Last week, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) sent a cease and desist letter to the city of Omaha requesting that it repeal sections of its municipal code that give race- and sex-based preferences in the awarding of public contracts.
In response, city attorney Paul Kratz said Omaha suspended the contracting rules after the November election, and the city is drafting a new ordinance. (Source)
Under the city’s previous contracting compliance ordinance, businesses owned or operated by members of certain racial or ethnic groups were automatically designated “disadvantaged” and therefore subject to preferential treatment. Omaha allowed female- and minority-owned businesses to submit bids 30 days before other businesses and required 10 percent of the city’s contracting dollars to be awarded to such businesses.
Last November, 58 percent of Nebraska voters chose to bar their state from discriminating against or giving preferences in hiring, contracting, and admissions based on factors like race and sex. A group challenged the law in court earlier this year, but a judge upheld it.
The Omaha World Herald reports that the legislature passed a bill to change Nebraska’s “diversity” scholarship program to comply with the law barring the state from discriminating against or preferring individuals on the basis of race in hiring, contracting, and admissions. But the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative’s Marc Schniederjans says the law requires nothing less than ending such programs rather than changing them.
Legislative Bill 440 merely would remove the words “racial, ethnic and cultural diversity” and retain the word “diversity.” Any reasonable person who has followed the issues knows that “diversity” used in this context is another way of referring to race preferences in general and to blacks specifically. If the scholarship program gives preferences to anyone based on race or sex, it is illegal and must be suspended.
On November 4, 2008, 58 percent of Nebraska voters chose YES on Initiative 424. A group challenged the law in court earlier this year, but a judge upheld it.
Nebraskans United, a group that opposes a law barring state and local governments from preferring and discriminating against individuals based on race in hiring, contracting, and admissions, will not appeal a recent ruling upholding the law. (Source)
Last week, Judge Karen Flowers upheld the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative and wrote that the facts didn’t present any evidence of fraud, as the group claimed. On November 4, 2008, the initiative won by 58 percent of the vote.
Last week, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman certified the results of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative (NeCRI) and officially enshrined the language of the initiative in the state constitution.
NeCRI executive director Doug Tietz said, “The voters overwhelmingly supported the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative and now Nebraska’s state motto ‘equality before the law’ is officially the law of the land.”
On November 4th, Initiative 424 passed with over 58 percent of the vote.
Nebraskans voted to end state and local government discrimination and preferential treatment on November 4, 2008, as 58 percent said YES on Initiative 424.
Nebraska TV reports on the aftermath. Government-funded programs with racial and sex classifications must rewrite policies and begin hiring and recruiting without regard to skin color and sex. Colleges and universities in Nebraska with so-called affirmative action programs will have to consider factors other than race or sex when making admissions decisions. Government-funded scholarships and grants must be race- and gender-neutral.
Government entities with so-called affirmative action programs will no longer be allowed to deny someone a job because of his or her race or sex, nor can the government entity show preferential treatment to someone based on these factors.
University of Nebraska president J.B. Milliken said the new law “might affect our ability to do outreach and recruitment.” Not necessarily. Expanding outreach and recruitment efforts to blacks is not illegal under the new law. That is affirmative action. Applying different standards of hiring, contracting, and admissions to blacks is illegal. That is a racial preference, a practice that should be just as odious now as it was 50 years ago. If the university offers “outreach” funds in a racially neutral manner, the law will have no impact.
It’s not complicated, though the opposition tries to make it seem so. Read the FAQ on Initiative 424 to find out exactly what it means and what institutions and programs are affected.
Although 49 percent of Colorado voters chose to end the practice of government preferential treatment and discrimination, 50 percent chose to retain that practice. Amendment 46 narrowly failed to pass on Tuesday.
In contrast, Nebraska’s voters did the right thing by putting their state and local governments out of the skin color business. Initiative 424 passed with almost 58 percent of the vote. When asked about this victory and future ballot initiatives, Ward Connerly told the Associated Press that “it certainly strengthens the effort…The people of Nebraska, who have a motto of equality before the law, simply are reinforcing that.”
Nebraska’s new constitutional amendment will face court challenges.
