The Cavalier Daily
Colorado voters faced similar proposition; University will continue to practice affirmative action in admissions decisions
Shea Connelly, Cavalier Daily Senior Associate Editor
Published: Monday, November 10 2008
On Election Day last week, 58 percent of voters in Nebraska supported a measure to end the practice of affirmative action in public employment, public education and public contracting.
Colorado voters faced a similar choice on their ballot this year, and although votes are still being counted, the votes to keep the practice currently outweigh the alternative, 51 to 49 percent.
Bill Harvey, University vice president and chief officer for diversity and equity, noted that he was pleased that voters in Colorado looked at the proposition on their ballot carefully enough to understand that “there is a need and opportunity for us to provide a chance for people who are historically not represented to get a chance to be involved in higher education and employment.”
Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity based in Falls Church, Va., which supports banning some kinds of affirmative action, however, holds a different perspective. He noted that his organization recently conducted and released a study showing the “heavy weight” the University of Nebraska College of Law gives to race in its admissions policies.
“African-Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos were admitted with much lower qualifications than whites and Asian-Americans,” Clegg said. “We think that’s unfair and divisive and really serves no one’s interests, so we oppose that.”
Clegg noted, however, that the term “affirmative action” means different things to different groups of people, and his organization does not oppose all forms of affirmative action. He cited President John F. Kennedy’s reference to the term affirmative action in a 1961 executive order in which he urged employers to take “affirmative action” to avoid engaging in prejudicial policies as an example of a type of affirmative action that his organization approves.
On the other hand, he said, “we think that actually taking race or ethnicity into account in deciding who gets admitted into a school or who gets hired or who is awarded a government contract is discrimination, and it’s wrong no matter what racial or ethnic group is being discriminated against,” Clegg said. “In 2008, it is untenable to have a legal regime where people are sorted according to skin color and some people are treated better and others worse on that basis.”
In contrast with Clegg, Shirley J. Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action, said affirmative action is still necessary.
“Until we have no evidence of discrimination, affirmative action will continue to be necessary,” she said. “Diversity is still a compelling interest with demographics indicating that by 2042, a majority of Americans will be minorities. It is important to ensure colleges and universities have qualified students of all backgrounds.”
Wilcher also said people supporting the bans on affirmative action have been engaging in “deceptive practices” in order to convince other people to also support the bans.
“People thought they were signing an initiative that was pro-civil rights,” she said, when they were actually signing a petition to ban affirmative action.
Wilcher said the future of the United States depends on qualified people of all races being able to graduate from college and to ascend to positions of leadership. [Full story: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/news/2008/nov/10/nebraskans-approve/]
Showing posts with label Colorado civil rights initiative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado civil rights initiative. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Connerly Will Not Challenge Colorado's Rejection of Affirmative Action Ban
Feminist Daily News Wire
November 10, 2008
Ward Connerly a California businessman whose efforts have led to affirmative action bans in California, Michigan, Washington, and Nebraska may cease his nationwide anti-affirmative action campaign. Connerly told the Colorado Independent in a phone interview that he will focus his time on other issues, particularly prison reform.Colorado rejected a proposed state constitutional ban (Amendment 46, see PDF) on affirmative action by a slim margin of 51% to 49%. The ban would have prevented taking race and gender into account in public employment, public contracting, and public education. ...
According to the Associated Press, Connerly has not ruled out another try in Colorado or other states. However, in his interview with the Colorado Independent, Connerly implied that his focus would shift to prison reform. "I don't want to mislead you. I don't want to say I am no longer going to be interested in race equality in our public policies," he said. "I think this whole business of what we are doing to people who are incarcerated is far more pressing." [Full story: http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11375]
November 10, 2008
Ward Connerly a California businessman whose efforts have led to affirmative action bans in California, Michigan, Washington, and Nebraska may cease his nationwide anti-affirmative action campaign. Connerly told the Colorado Independent in a phone interview that he will focus his time on other issues, particularly prison reform.Colorado rejected a proposed state constitutional ban (Amendment 46, see PDF) on affirmative action by a slim margin of 51% to 49%. The ban would have prevented taking race and gender into account in public employment, public contracting, and public education. ...
