President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 05, 2008 05:12 PM UTC

Schools Line Up To Oppose Amendment 46

  • 18 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

Some public colleges are formally opposing a ballot measure that would prohibit them from considering an applicant’s race, ethnicity or gender in admissions and hiring.

The board of trustees at Metropolitan State College of Denver voted unanimously Wednesday to oppose Amendment 46. University of Northern Colorado’s board of trustees took the same action Aug. 7. Both schools said passage of the measure would hurt minority student enrollment.

Also known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, Amendment 46 would prohibit state agencies from granting preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity in hiring, education and contracts.

“The board of trustees opposes passage of Amendment 46 because it would jeopardize our ability to attract and foster a diverse student population,” said UNC Trustee Jim Chavez, executive director of the Latin American Educational Foundation…

At CU, however, evidence of Bruce Ben$on’s guiding hand? At least enough that, as the Rocky continues:

The board of regents at the University of Colorado does not plan to take an official position on the measures, university spokesman Ken McConnellogue said Thursday.

He said CU regents do not agree on the measures, “And typically, when they come out with resolutions, they like to be unanimous.”

In July, CU officials said Amendment 46 would ban them from considering an applicant’s race, gender or ethnicity.

The university also said that about 100 privately funded scholarships designed to benefit women and minority students could be restricted.

“If this initiative is passed by Colorado voters, it would indeed have a big impact on the University of Colorado, as we would have to modify some of our admissions programs,” spokeswoman Deborah Mendez-Wilson said at the time.

Jessica Peck Corry, executive director of the civil rights initiative, argues that passage of Amendment 46 should not cause minority and women enrollment to drop.

Our view: it’s a horrible amendment that will roll back decades of progress on equal opportunity. The colleges will be the first to see the impact. Corry blithely asserts that the law “should not” result in a drop in minority and women enrollment, but she knows full well that’s exactly what will happen, and it’s exactly what has happened in every state where this initiative has passed.

Unfortunately, current polling indicates that short of a miracle or massive scandal, it’s going to pass in Colorado by a wide margin. It’s been cleverly packaged as a “civil rights” measure, most voters have no idea that its true intent is to outlaw affirmative action, do not understand what the real effect has been in states where it has passed, and the opposition is too underfunded to get on top of the message.

Comments

18 thoughts on “Schools Line Up To Oppose Amendment 46

  1. Amendment 46 is a giant step backward for women and people of color in higher education.

    If UNC voted unanimously to oppose it from up in CD-4, then I think CU should do the same to send a clear message to voters that the people who run Colorado’s institutions of higher ed do not support this deceiving and wrong law.

    Shame on you Bruce Benson, you’re not running for Governor anymore. Do what’s right for your kids.

    1. but remember, CU isn’t just us up here in Boulder.  Folks down in the Springs don’t like the Amendment either.

      And while I assume Benson supports 46, the people sitting on their hands are members of the Board of Regents.  We know Bosley is against it, I assume Hybl, Bishop, Lucero and Hayes are too.  Hell, that’s a majority of the Board…

      1. if other governmental organizations would only send out decrees if they were unanimous? That is a load of BS if you ask me.

        The President can wield an amazing amount of influence with the regents too–though I have to admit that Benson is no Hank Brown when it comes to that.

        1. you’re right…I meant for the Amendment, against affirmative action.

          Anyway, the point is that IMO the majority of the board is against affirmative action…

          1. …where is Carrigan and his mouth on this issue?  He was always spouting about Churchill and even Benson.  But I haven’t heard him say anything about this b/s.

    2. Affirmative action for those who are academically qualified to attend college and need financial support is appropriate.

      But it’s wrong to admit or advance anyone because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political connections.

      1. But it’s wrong to admit or advance anyone because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political connections.

        You can gain 200 points on the SATs by taking the really good prep classes. So advantage those with more money – advantage wealthy

        Women are more willing to put in the effort to learn the tests – advantage female.

        And the biggest bias – advantage to those that go to schools that are effective and teach to the test. So some kid in an inner city school, he or she could be the next Einstein, and they’re not going to do well on the testing.

  2. He said CU regents do not agree on the measures, “And typically, when they come out with resolutions, they like to be unanimous.”

    Gee, good way to insure nothing that is too controversial ever sees the light of day. Why do these bozos run for the office if they’re unwilling to every do anything – free football tickets?

    1. what you had to say about Community Colleges. I attended Aims CC up in Greeley, and I found it to be a much more rewarding experience to have non-traditional students in my classes than solely 18-22 year olds.

      And what you had to say about test scores being the only requirement was an excellent point as well.

  3. Amendment 46


    The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

    1964 Civil Rights Act


    This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy….This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

    Sounds pretty similar to me.  You who oppose 46; you wouldn’t support the repeal of 1964 CRA would you?

    1. …because it would be entirely redundant of the current law.  But the Amendment goes much further than the CRA.  That’s WHY Ward Connerly and his peeps have proposed it.  Because it goes much further than the federal statute.  It bans Affirmative Action, the CRA does not.  That is why Ward Connerly has pushed it.  Do I have to repeat that fact more times for you to get it?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

110 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!