The AP is reporting that Democratic governor Bill Ritter plans to announce his opposition to Amendment 46, which would amend the state constitution to ban government preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Shocking, yes?
In March, the Secretary of State determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative submitted enough signatures to appear on the November ballot.
We’ll link to Ritter’s statement when it’s available.
Just as I long for people to stop using the term “African American” to describe black Americans, most of whom never set foot on the continent, I want people to stop using the term “affirmative action” to describe race preferences.
Dahlia Lithwick, writing for Newsweek, uses the term affirmative action throughout her 865-word article about Justice Clarence Thomas and vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin to describe race preferences, a policy whereby certain ethnic minority groups are given preferential treatment over other groups. She notes that Justice Thomas opposes race preferences, despite “benefiting” from the practice. In his autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son, Thomas wrote about the stigma of race preferences, the same sort of stigma Palin must be facing.
Thomas received preferential treatment based on the color of his skin, as I and many other blacks have received. Was Palin chosen partly because she was a woman? Most likely. It’s reasonable to perceive recipients of preferential treatment as less qualified until proven otherwise. It’s not fair, but the goal is not to change people’s minds about those hired/admitted under preferences. The goal is to eliminate preferences and allow individuals to compete with the entire pool of applicants, so that no one is stigmatized for being assessed based on lowered standards.
A group of people claimed signature gatherers misled citizens into signing the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CoCRI), also known as Amendment 46. Some accused the campaign of tricking people into believing they were signing a petition to keep preferences instead of dismantling them. Venita Vinson said a signature gatherer asked her to sign a petition for “affirmative action.” (Source)
Last Friday an administrative law judge, who said the complainants didn’t supply enough details, threw out those claims.
CoCRI director said, “Given the lack of evidence presented by our opposition, the court did the right thing by dismissing all of the complaints. We will continue to fight with vigor any and all false allegations against Amendment 46.”
In March, the Colorado Secretary of State determined that CoCRI submitted enough signatures to appear on the November ballot. Earlier this month, the secretary announced that Initiative 82, which would preserve race and sex preferences in government hiring, contracting, and admissions, will not appear on the November ballot.
In a 2004 study called A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools (PDF), University of California law professor Richard Sander posited that law school race-based preferences result in fewer black lawyers, because blacks admitted under these conditions are placed in schools that exceed their levels of preparation. As a result, they failed the bar exam at higher rates.
In 2007, Sander asked the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners for historical data on past bar exams, and the committee refused. Sander asked the state’s highest court to compel the committee to release the data. Last week the court denied his request and said he should refile in the appropriate court, citing privacy concerns. (Law.com)
We’ll post a PDF copy of the opinion when it’s available.
Earlier this month, the Colorado Secretary of State announced that Initiative 82, which would preserve race and sex preferences in government hiring, contracting, and admissions, will not appear on the November ballot.
As you may recall, the secretary determined in March that the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CoCRI) submitted enough signatures to appear on the November ballot. CoCRI, known as Amendment 46, reads: “The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting, or public education.”
CoCRI director Jessica Peck Corry said, “We know that signature gathering campaigns are very difficult, but given the fact that this campaign was designed to confuse voters, we’re extremely pleased with the result.”
The Durango Herald Online features a story on race in the upcoming election as it pertains to preferences. People interviewed in the article include those who support Amendment 46. Proponent Kate Melvin said, “We’re saddling women and minorities with the notion that without assistance, they can’t get the job.”
Those who oppose the amendment say it would “end valuable programs” that help women and minorities in college programs like science and engineering. Typically, so-called affirmative action supporters misconstrue the meaning of the term.
There is nothing wrong with reaching out to a wide variety of people for hiring and admissions. That is affirmative action. It is wrong to implement a different standard (read: lower) of evaluation for women and minorities. That is preferential treatment.
The AP is reporting that Democratic governor Bill Ritter plans to announce his opposition to Amendment 46, which would amend the state constitution to ban government preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Shocking, yes?