According to the Associated Press, Connerly has not ruled out another try in Colorado or other states. However, in his interview with the Colorado Independent, Connerly implied that his focus would shift to prison reform. "I don't want to mislead you. I don't want to say I am no longer going to be interested in race equality in our public policies," he said. "I think this whole business of what we are doing to people who are incarcerated is far more pressing." [Full story: http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11375]
Monday, November 10, 2008
Analysis: How Colorado Became the First State to Reject a Ban on Affirmative Action
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Monday, November 10, 2008
Ward Connerly's campaign against affirmative action took a hit last week, as Colorado voters narrowly rejected a ballot measure banning preferences based on race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin. The one-percentage-point defeat, the first time a state had rejected such a measure, can largely be credited to Barack Obama, political scientists and other experts say.
Voters in Washington, Michigan, and now Nebraska have all passed similar bans with about 58 percent of the vote, while California voters approved theirs with 54 percent of the vote.
Mr. Connerly, a longtime activist against affirmative action, expressed his disappointment at the defeat, but he has already begun efforts to get a similar measure on the ballot in Missouri for 2010. And he is eyeing Arizona and another attempt in Colorado, among other states. But in an interview, the 69-year-old former member of the California Board of Regents said he planned to spend more time campaigning on other issues, such as prison reform, which could divert attention from the anti-affirmative-action movement. [Full story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/11/7031n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en]
Monday, November 10, 2008
Ward Connerly's campaign against affirmative action took a hit last week, as Colorado voters narrowly rejected a ballot measure banning preferences based on race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin. The one-percentage-point defeat, the first time a state had rejected such a measure, can largely be credited to Barack Obama, political scientists and other experts say.
Voters in Washington, Michigan, and now Nebraska have all passed similar bans with about 58 percent of the vote, while California voters approved theirs with 54 percent of the vote.
Mr. Connerly, a longtime activist against affirmative action, expressed his disappointment at the defeat, but he has already begun efforts to get a similar measure on the ballot in Missouri for 2010. And he is eyeing Arizona and another attempt in Colorado, among other states. But in an interview, the 69-year-old former member of the California Board of Regents said he planned to spend more time campaigning on other issues, such as prison reform, which could divert attention from the anti-affirmative-action movement. [Full story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/11/7031n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en]
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Colorado voters reject affirmative action ban
By COLLEEN SLEVIN – 17 hours ago
DENVER (AP) — Colorado voters became the first in the nation to reject a ban on state affirmative action programs, narrowly defeating a measure that California businessman Ward Connerly has helped pass in four other states.
But with so many factors in play this historic election, it's not clear whether Colorado's vote is a turning point for such measures or an anomaly.
"More than anything else, more than anything, it was the tendency to just vote no," Connerly said, blaming a complicated state ballot and the groundswell of support for Barack Obama, the nation's first black president-elect.
By 51 percent to 49 percent, Coloradans rejected a proposed constitutional ban on considering race or gender in state hiring, contracting and college admissions. The Election Night tally showed voters about evenly divided, and The Associated Press didn't declare a winner until Friday, when more votes had been counted. [Full story: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00]
DENVER (AP) — Colorado voters became the first in the nation to reject a ban on state affirmative action programs, narrowly defeating a measure that California businessman Ward Connerly has helped pass in four other states.
But with so many factors in play this historic election, it's not clear whether Colorado's vote is a turning point for such measures or an anomaly.
"More than anything else, more than anything, it was the tendency to just vote no," Connerly said, blaming a complicated state ballot and the groundswell of support for Barack Obama, the nation's first black president-elect.
