

The United States created Affirmative Action to set an example to its citizens not to give preferential treatment, but to give a basic right to the same jobs that I could easily walk in and get. I’m white with brown hair and blue eyes. It was always easy for me to get a job. It’s hard to imagine from behind blue eyes and a white face what it feels like to have people look at you in a suspicious way. Look at you and see a black man and still not really see you. To look at you and see Hispanic features and even though you were born in Denver, you know they’re thinking “illegal alien” and it hurts, it makes you mad. No, from behind blue eyes and a white face it’s hard to imagine.

But I have been in a position to both watch who gets hired and do the hiring. I can tell you that today, right now, in Colorado and I’m sure all over the U.S., people of color, of diversity, people who are “different” do not always get equal treatment nor do they get the job they are qualified for. You can blog me in caps and curse my screen name but I know of what I speak. You know it too. The difference is that I will say it out loud, or in this case, type it on this blog.

Continued Below
October 29, 2008

1:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

Amendment 46 is about protecting individuals and groups from discrimination and offering AA, if you chose to call it that, so they are treated fairly. Sadly, there had to be an amendment to make sure that happened. That should be a very disturbing thing to us. It should be a basic human right to be treated fairly, no matter who or what you are. If you are acting inappropriately then the law deals with those acts. But sadly, we have to be regulated by the government when it comes to common decency. So the government sets the example. The people follow or not. If you really believe that women get equal pay for equal jobs, that a person of color has the same opportunity as a white person, that diversity and being “different” in the U.S. is really OK by the American people, then you haven’t watched CNN and the films of the people in line for the Sarah Palin events yelling racial slurs at the cameras and you didn’t read the RMN blogs about the Somalis who were fired at JB Swift in Greeley in September or the news story of the men in Texas who tied a black man with a rope to the back their pick up and drug him for 5 miles until you couldn’t recognize him as a human being.

Maybe you’re living in a wonderful neighborhood that is culturally diverse and everyone gets along. If so, that’s great. I really mean it. It’s the world I have always dreamed of and the way I have tried to live my life. I have tried to live it in my job and in my business hiring practices and I have never been disappointed in my decisions. Or maybe you just don’t care. You have closed yourself off to what goes on around you. Maybe you have no contact with people who are different from you. But believe me, it’s out there. All you have to do is open your eyes, watch, read, listen.

It would be a grave mistake to think that we don’t need to protect groups or individuals of “different” backgrounds or colors from discrimination. The pages of human history record the cruelty of men against those they perceive as inferior. We are not yet ready to trust everyone in our society to treat each citizen with respect and equality. I wish we were.
October 29, 2008

3:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

tchoupitoulas writes:

I'm going to have to agree with a prior post. I am an African American law student and am overwhelmingly in favor of eliminating these protective class provisions. I'm sure my experiences are not unique, and there are a number of reasons why I take this position, but there are 2 compelling reasons why I think this may actually be the way to go.

First, it makes my life easier as a minority student in a profession that is still fairly slow to diversify. I'm a pretty smart cookie.....and I believe my ability and talent should be the ONLY criteria that is considered. Eliminating affirmative action creates an environment that eliminates doubt.......for instance, when I get accepted into a degree program or I'm offered a job/promotion/etc., there should be no question as to why. No more 'whispers' of preference, which I believe contributes to a better environment for everyone.

Second (and this is the biggie)......it is a true non-issue. If you look at states that already have programs such as this in place (I'm thinking about the public colleges and universities in California and Michigan), they simply replaced a 'race-based' program with one that looks at "selection factors" to ensure a more diversified candidate pool.

For example, if you are a high school senior and you were to apply to go to school at UCLA or the University of Michigan, your application would simply remove any questions about 'ethnicity' and replaced them with other indices that can identify your background. Questions such as "what is your zip code", "did your parents complete high school or college", "please include a copy of your (or your parents) W-2 forms for the previous year", or "what high school did you attend" allows an admissions office or employer to get a quick "snapshot" of their applicant pool. From there, they proceed with their selection. These demographic indicators can show the same information that the more traditional applications did....it's simply more covert and tends to distract from the litigation and questions that come up when a traditional 'quota' system is involved.
October 29, 2008

3:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sue3275 writes:

Ex-subprime bank executive finances Obama
Customers who lost savings note he slams housing crisis

Jerry Seper
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Washington Times

"John W. Courtney's world collapsed at dinnertime on a Friday in July 2001. That's when he learned from a television newscast that much of the $200,000 that he had saved from his construction job over a 30-year period was lost when his Chicago-area bank was shut down after pursuing a failed strategy of subprime loans.

