Opponents of civil rights initiatives — proposals pending in three states that would require treating individuals without regard to race, ethnicity, or gender — often say that such a requirement isn’t needed because the discrimination these initiatives claim to prohibit is already illegal and that no such targeted preferential treatment programs actually exist. They say that about as often as they also say if misguided and misinformed voters actually prohibit state agencies from “taking race into account,” etc., the sky will fall, resegregation will occur, Jim Crow will reign again, leading a resurgent Ku Klux Klan to dance in the streets. (You may think I exaggerate, but if you do you haven’t seen the videos I have — more on them to come — showing opponents of racial equality in action as they try to disrupt the signature gathering process for these initiatives.)
Colorado University, Boulder, without quite admitting that it practices discrimination, has recently issued a statement claiming that a requirement to treat applicants, students, staff, etc., without regard to their race/ethnicity/gender would have a “big impact” on its operations.
What, exactly, would be lost? Well, that’s not so clear.
The University of Colorado, which has been working to increase its minority enrollment at the Boulder campus, said Thursday it couldn’t consider an applicant’s race, gender or ethnicity if voters dismantle state affirmative-action programs.
The university also said about 100 privately funded scholarships designed to benefit women and minority students could be restricted if the November ballot measure, Amendment 46, becomes law.
“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,” said spokeswoman Deborah Mendez-Wilson.
“We’re not sure of the full impact at this point.”
In other words — or maybe just in the plain meaning of these words — if the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative passes, CU could no longer penalize some applicants because of their race, ethnicity, or gender, and it could no longer administer private financial aid to students that donors refused to make available to some needy students because of their race, ethnicity, or gender.
And no longer being able to discriminate in these instances is bad because … ?
Meanwhile, I have it on impeccable authority that opponents of non-discriminatory equal treatment in Colorado have told Jessica Peck Corry, the executive director of CCRI, that she engaged in “racial fraud” for using some blacks to gather signatures during the (successful) drive to place CCRI on the ballot.