By 51 percent to 49 percent, Coloradans rejected a proposed constitutional ban on considering race or gender in state hiring, contracting and college admissions. The Election Night tally showed voters about evenly divided, and The Associated Press didn't declare a winner until Friday, when more votes had been counted. [Full story: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP2emAr4F0x_XR8HdB1CZGy1YCKQD94ADUJ00]
Monday, October 6, 2008
Lawsuit Filed Over Ballot Measure's Rejection
cbs4denver.com
October 4, 2008
DENVER (AP) ― A group pushing to defeat a ballot proposal to abolish affirmative action has filed suit against the state for rejecting a rival measure it proposed.
Coloradans for Equal Opportunity is disputing a decision by the secretary of state's office that its proposed amendment didn't have enough valid signatures to be included on ballots.
The measure would have given voters an alternative to a separate affirmative action question that did meet approval. The question bars the consideration of race or gender in state decisions, including college admissions.
It's too late for the rival version of that amendment to be printed on ballots. Instead, the group is asking a judge to have their question included on ballots in 2010.
http://cbs4denver.com/local/Lawsuit.Filed.affirmative.2.832765.html
October 4, 2008
DENVER (AP) ― A group pushing to defeat a ballot proposal to abolish affirmative action has filed suit against the state for rejecting a rival measure it proposed.
Coloradans for Equal Opportunity is disputing a decision by the secretary of state's office that its proposed amendment didn't have enough valid signatures to be included on ballots.
The measure would have given voters an alternative to a separate affirmative action question that did meet approval. The question bars the consideration of race or gender in state decisions, including college admissions.
It's too late for the rival version of that amendment to be printed on ballots. Instead, the group is asking a judge to have their question included on ballots in 2010.
http://cbs4denver.com/local/Lawsuit.Filed.affirmative.2.832765.html
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Ritter: Anti-affirmative action initiative will ‘destroy years of progress’
The Colorado Independent
By Naomi Zeveloff 9/29/08 6:20 PM
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter lambasted Amendment 46 at a press conference this afternoon, saying that the anti-affirmative action ballot measure will hurt our economy.
“We are in a time in this country and in this state where we have to keep our economy moving forward,” said Ritter, who spoke surrounded by supporters on the west steps of the state Capitol. “Amendment 46 takes us in the wrong direction.”
Ritter said that diversity in the workforce helps the economy and that the ballot measure, which seeks to end race and sex preferences in public contracting, hiring and education, will “destroy years of progress” that the state has made in improving health care, education and jobs.
Ritter’s announcement follows a long trail of similar denunciations. Most recently, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce decried the measure.
Amendment 46, known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, is part of a multistate effort by California businessman Ward Connerly to demolish affirmative action. According to a recent analysis by the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Connerly has gleaned more than $7 million from his two nonprofits, the American Civil Rights Institute and the American Civil Rights Coalition.
Ritter called Connerly a “constitutional amendment carpetbagger,” saying “it is wrong to allow him to do that to our state, to our Constitution, to our people.”
When asked which state programs will be cut should Amendment 46 pass, Ritter pinpointed the Fatherhood Initiative, a gender-based program that supports struggling fathers and their families. [To read the entire story, go to: http://coloradoindependent.com/9651/ritter-anti-affirmative-action-initiative-will ]
By Naomi Zeveloff 9/29/08 6:20 PM
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter lambasted Amendment 46 at a press conference this afternoon, saying that the anti-affirmative action ballot measure will hurt our economy.
“We are in a time in this country and in this state where we have to keep our economy moving forward,” said Ritter, who spoke surrounded by supporters on the west steps of the state Capitol. “Amendment 46 takes us in the wrong direction.”
Ritter said that diversity in the workforce helps the economy and that the ballot measure, which seeks to end race and sex preferences in public contracting, hiring and education, will “destroy years of progress” that the state has made in improving health care, education and jobs.
Ritter’s announcement follows a long trail of similar denunciations. Most recently, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce decried the measure.
Amendment 46, known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, is part of a multistate effort by California businessman Ward Connerly to demolish affirmative action. According to a recent analysis by the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Connerly has gleaned more than $7 million from his two nonprofits, the American Civil Rights Institute and the American Civil Rights Coalition.
