University of Colorado Student
Union
Legislative Council
October 2, 2008 69LCR2-Amended
Opposing Amend 46
Sponsored by: Amie
Ha Rep-At-Large
Neal
Walia Rep-At-Large
Dan
Omasta Rep-At-Large
John
Sharza Rep-At-Large
Ryan
Biehle Tri-Executive
Dustin
Farivar Tri-Executive
Victoria
Garcia Tri-Executive
Christine
Thai Senator
Authored by: Ryan
Biehle Tri-Executive
Alexis
Smith Diversity
Director
Dan
Omasta Rep-At-Large
Opposition
to Amendment 46 “Colorado Civil Rights Initiative”
Resolution History
In
1996, Ward Connerly and the pro-CRI (Civil Rights Initiative) organization
succeeded in passing the California Civil Rights Initiative with the purpose of
preventing government agencies from “discriminating” or granting “preferential
treatment” based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public
employment, education, and contracting. Similar amendments were passed in
Washington, 2004, and Michigan, 2006. The
goal of these initiatives was to create racial and gender blind policies in
public education, contracting, and hiring. Subsequently, women and
underrepresented students have seen the door of equal opportunity close and
their chance for upward social mobility limited in all arenas.
For
the purpose of this resolution, only the statistics and effects relating to
institutions of higher education will be used to provide a causal link between
the initiatives and the decreasing economic, gender, and racial diversity among
student populations at the flagship universities in their respective states.
After Proposition 209 (Civil Rights Initiative) passed in California, the
state’s flagship university suffered the following result:
At
Berkeley the combined enrollments of Latino, black, and American Indian
students topped 20 percent of the student body before Proposition 209 (the 1996
ballot measure that prohibited public institutions from considering race, sex,
or ethnicity in admissions). The best that Berkeley has been able to achieve
since Prop 209 was passed is 14 percent. Similarly, the share of the enrollment
of underrepresented minority students at the University of California at Los
Angeles has dropped from more than 30 percent before Prop 209 to less than 20
percent today (pre-1964 levels).*
Additionally, the passage of Proposition 2 in
Michigan brought forward noteworthy concerns from the following experts:
Darrell
G. Kirch, president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, called the
measure's passage "a severe setback for Michigan's citizens and medical
schools."
"Banning
affirmative action," Dr. Kirch said, "will strip medical educators of
an important tool to increase diversity among tomorrow's doctors." **
Becky
Timmons, director of government relations for the American Council on
Education, called the measure's passage "a serious setback to the goal of
equal educational opportunity."
"It
will not level the playing field, as some who voted for it may believe,"
Ms. Timmons said. "Instead, it will effectively tie the hands of
Michigan's public colleges in their attempts to encourage broader participation
in higher education by women and minorities."**
In
the current 2008 election, the Colorado Civil Rights Institute, through
financial backing of Connerly’s organization… (ACRI),
has brought forward a ballot measure that mirrors the previous initiatives and
will ultimately produce similar negative consequences if Amendment 46 is
passed. Therefore, in the interest of
preserving the University of Colorado’s commitment to the expansion of equity
on campus, as well as, on behalf of the student body at CU-Boulder, this
Student Union (UCSU) is obligated to take a position on this measure which
would dramatically decrease the ability of the university to expand equity in
education and diversify its student body.
It is important to note that this resolution is not being argued for or
against based on political preference; instead, this document has been brought
to the attention of the council based on the potential implications that will
serve as a detriment to the student community and overall campus environment.
Resolution Summary
This resolution is written in
opposition to Amendment 46 on the basis that it is antithetical to the
diversity mission of the University of Colorado, of UCSU, and to the right of
CU students to engage in a culturally, economically, and gender
diverse campus. In action, Amendment 46 would limit equal opportunity for women
and people of color and work against the spirit of inclusion and diversity that
the University has worked for over forty years to promote.
Whereas: The Colorado
Civil Rights Initiative was written in a manner deceptive to voters and usurps
language reserved to protect the rights of marginalized, underrepresented
groups and individuals in American society; and
Whereas: Equity in
education remedies past discrimination against women and people of color by
removing barriers from admission to educational and business institutions,
which have become systemically institutionalized to limit their inclusion into
such institutions; and
Whereas: Equity in
education is defined as equal access for qualified students to an education
regardless of race, ethnicity, gender-identity, ability, national
origin/status, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, veteran
status or age; and
Whereas: Eliminating
equal opportunity from University-based initiatives is contrary to the
diversity mission of the University of Colorado at Boulder; and
Whereas: Passage of
Amendment 46 to the Colorado State Constitution would effectively criminalize
race and gender based equal opportunity initiatives regardless of support for
these types of programs by public, legislative, and judicial review; and
Whereas: The United
States Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) set the precedent that
programs designed to increase equity and diversity in universities was
constitutional; and
Whereas: the
University of Colorado has worked through the precedent set by Grutter v Bollinger by promoting Equal Opportunity Programs;
and
Whereas: Between the
years 1991 and 2001 the graduation rates for African American students
increased form 31% to 51%, Asian American students graduation rates increased
from 48% to 65% and Hispanic/Chicano students graduation rates increased from
46% to 56% with the assistance of various equal opportunity programs; and
Whereas: The above
mentioned programs are key components in the University’s Flagship 2030 Core
Initiatives. Specifically, “Learning for a Diverse World: Implement new
strategies for improving diversity; foster a supportive and inclusive climate
for all”; and
Whereas: As the
flagship university of Colorado, the passage of Amendment 46 will eliminate
programs that are essential to the diversity mission and Core Initiatives of
Flagship 2030; and
Whereas: Numerous
outreach and support centers on campus would be jeopardized, and with them, the
vital services they provide for all of our students; and
Whereas: In 2005,
African-American students only made up 1.5 percent of enrollment and Latino
students made up 6.5 percent of the University; and
Whereas: Other states
that have passed similar measures have seen a drastic decline in the number of
underrepresented students attending institutions of higher education; and
Whereas: Nearly 100
scholarships currently allowed under the law would be withheld, thereby
jeopardizing many students’ right to education every year; and
Whereas:
First-generation, socioeconomic status, gender, and race are all legitimate and
necessary factors in fostering a diverse class of students and opinions; thus
their importance should be acknowledged in the admittance of qualified students
to the University; and
Whereas: All students
at the University of Colorado would be deprived of an adequate, culturally,
economically, and gender diverse education if Amendment 46 were to pass.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: The
University of Colorado Student Union hereby opposes Amendment 46 to the
Colorado State Constitution.
Section
2: Upon passage, this resolution shall be distributed to the Board of Regents,
Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, and the public through standard media.
Vote Count
10/2/08 Passed Acclamation
10/9/08 Passed Acclamation
________________________ _______________________
Blaine Pellicore Ryan Biehle
Legislative Council President Tri-Executive
_______________________ _______________________
Dustin Farivar Victoria Garcia
Tri-Executive Tri-Executive
* Moses, M., Marin, P., and Yun. J. (2008). Ballot Measures That Oppose Affirmative Action Hurt All Students [electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55, pg. A39.
** Schmidt, P. (2006). Michigan Overwhelmingly Adopts Ban on Affirmative-Action Preferences [electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, pg. A23.