After Initiative 424’s victory, Doug Tietz, director the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, told the SW Iowa News that “Democrats, Republicans, independents — they can agree that the government shouldn’t be playing politics based on race and gender…That’s the message of tonight. Nebraska believes that equality before the law is not only the state motto, it should also be enshrined in the state’s constitution.”
Nebraska’s government agencies and institutions will now have to review current policies to root out discriminatory and preferential practices.
Update: Steven Willborn, dean of the University of Nebraska’s law school, said it was okay that his school admitted under-qualified black students. With that confession on record, administrators at the law school and other state-supported schools in Nebraska will have to review programs to determine whether they violate the state’s new law.
Last month, the Center for Equal Opportunity released a study that documented cases of “severe discrimination” in the University of Nebraska law school’s admissions process.
A black woman admonishes blacks who plan to vote for Barack Obama just because he’s black:
The same can be said for blacks who plan to vote NO on Amendment 46 in Colorado and Initiative 424 in Nebraska. Both would bar state and local governments from discriminating against and granting preferences to people in hiring, contracting, and admissions based on race and sex. Too many blacks believe that lowered standards and racial discrimination are OK as long as blacks benefit.
Ward Connerly was on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” today to discuss anti-race preferences initiatives. Connerly appeared opposite Shanta Driver, director of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), a group dedicated to maintaining lowered standards for women and minorities.
Connerly explained why initiatives failed in states like Arizona and Missouri. Despite BAMN’s “deplorable tactics” to stop the measures, as Connerly notes, these initiatives didn’t succeed because the American Civil Rights Initiative ran out of time to gather signatures. State initiatives will appear on ballots in Colorado and Nebraska. Watch the video here.
Connerly also appeared on NRO TV’s “Uncommon Knowledge” with the Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson. Connerly will be featured in a five-segment series. Check out the first segment. He explains the difference between affirmative action and race preferences. The two are not synonymous.
According to the Associated Press, Steven Willborn, dean of the University of Nebraska’s law school, says it’s okay to admit under-qualified black students, because diversity is oh-so good.
In response to a study released by the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) earlier this week, Willborn was up front about his school’s odious practice.
“We give preference to people within racial and ethnic categories,” he told the AP. “The only way we can provide a good education to all our students is to provide a climate…where there’s a whole bunch of diverse points of view.”
Let’s assume Willborn’s right, that “a whole bunch of diverse points of view” is a good thing and that black students are necessary to achieve the goal. Why not admit blacks with comparable scores and grades? Why admit obviously lesser qualified blacks and keep out obviously more qualified whites? And why is skin-deep diversity valued over intellectual and other kinds of diversity? More important, why is diversity valued over equal treatment? Blatant discrimination practiced for any reason is appalling.
There is a positive side, believe it or not. At least Willborn admits the truth. His justification for the discrimination is weak, but he acknowledges that discrimination exists at the University of Nebraska College of Law.
Nebraska voters, let him know what you think on November 4 as you consider Initiative 424, which would bar your state and local governments from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education and public contracting.
When it comes to being admitted into the University of Nebraska’s law school, the odds favor blacks over whites 442 to 1. Odds favor Hispanics 90 to 1.
The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released a new study that documents cases of “severe discrimination” in law school admissions. Among the 2006 and 2007 entering classes, five Hispanics, 12 Asians, and 389 whites were denied law school admission, even though their scores and grades were higher than the average black admittee.
According to the study, Asian and white residents of the state are less likely to be admitted to the University of Nebraska’s law school than black and Hispanic non-residents. Seventy-five percent of black admittees had worse scores compared to 75 percent of whites and Asians admitted to the law school.
“Racial discrimination in university admissions is always appalling,” said CEO chair Linda Chaves. “But the extremely heavy weight given to race by the University of Nebraska College of Law is off the charts.”
This appalling condition may not exist much longer. On November 4, Nebraskans will vote for or against Initiative 424, a measure that would amend the state constitution to bar the government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education and public contracting. The imitative is supported by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from across the state.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the American Civil Rights Institute. This blog is written and maintained by La Shawn Barber. E-mail her at lashawnbarber@gmail.com
The 
Nebraskans voted to end state and local government discrimination and preferential treatment on November 4, 2008, as 58 percent said YES on Initiative 424.
Ward Connerly was on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” today to discuss anti-race preferences initiatives. Connerly appeared opposite Shanta Driver, director of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights 