Ritter called Connerly a “constitutional amendment carpetbagger,” saying “it is wrong to allow him to do that to our state, to our Constitution, to our people.”
When asked which state programs will be cut should Amendment 46 pass, Ritter pinpointed the Fatherhood Initiative, a gender-based program that supports struggling fathers and their families. [To read the entire story, go to: http://coloradoindependent.com/9651/ritter-anti-affirmative-action-initiative-will ]
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Judge dismisses complaints that anti-affirmative action petitioners misled voters
The Colorado Independent
By Naomi Zeveloff 9/24/08 7:24 AM
An administrative law judge has thrown out charges that Amendment 46 petition circulators misled people into signing onto the anti-affirmative action measure.
Amendment 46 seeks to end preferential treatment for women and minorities in public employment, education and contracting. The controversially named Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is part of a five-state effort launched by California businessman Ward Connerly to end affirmative action.
Connerly’s campaign has been criticized as a misleading attempt to make voters believe that they are promoting equal opportunity rather than destroying it. And in Colorado, at least a half-dozen people filed complaints with the secretary of state’s office, saying they were duped by petition circulators who told them that signing onto Amendment 46 would uphold diversity programs.
But last Friday, an administrative law judge dismissed those claims because they did not provide enough detail. And though several of the six complainants say they may file their grievances again, the months-long process has left them demoralized.
“I think all of us are going through some form of shock right now,” says Venita Vinson, a retired Denver resident who used to work for former Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder, a Democrat. Vinson says that she was approached by a petition circulator for the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative last October outside of a King Soopers in Denver. The circulator asked her to sign on for affirmative action. “When I said to the circulator, ‘But we already have affirmative action,’ her response was ‘But it is due to expire.’” Vinson did not read the text of the petition but signed it anyway.
It wasn’t until months later, at a community meeting, that she found out about the true intent of the initiative. “At that point, I was like, ‘Oh my goodness, I signed it.’” The revelation prompted her to file a complaint with the secretary of state to get her name struck from the petition.
Others, like Candace Frie, read the text of the initiative but still signed, not understanding that she was opting to abolish affirmative action. She was approached last February outside a King Soopers in Arvada. “I was going in and a fellow came up to me, an African-American male, and asked me to sign a petition to end discrimination in Colorado,” she says. “I asked if I could read it and it did say it would end discrimination. I didn’t see anything that raised any red flags.” (The language of the initiative prohibits preferential treatment and discrimination.) [To read the entire story, go to: http://coloradoindependent.com/9009/judge-dismisses-compliants ]
By Naomi Zeveloff 9/24/08 7:24 AM
An administrative law judge has thrown out charges that Amendment 46 petition circulators misled people into signing onto the anti-affirmative action measure.
Amendment 46 seeks to end preferential treatment for women and minorities in public employment, education and contracting. The controversially named Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is part of a five-state effort launched by California businessman Ward Connerly to end affirmative action.
Connerly’s campaign has been criticized as a misleading attempt to make voters believe that they are promoting equal opportunity rather than destroying it. And in Colorado, at least a half-dozen people filed complaints with the secretary of state’s office, saying they were duped by petition circulators who told them that signing onto Amendment 46 would uphold diversity programs.
But last Friday, an administrative law judge dismissed those claims because they did not provide enough detail. And though several of the six complainants say they may file their grievances again, the months-long process has left them demoralized.
“I think all of us are going through some form of shock right now,” says Venita Vinson, a retired Denver resident who used to work for former Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder, a Democrat. Vinson says that she was approached by a petition circulator for the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative last October outside of a King Soopers in Denver. The circulator asked her to sign on for affirmative action. “When I said to the circulator, ‘But we already have affirmative action,’ her response was ‘But it is due to expire.’” Vinson did not read the text of the petition but signed it anyway.
It wasn’t until months later, at a community meeting, that she found out about the true intent of the initiative. “At that point, I was like, ‘Oh my goodness, I signed it.’” The revelation prompted her to file a complaint with the secretary of state to get her name struck from the petition.
