Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

HART and RIVERA: Amendment 46 deceptive

By Melissa Hart and Patricia Barela Rivera, Special to the Rocky

Published October 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

Next Tuesday, Nov. 4, Colorado voters must be wary of a particular ballot initiative that appears to say one thing but means another: Amendment 46.

Despite what the Rocky Mountain News averred in its Oct. 2 editorial endorsement, "Time to ban preferences," Amendment 46 is a California import meant to fool Colorado voters.

The amendment, which uses enticing language borrowed from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, actually would undo much of the work of the movement embodied in that act, and end modest programs of training, outreach and mentoring. This will be especially damaging for our institutions of higher learning, but its impact will be felt in K-12 classrooms as well.

Amendment 46 is terribly deceptive. It looks like a law designed to prohibit discrimination, and it gets a lot of support because of that. But that is the trick. Discrimination is already illegal in Colorado. What Amendment 46 is really directed at is so-called preferential treatment - an undefined and legally vague term that will be used to eliminate programs that encourage equality and opportunity for all Coloradans.

Nearly identical measures have passed in California (Proposition 209 in 1996), Washington (Initiative 200 in 1998) and Michigan (Proposition 2 in 2006) with horrifying results. In the decade immediately after the passage of Prop 209 in California, the number of minority freshmen at the University of California at Berkeley dropped 65 percent. During the same time period at UCLA, the number of minority freshmen fell 45 percent, and African-American admissions fell 57 percent. Summer camps for girls interested in science and math were eliminated and taxpayers were forced to pay the costs of litigation over whether battered women's shelters were legal under the measure.

It is important to remember we are not talking about quotas, which have already been declared illegal by the Supreme Court. Nor do the programs give spots to unqualified minorities, as opponents of affirmative action often claim. Rather, they allow qualified minorities an equal opportunity to attend competitive schools and pursue professions from which they were previously excluded.

The University of Colorado recently reported that, if Amendment 46 were to pass, it would have to re-evaluate the way it administers about 100 scholarships. These are funds that private donors have chosen to make available to students who want to get an education in Colorado. If a private donor wants to give money so that a young woman can be encouraged to pursue a career in technology, or so a Native American student can learn to be a doctor and take those skills back to his community, we should encourage that, not make it harder to do. Colorado needs the flexibility to encourage girls to pursue careers in math and sciences, men to enter nursing, and people of all backgrounds to serve underserved populations.

Aside from the central issue of this battle, there's also a political one. Amendment 46 is being spearheaded by a conservative California millionaire. Thousands of out-of-state dollars are pouring into the campaign to pass 46 in an attempt to twist the political fate of our home state.

Here in Colorado, a broad coalition of groups and individuals have joined together to oppose 46. Gov. Bill Ritter, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, the Colorado Council of Churches and a host of chambers of commerce have opposed 46. But getting the word out is tough, especially when we're facing an out-of-state political machine with what seems like unlimited resources.

Don't fall victim to this twisted ploy. Be vigilant with your vote. Say no on 46.

Melissa Hart and Patricia Barela Rivera are co-chairs of the No on Amendment 46 campaign.

Comments

  • October 30, 2008

    3:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    The amendment stops the state from giving preference. If I want to pay the way for a minority student to go to college, I can. Instead of giving the money to the school to administer, I could get like donors to contribute to a private fund and pass out the money to minorities, if I darn well please. it makes the state stay neutral, not private citizens. let's face some facts here people, not all kids are smart enough to make it through college, we have to go with the best and brightest. Look at this counties rank in education, we spend more and get less. we have gone from number one to 20, depending on what poll you look at. we keep it up and we'll be lucky to be in the top 40.

  • October 30, 2008

    6:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike846 writes:

    The last numbers I remember show the proportion of minority students at the two flagship universities in this state almost exactly mirror the ethnic makeup of the state in general, in terms of percentages. Maybe someone else can find those stats. In any case, assuming that's true, why should the minorities have disproportionate advantage in gaining admission? It strikes me that the best way to not discriminate based on race is to not discriminate based on race in any case. Mike

  • October 30, 2008

    6:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmjohnson writes:

    "they allow qualified minorities an equal opportunity to attend competitive schools and pursue professions from which they were previously excluded."

    Then this assumes that qualified minorities can't compete without help?

    As a double minority, I take offense to that. Everything I've achieved I've done through my own hard work and determination. Every scholarship I've gotten, I've earned. Every seat I've had in a classroom, I've fought for on my merit. Every job I've attained I've gained through my experience and skills.

    Anyway, the argument against the amendment on the grounds it comes from "out of state" is hypocrisy. After all, the whole idea of affirmative action (or you would call it "equal opportunity") also came from out of state, from the last president we had from Texas.

    Also, Roger is right, this does not effect private donors and scholarships in any way. If those groups want to be racist/sexist and biased in who they give their money to, then more power to them.

  • October 30, 2008

    8:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RS writes:

    "horrifying results."

    Really? Then the admission there are over 100 discriminatory scholarships just at CU? This amendment would end discrimination with Colorado taxpayer dollars. Period. That's it. Yes, it should not be necessary, but the fact is that the state does practice discrimination, making it necessary. More importantly, this is the first time - and likely the last - Colorado voters have the opportunity to vote directly against discrimination. How responsible would voters be to actually vote in favor of discrimination by opposing Amendment 46? Time to move forward - vote enthusiastically to end discrimination and approve Amendment 46!

