University of Colorado Stumped Over Free Speech

As reported here last week, conservatives at the University of Colorado have been planning an anti-affirmative action bake sale. Now Brad Jones, chairman of the CU-Boulder Young Republicans, reports that Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Ron Stump has threatened to “shut down” the bake sale if it occurs. Indeed, according to an article in today’s Colorado Daily, Stump actually argues that the bake sale would be illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act!

Ron Stump, CU Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, cited two federal laws under which the university calls the bake sale illegal, Colorado General Statute 24-34-60 and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“Our position is that such an activity is illegal based on the university’s non-discrimination policy,” Stump added.

The CU Young Republicans said they were going to federal court today protect their First Amendment rights.

“Ironic, don’t you think,” Brad Jones asked, “that suddenly CU cares about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, using it wrongly to shut down a demonstration on the evils of racial discrimination.”

“Ironic” is not the word for it. “Moronic” is.

(Thanks to a vigilant reader in Colorado for bringing this to my attention.”

UPDATE

Vice Chancellor Stump says above that an anti-affirmative action bake sale would be “illegal based on the university’s non-discrimination policy.”

What is that policy? It’s actually quite extensive. Interestingly, Policy 10-C does say

There shall be no distinction or classification of students at the University of Colorado made on account of race, color, or creed.

Another statement of the university’s non-discrimination policy affirms that

The University of Colorado 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 takes action to increase ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity, to employ qualified disabled individuals, and to provide equal opportunity to all students and employees.

The policy statement, of course, does not explain how or why the “action” the university takes “to increase ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity” does not conflict with its insistence that it “does not dicriminate on the basis of race” etc.

Finally, Richard Byyny, chancellor of the university, has issued his own commendably clear statement of the university’s promise not to discriminate:

UCB provides equal opportunity for all students and applicants for admission and for all employees and applicants for employment regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, veteran status, age, or sex, except where sex or age is a bona fide occupational qualification

“Regardless” of race, etc., is the same as “without regard” to race, which we’ve just seen in Penn‘s offical nondiscrimination policy.

Hmm. Taking all these forceful and unequivocal nondiscrimination statements together, I’d say it’s hard to see the point of an anti-affirmative action bake sale at Colorado. The university couldn’t possibly be granting racial or ethnic or gender preferences, for doing so would clearly violate its own policies, not to mention making a chump out of Chancellor Byyny and his promise of equal opportunity to all regardless of race, creed, color, et. al.