Others, like Candace Frie, read the text of the initiative but still signed, not understanding that she was opting to abolish affirmative action. She was approached last February outside a King Soopers in Arvada. “I was going in and a fellow came up to me, an African-American male, and asked me to sign a petition to end discrimination in Colorado,” she says. “I asked if I could read it and it did say it would end discrimination. I didn’t see anything that raised any red flags.” (The language of the initiative prohibits preferential treatment and discrimination.) [To read the entire story, go to: http://coloradoindependent.com/9009/judge-dismisses-compliants ]
Monday, July 28, 2008
CU Completes Assessment of Potential Impact of Colorado Civil Rights Initiative
University of Colorado
Office of the President
Posted July 24th, 2008
in News
DENVER – The University of Colorado has determined that some of its admissions programs and donor-sponsored scholarships would have to be modified if Colorado voters pass the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, prohibiting stat institutions from considering gender, race, color, ethnicity or national origin when evaluating students.
In response to inquiries from the public and media, the University of Colorado has completed a systemwide evaluation of its admissions, scholarship, student services band student outreach programs to prepare for the possible administrative effects of the initiative, which will appear as Amendment 46 on the November 2008 election ballot. The proposal would ban state-supported institutions, including public universities, from considering gender, race, ethnicity, color or national origin for employment, contracting or educational purposes.
As a result of the assessment, the university has determined that, should the initiative pass, it would have no effect on outreach programs aimed at recruiting high school students, or campus student services such as academic and career advising, orientation and tutoring, because these programs are open to all students.
No matter the election outcome, however, CU will continue to regard diversity in all its forms—gender, intellectual, racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and geographical, among others—as fundamental institutional values, said CU President Bruce D. Benson.
“Having a variety of perspectives involved in the learning process enhances the educational experience of all students,” Benson said. “We will continue to value diversity in all its forms within the guidelines of current and any new state and federal laws.”
Many laws and policies adopted by the CU Board of Regents reflect the institution’s commitment to diversity. According to Article 10 of the CU Board of Regents’ laws: “The university does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status in admission and access to, and treatment and employment in, its educational programs and activities.”
The university’s admissions programs involve two levels of review. Primary qualifying factors include high school or college grade point average, standardized test scores, extracurricular activities and reference letters. Secondary qualifying factors include previous work and/or research experience, socioeconomic background, race, ethnicity, gender, legacy status (whether a candidate’s parents are alumni) and first-generation college status.
However, should Colorado voters pass Amendment 46 in November, the university would eliminate race, ethnicity and gender as secondary factors in its admissions process at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
It is still unclear, however, how Amendment 46 might affect donor-sponsored scholarships. In most cases, donors who set up scholarship funds decide eligibility requirements, which might include a student’s gender, race or ethnicity. At CU, about 100 such scholarships exist, primarily on the Boulder campus, and administrators are assessing how Amendment 46 might affect them. Should the ballot measure pass, the university and the CU Foundation would work with donors to preserve the spirit of their financial contributions while complying with any current or new state and federal laws.
The University of Colorado has three campuses at four locations: the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the University of Colorado Denver’s downtown Denver campus and Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. More than 55,000 undergraduate and graduate students are pursuing academic opportunities on the CU campuses. CU is a premier teaching and research university that is ranked sixth among public institutions in federal research expenditures by the National Science Foundation. Academic prestige is marked by the university’s four Nobel laureates, seven MacArthur “genius” Fellows, 18 alumni astronauts and 19 Rhodes Scholars. For more information, visit www.cu.edu.
Press Contacts: Deborah Méndez-Wilson,303-860-5627, Deborah.Mendez-Wilson@cu.edu
Ken McConnellogue, 303-860-5626, Ken.McConnellogue@cu.edu
https://www.cu.edu/content/cu-completes-assessment-potential-impact-colorado-civil-rights-initiative
Office of the President
Posted July 24th, 2008
in News
DENVER – The University of Colorado has determined that some of its admissions programs and donor-sponsored scholarships would have to be modified if Colorado voters pass the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, prohibiting stat institutions from considering gender, race, color, ethnicity or national origin when evaluating students.