Seven years later, the Vietnam War veteran has yet to recoup $85,000 of his uninsured losses from Superior Bank's failure. And he watches in disbelief as one of the bank's former top officials, billionaire hotel heiress Penny Pritzker, leads the record-breaking fundraising machine of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

Mr. Courtney, now 63, wonders aloud how Mr. Obama could rail on the campaign trail against the national financial crisis started by subprime lending while allowing a former advocate of the practice to hold the senior position of finance chairwoman in his campaign. The candidate has even lauded Ms. Pritzker's business practices as a model for an Obama administration."

Cont'd through link.....................

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
October 29, 2008

5:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

seeker writes:

tchoupitoulas

This is all wonderful for you but you are an exceptional example. You are operating at the high end of the spectrum. What about the guy that just wants a civil service job or wants to get into a tech school. He may not have the same ability to achieve what you have. Perhaps being a computer tech is what he wants. He may not be an attorney at a law firm, but it’s a good job. He may need a little help getting financial aid and just getting in the classes he wants. Agree with me or not, we are just not equal in how we are viewed even if we are the same color, race….whatever. Though you may be accepted because of your grades and drive, another may not because of where he came from and his lack of opportunity as a child. It is not a balanced world for all. Children go to school in the neighborhoods they live in. Schools in some of the poorer neighborhoods are tragically inferior and are a national disgrace. The child of that school does not get an equal education and cannot change that until he is able to get out on his own. Some never make it out. These programs are designed to help him level out the unfairness of that injustice.
October 29, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

seeker,

There are abundant remedies for discrimination. We have many laws and government agencies to deal with discrimination. You want more discrimination not less discrimination. In addition, bigotry works across races and nationalities. There is plenty of black racism against whites, asians, and hispanics. There is plenty of hispanic racism against whites, blacks, and asians. You just want to perpetuate separatism, hostility, and a victim mentality.
October 29, 2008

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

kel writes:

seeker-

if we are going to have AA in some places, then let's have it everywhere. Let's start with collegiate and professional sports. How about basketball. For every African American player we need one white, one oriental, and one Hispanic player. We should hold separate, individual try-outs so that the coach can compare the talent among the segregated groups. Most of the teams will have to let go of African American players because right now they make up about 80% of all teams. But they shouldn't mind because this is all in the name of equality. And some of the white and Hispanic kids shouldn't feel embarrased that they might be on a team simply because of their skin color and not race or gender. Remember, this is all in the name of equality.

I'm not saying that all minorities are under qualified, but I am saying that how is it fair to ANYONE that someone gets a spot in a company, college, etc. with race even being a factor?
October 29, 2008

7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

kel writes:

aRe:

"People in this state need to get a clue. The chief benficiary of affirmative action is not hispanics or blacks as all the low life white trash would like to believe - no guess what? It's white women. That's right WHITE WOMEN. Since most families anymore are duel income go ahead and vote against it - better yet take a nice percentage out of your family's joint bank account and flush it. It would be nice if one could be judged by his or her own merit but this isn't happy La La Land and that isn't always the case even today."

I am a white female and I work in a male dominated industry and I have not noticed any discrimination against me. I will not lose my job if AA disappears because I am capable at what I do. I don't depend on amendments to get jobs and neither should anyone else. That is the best example of why we need to get rid of AA.
October 29, 2008

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

tchoupitoulas,

You have made a very thoughtful post. Amendment 46 will reduce separatism and suspicion helping you and many others in similar situations.

The major reason that I support Amendment 46 is morality. It is simply immoral to use discrimination against individuals who have not discriminated. Discrimination against individuals who have not discriminated will only lead to separatism and hostility.
October 29, 2008

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

kel,

You have made a strong case for Amendment 46. Today, women as a group suffer no discrimination. It is outrageous to give preferences to a group that does not suffer discrimination. The set asides create strange gaming situations to qualify for preferences.
October 29, 2008

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

The following statements are all examples of why Affirmative Action needs to END:

"You're pretty smart for a girl"

"He's not the most qualified applicant, but he IS the only Asian, so we'll take him"

"I know she is a terrible worker but we CAN'T fire her... she's the only African American in her department!!"

"We have 40 qualified applicants, but we can't hire ANY of them because we need 1 more Hispanic Woman."

Suggesting that any particular race or gender needs special consideration is suggesting that that particular race or gender is somehow inferior and needs "help" in order to make it.

