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.