In response to inquiries from the public and media, the University of Colorado has completed a systemwide evaluation of its admissions, scholarship, student services band student outreach programs to prepare for the possible administrative effects of the initiative, which will appear as Amendment 46 on the November 2008 election ballot. The proposal would ban state-supported institutions, including public universities, from considering gender, race, ethnicity, color or national origin for employment, contracting or educational purposes.
As a result of the assessment, the university has determined that, should the initiative pass, it would have no effect on outreach programs aimed at recruiting high school students, or campus student services such as academic and career advising, orientation and tutoring, because these programs are open to all students.
No matter the election outcome, however, CU will continue to regard diversity in all its forms—gender, intellectual, racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and geographical, among others—as fundamental institutional values, said CU President Bruce D. Benson.
“Having a variety of perspectives involved in the learning process enhances the educational experience of all students,” Benson said. “We will continue to value diversity in all its forms within the guidelines of current and any new state and federal laws.”
Many laws and policies adopted by the CU Board of Regents reflect the institution’s commitment to diversity. According to Article 10 of the CU Board of Regents’ laws: “The university does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status in admission and access to, and treatment and employment in, its educational programs and activities.”
The university’s admissions programs involve two levels of review. Primary qualifying factors include high school or college grade point average, standardized test scores, extracurricular activities and reference letters. Secondary qualifying factors include previous work and/or research experience, socioeconomic background, race, ethnicity, gender, legacy status (whether a candidate’s parents are alumni) and first-generation college status.
However, should Colorado voters pass Amendment 46 in November, the university would eliminate race, ethnicity and gender as secondary factors in its admissions process at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
It is still unclear, however, how Amendment 46 might affect donor-sponsored scholarships. In most cases, donors who set up scholarship funds decide eligibility requirements, which might include a student’s gender, race or ethnicity. At CU, about 100 such scholarships exist, primarily on the Boulder campus, and administrators are assessing how Amendment 46 might affect them. Should the ballot measure pass, the university and the CU Foundation would work with donors to preserve the spirit of their financial contributions while complying with any current or new state and federal laws.
The University of Colorado has three campuses at four locations: the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and the University of Colorado Denver’s downtown Denver campus and Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. More than 55,000 undergraduate and graduate students are pursuing academic opportunities on the CU campuses. CU is a premier teaching and research university that is ranked sixth among public institutions in federal research expenditures by the National Science Foundation. Academic prestige is marked by the university’s four Nobel laureates, seven MacArthur “genius” Fellows, 18 alumni astronauts and 19 Rhodes Scholars. For more information, visit www.cu.edu.
Press Contacts: Deborah Méndez-Wilson,303-860-5627, Deborah.Mendez-Wilson@cu.edu
Ken McConnellogue, 303-860-5626, Ken.McConnellogue@cu.edu
https://www.cu.edu/content/cu-completes-assessment-potential-impact-colorado-civil-rights-initiative
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Thorburn: Are we there yet?
dailycamera (Colorado)
By Doug Thorburn
Sunday, June 29, 2008
'A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years, must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."
-- Martin Luther King
"Don't Californicate Colorado."
-- Bumper sticker
Read Amendment 46, the so-called "Colorado Civil Rights Act" on the ballot in November, very carefully. It is not civil and it is not right!
There is a Myth, perhaps first stated by Charles Krauthammer in 1991, handed down around the right-wing campfires from ignorant parent to ignorant child. The Myth is that Martin Luther King was opposed to affirmative action.
The Myth derives from a bizarre distortion of Dr. King's "I have a Dream Speech" in which he offers a dream of a future where his children "...will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Transforming such a wonderful vision of a future for his children into a propaganda tool is very sad.
Now, in 2008 can we all join hands with our conservative brothers and sisters, dance around the fire and sing "Free at last! We have overcome!"
An African American may become our next president! It has been a mere 44 years since Dr. King's speech.