  • October 30, 2008

    9:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    AngelontheSidelines writes:

    Mike846,
    If the flagship universities enrollment numbers reflect the population's racial numbers, then this shows affirmative action is working.

    If 46 passes, and 'equal access' is restored, the natural advantage white males have is also restored. I know it socks being born white, and the oppression is nowhere near fair and balanced. Deal with it, the white American male has the best life of any proletariat on the planet.

  • October 30, 2008

    9:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    "preferential treatment" should be banned. When you lower the bar to accommodate you are lowering the standards for the job.

    AngelontheSidelines - "natural advantage" is typical leftist garbage. I'm an American white male and I've never encountered anyone giving me anything because I'm white. The American white male is the leftist whipping boy for everything that they don't like. I won't let you and your type blame me for what you perceive to be wrong with society.

  • October 30, 2008

    9:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmjohnson writes:

    Actually with the direction public education is going lately, all students who came out of public education will be disadvantaged. In addition, only those students who came out of private schools or who were home schooled will have the scores and money requisite to attend public universities in the near future.

    So you can argue it's a natural advantage to white males. I would argue at that point it's a natural advantage to rich people of all colors and sexes.

    Look at Harvard, where the average family makes well over six figures, but hey, at least they have some minorities in there (whose families also make over six figures). How is that fair to ANYONE whose family makes less than six figures, whether white or black, male or female?

    I'd recommend all opponents of 46 read the book "The Trouble With Diversity" by Walter Benn Michaels, a professor who has seen what impact "diversity" has had on his university and the quality of education across our nation.

    Again, are you suggesting that I, as a double minority, couldn't have succeeded without help? If you oppose 46, that is exactly what you are telling me and others who have succeeded despite YOUR perceived disadvantages that we face.

    The only limitations in life are those we place on ourselves. If someone has the passion and the desire to succeed, they will.

  • October 30, 2008

    10:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RS writes:

    AngelontheSidelines writes:

    "If 46 passes, and 'equal access' is restored, the natural advantage white males have is also restored. I know it socks being born white, and the oppression is nowhere near fair and balanced. Deal with it, the white American male has the best life of any proletariat on the planet."

    "natural advantage white males have" - and this would be what? You statement is blatantly racist and therefore PLEASE keep opposing Amendment 46. You are proof racism is alive and well and the rest of us will oppose you for that very reason.

  • October 30, 2008

    11:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Madre2 writes:

    RS: Those scholarships are not based on taxpayer dollars, they are private funds earmarked by private donors to support the programs they choose. Do you want government telling you how to spend your money? ... Also, only 6 percent of CU's funding comes from Colorado taxpayers. In case you were not aware, Colorado is near dead last in the nation for the amount of dollars it allocates to higher education per student. That's a sad statement on our state and its priorities. Colorado can't compete if its own citizens cannot receive the benefits of a college education and go on to contribute to their communities.

  • October 30, 2008

    5:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AngelontheSidelines writes:

    OK, I'm guilty of blatant racism;

    White men, at least before Lincoln's war, who's family fortunes are based on slave labor have had a natural advantage. Since reconstruction and subsequent Jim Crow oppression the white man had a natural advantage. This is a cultural phenomenon, it may not be visible to you, but it is there and felt, if not seen by blacks.

    For the average white male, their lives have not seen any remnants of Jim Crow racism, a noose is viewed as an old western icon.

    To blacks, the noose, Confederate battle flag, separate entrances, and facilities, and back of the bus rules, although a relic today, still loom over life. One can only imagine the effects of this institutional racism that lingers still.

    The white man, who's culture has always been there and has not subjected them to this rightly feels victimized by affirmative action. It is just not fair to have less of a chance in college enrollment for equal qualifications.

    But over the previous 150 years, that is exactly how it was for blacks and any other previously vilified group.

    This is what I mean about a natural advantage white males have.

    BTW 'white trash' is the last ethnic group to be the butt of jokes that the PC police allow. Then again I see 'White Trash and Proud' bumperstickers all over the place at bluegrass festivals:)

  • October 30, 2008

    7:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmjohnson writes:

    The poor, no matter the color of their skin, are equally disadvantaged. They went to the same public schools, grew up in the same parts of town, and their parents work the same blue collar jobs. They are equally disadvantaged to anyone with more wealth, no matter the color of their skin.

    So long as we focus on race, we will never eliminate the TRUE factor is inequality... Class and socio-economic status.

  • October 30, 2008

    10:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AngelontheSidelines writes:

    There was a gangster movie from around 20 years back that had the main villain explain it all, "there ain't no more noggers and hinkeys anymore, there's wealthy people and poor people, we're both poor".

    The poor white trash that is fiercely pro American and American empire is in the same boat as all the rest of us. The trouble is that the vision of Amuuricuh and "freedom" has implanted a belief that they too make >$250K. Somehow the rich includes them and thus wealth redistribution hurts them. John Galt need not share with looters and moochers.

    Out of all the race victims, the White Male victim is not even 'politically correct';

    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showt...