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. It lessens and degrades people and it encourages race and gender bias.
October 29, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dick_Tater writes:

Seeker,

You statement is that tchoupitoulas is the exception, rather than the rule. I disagree. Most people who apply for jobs/education are not benefited by AA. It is not the majority but a minority that falls below the line. I have heard many like tchoupitoulas who say the same thing ( great posting by the way ). They get by on their own merits and hate being seen as if they could not have done it without AA. It is this very same thought that causes people to think minorities are lesser because they need us to help them. Aren't you soooooo magnanimous to want to help the poor minorities....that is sad.
October 29, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

JLS writes:

tchoupitoulas and Seeker:

Thank you very much for your posts, your perspectives are of particular interest to me on this issue because you have seen this topic from a very different viewpoint than I could.

I wanted to expand on the second point that tchoupitoulas made. It occurred to me that perhaps the real point here is to try to give a little assistance to disadvantaged people, rather than members of a particular race.

I really like the idea of using a demographic-based system, rather than a racial quota, as it really does seem more likely to help those who need it most. If a child is the first in several generations to graduate from high school, and comes from a home that is in the bottom third of annual income (for example) it is probably safe to say that they need a little help getting access to college, whereas someone whose parents are both college educated and whose household income is in the top third of earners probably has much better access to the admittance process, planning and preparation, etc.

It seems completely fair to me to help ensure that the applicant pool includes people from a variety of backgrounds and circumstances, and then the best can be drawn from this pool.

A race-based system creates inequity. Since not all minorities are disadvantaged, some are getting assistance that they don't need, or shouldn't be given (i.e. a well educated minority from a wealthy family, or a low performing minority who gets a free ride). This creates enmity towards the system. Also, since not all disadvantaged people are minorities, a race-based system means that not all of those who need representation are being considered in the process. This is inherently unfair. Perhaps this is the cause of the backlash against AA. My guess is that many people who are against AA would be for a system that sought out people, regardless of race, who needed better access and helped them get the access that others might naturally enjoy.
October 29, 2008

9:33 a.m.

AC writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
October 29, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

End Affirmative Action....... it's legalized discrimination based off of race or gender, and our society is supposed to be working towards the goal of not looking at other races or the other gender as being inferior to what we are. We're all supposed to be equal, and we're all one race, the human race!

There are federal laws that protect against discrimination, are involved in college admissions and loans, and those won't change by a state law.

I'm sure I'll catch grief for this comment, but the white male is the most legally discriminated against group of people. There are no racial or gender preferences for the white male. There are no quotas to have a certain number of white males employed. I don't believe any group should receive extra rights, and to make up for the past is a bad excuse. Noboby alive today endured the slavery of over 100 years ago. The civil rights movement helped move us in the right direction, this is yet another way to make everyone truly equal. End AA!
October 29, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

TooManyLibsInColorado writes:

obama is the Affirmative Action candidate. He was never properly vetted for this job. He has just been given a free pass by those who have no idea what he will do. If it was not for the "blind faithful" following he has he would have never made it this far. Issues and experience should decide this race and all he has is his 1/2 a race. God help us all if he gets in.
October 29, 2008

10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

January writes:

aRe, Are you really as clueless as you seem, or do you just have trouble expressing yourself? Do you realize that a vote in support of 46 is a vote AGAINST affirmative action? And as for your point about dual (not "duel") incomes, how is that even a factor when women make about $.75 for every dollar men make? Still, as a white woman in this society, I am supporting 46 on the basis that people should be expected to earn their privileges in this society--they shouldn't just be handed them on the basis of race, gender, or any other characteristic.
October 29, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

The reasons to end affirmative action are the same for the ammendment re: right to work. AA and unions served a purpose in the past, but it is now time to do away with both.
October 29, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

Women making .75 for every dollar that Men make is out of context.

For example, I make slightly more than twice what my Wife makes. This has NOTHING to do with discrimination. This is a deliberate choice that we made together. She runs a business out of our home that allows her to be a stay-at-home Mom. I work 40 hours a week at a desk job. When she was working full time at her Career and I was just begininng mine, she made double what I did.