My strange memory brings up the voice of an Earle Hodgins who played a hundred snake oil salesmen in Westerns for over 30 years,. "Yessir, friends and neighbors, I once knew a man who didn't have a tooth in his head, but by using this remedy he taught himself to play the base drum."
The base drum brought to you straight from California. While most of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on promoting Amendment 46 will come from California, compliments of Ward Connerly, ironically an African-American. I have written before that Mr. Connerly runs an organization in California called, again ironically, the American Civil Rights Institute from which he pays himself a handsome salary.
Most of the funding of this nonprofit comes from extreme right wing, white contributors who remain anonymous in Colorado because the money is laundered through another nonprofit controlled by Mr. Connerly. But past contributors have been the late Joseph Coors, Rupert Murdock and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Their political views are not middle of the road.
When the Michigan anti-civil rights "civil rights amendment" around 90 percent of it funding came through the circuitous California process described above.
The Colorado campaign is apparently run by Jessica Peck Corry of the Independence Institute in Golden. She is an attractive blond young lady with more energy and brains than Earle Hodgins had snake oil bottles. She is formidable, charming and articulate.
The Independence Institute's illogical Libertarian philosophy gave Boulder its President as a columnist for a few years named John Caldara. Mr. Caldara, thankfully, was replaced by Bob Greenlee.
Affirmative action was first enacted by President John F. Kennedy and expanded by President Johnson.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that minority status may be considered in college admissions, but quotas are illegal!
So, right now and until November ask yourself a few questions. [To read the entire op ed, go to: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jun/29/are-we-there-yet/ ]
By Doug Thorburn
Sunday, June 29, 2008
'A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years, must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."
-- Martin Luther King
"Don't Californicate Colorado."
-- Bumper sticker
Read Amendment 46, the so-called "Colorado Civil Rights Act" on the ballot in November, very carefully. It is not civil and it is not right!
There is a Myth, perhaps first stated by Charles Krauthammer in 1991, handed down around the right-wing campfires from ignorant parent to ignorant child. The Myth is that Martin Luther King was opposed to affirmative action.
The Myth derives from a bizarre distortion of Dr. King's "I have a Dream Speech" in which he offers a dream of a future where his children "...will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Transforming such a wonderful vision of a future for his children into a propaganda tool is very sad.
Now, in 2008 can we all join hands with our conservative brothers and sisters, dance around the fire and sing "Free at last! We have overcome!"
An African American may become our next president! It has been a mere 44 years since Dr. King's speech.
My strange memory brings up the voice of an Earle Hodgins who played a hundred snake oil salesmen in Westerns for over 30 years,. "Yessir, friends and neighbors, I once knew a man who didn't have a tooth in his head, but by using this remedy he taught himself to play the base drum."
The base drum brought to you straight from California. While most of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on promoting Amendment 46 will come from California, compliments of Ward Connerly, ironically an African-American. I have written before that Mr. Connerly runs an organization in California called, again ironically, the American Civil Rights Institute from which he pays himself a handsome salary.
Most of the funding of this nonprofit comes from extreme right wing, white contributors who remain anonymous in Colorado because the money is laundered through another nonprofit controlled by Mr. Connerly. But past contributors have been the late Joseph Coors, Rupert Murdock and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Their political views are not middle of the road.
When the Michigan anti-civil rights "civil rights amendment" around 90 percent of it funding came through the circuitous California process described above.
The Colorado campaign is apparently run by Jessica Peck Corry of the Independence Institute in Golden. She is an attractive blond young lady with more energy and brains than Earle Hodgins had snake oil bottles. She is formidable, charming and articulate.
The Independence Institute's illogical Libertarian philosophy gave Boulder its President as a columnist for a few years named John Caldara. Mr. Caldara, thankfully, was replaced by Bob Greenlee.
Affirmative action was first enacted by President John F. Kennedy and expanded by President Johnson.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that minority status may be considered in college admissions, but quotas are illegal!
So, right now and until November ask yourself a few questions. [To read the entire op ed, go to: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jun/29/are-we-there-yet/ ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)