Show me one job where they have a Man and a Woman, doing the same job, for the same amount of time, where the Man is paid better. It doesn't happen.
October 29, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

Big Sky, it does happen. I was recently hired for a job, and my female co-worker was paid quite a bit less than me for doing the exact same job. I don't think it is necessarily because she is a woman, maybe more about the fact that I have a more relavent degree for the position, but she has more experience doing the job. Maybe they had to pay me more because they were having trouble attracting qualified applicants. Many people were involved in my hiring, including women, but the person who sets the pay rate are men.
October 29, 2008

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

RBN writes:

White people have it so good that we can not see how other people are affected by our privilage. Its funny, I think AA needs to end, but only because it holds people back from being themselves and allows racism in covert ways to fester and grow. If you take it (AA) away then the people who are hired can not be looked at as though they are unqualified. White people will have no excuse for their failure...so I am sure we will find somewhere else to put the blame. Responsibility will fall on everyone.
October 29, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

5thgennative writes:

Who_Me: LMAO!
October 29, 2008

12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

peter_schmidt writes:

The headline of this article is misleading. Amendment 46 would not ban affirmative action as a whole. It has no bearing on affirmative action in the private sector, and it continues, for example, to allow public agencies to ensure they do not discriminate and that they cast a wide net in recruiting to have a diverse applicant pool. What the measure bans is the use by public agencies of affirmative action preferences, sometimes known as "hard" affirmative action (as opposed to the "soft" forms.) To characterize Amendment 46 as banning all affirmative action leads to overly broad interpretations of its impact, to the likely advantage of the measure's opponents prior to the election and to the potential detriment of "soft" affirmative action programs if this measure is passed.

-Peter Schmidt, author, Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War Over College Affirmative Action (www.colorandmoney.com)
October 29, 2008

3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

I saw AA in the Army during officer promotion boards. Branches and specialties would have floors and ceilings. Once those numbers were met, then AA kicked in. Look for the best qualified - but not selected - person of minority or ethnicity X and move that record above the cut line, thereby displacing an otherwise qualified - and previously selected - officer. I worked for a major general, Hispanic, nice guy, but dumb as a box of rocks, and everyone knew it. One of the main functions of the aide's job was to keep him from having Sarah Palin-like conversations with Katie Couric.
October 29, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

What media bias??????

First...."Colorado voters are poised to end race- and gender-based affirmative action programs in next week's voting, but the margin in favor of Amendment 46 is soft, new poll numbers show.
The initiative is leading 53 percent to 40 percent, with 7 percent undecided."

Ok.... so a lead of 53 percent to 40 percent is labelled as "soft".

Obama's lead in polls ranges from 0% to 7%, with most having McCain and Obama in a statistical dead heat since the margin is inside the margin for error. And yet, there is NO decription anywhere of Obama's lead (which is a small fraction of 13%) as "soft".

So much for consistency and balanced, objective reporting of the facts.

Second.... the poll shows that 53% support, 40% oppose, and only 7% are undecided. And yet the talking blowhards quoted in the "article" claims that it "can be in trouble".

Ok.... use some common sense, combined with basic math. If EVERY single voter that is undecided (7%) decides to oppose it, what is the outcome projected to be with the poll results? 53% support. 47% oppose. And that assumes that ALL of the undecideds choose no!

So much for "we report, you decide". In this case, it's more like "we collect the information, distort it, ignore the facts we don't like, and then claim it shows the opposite of what it really shows".
October 29, 2008

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

I'm mixed on this amendment.

On one hand, I am a female engineer, and considered a minority, and involved in an organization that has minority status (it supports and encourages women in engineering and science)

There are 6% women in the engineering work force, 20% female students in engineering colleges. This data has stayed steady for several years.

I want to be hired because of my merit. i am just as capable as my male counterparts. I was hired once at a large company that had a quota system. When I found this out, I left. It was a difficult job environment. The women were catty with each other, vying for the few promotions that might be available to women or other minorities. The white men were defeated, seeing that no amount of good work or years of service would see them get promoted.

In that situation, I support this amendment. It should be the best person for the job, and we should all be judged on our merits.

On the other hand, little girls are taught at a young age that they should be sex symbols, not brainiacs, and the engineering profession loses a lot of girls because the path to engineering starts young. We lose girls because the media teaches them that they are supposed to be pretty and sexy. It doens't teach them to study math and science. If we lose programs that support science and math programs to school aged children (many are open to both genders, and available to all races) but if we lose that focus to show young girls that engineering is a great profession - we lose that talent forever.

So where do we draw the line on educating, supporting and promoting programs to minority demographics?
October 30, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

"Actually "Who_Me", I read that when Obama applied to Harvard it was a race blind application. One of his professors was on television saying that Obama was the smartest student he ever had."

Two points:

How do we know that it was a "race blind" app as Obama has never released any of his Harvard records?

The law professor was Larry Tribe, perhaps one of the most high-profile liberal constitutionalists in America, who yearns, yearns and yearns to be nominated to SCOTUS. Thus, Larry the Liberal will say anything.

Home › News › Local News

Rocky/CBS4 poll: Coloradans favor ending affirmative action

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 28, 2008 at 6:52 p.m.

Related Links

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs