October 29, 2008 11:47 AM
Amendment 46 supporter Jessica Peck Corry
Mark_Wolf(Q) What is the genesis of Amendment 46?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Amendment 46 reflects a decade-long homegrown effort to end government-sanctioned discrimination in public hiring, public contracting, and public education in Colorado. While Affirmative Action was once designed to prohibit discrimination, it today too often discriminates. We believe all of our outreach programs should be open to all economically disadvantaged people, regardless of race and gender.
Mark_Wolf(Q) From blangbein via e-mail: Ms. Corry: There is an assumption that affirmative action over the years has only been used to assist people of color when in fact it has been used under a variety of other names that the public does not hear from the anti-affirmative action supporters. If you truly believe that there should be no preferential treatment shown to ANYONE in hiring or admission to higher ed, do you also support absolute prohibition on legacy admissions (e.g., giving special admission consideration to someone whose parent is an alum or who has been giving money to a university when that person would not otherwise meet the admissions criteria), admitting students based on athletic abilities and not academic performance, or students who have musical or artistic talent but with low academic performance, preferential hiring for rewards to party members who participate in elections (aside from cabinet appointees), or hiring someone for a job because of who they are related to or connected to in an organization but would not qualify for the job on their own merits.
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Thank you for this question. We absolutely stand against legacy preferences at public institutions. In addition, we believe that hiring, contracting, and admissions decisions should be made based on academic merit and other related talents. A university should have the ability to admit people it believes will succeed in its academic environment. This doesn't always show up in an SAT score or a GPA. Giving preference to people who are underprepared only dooms them to failure. Our focus is on outreach programs--and we believe these should be opened to all people who are economically disadvantaged but otherwise capable of succeeding in the classroom or workforce.
Mark_Wolf(Q) Via e-mail fromDirk: I find the name of the amendment confusing. To say "Civil Rights Initiative" makes it sound like something you should vote for if you believe in civil rights and against if you are a racist.
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Amendment 46, known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, is about fairness and equality for all. This is absolutely a civil rights measure. In an era when nearly 60 percent of all Colorado students are female (and half of all medical school students are women) we're taking a stand against discrimination against men. In an era when race is no longer easily defined--reflecting a 20-fold increase in interracial marriage in the last four decades and a census prediction that whites will be in the minority by 2041--we should have programs that acknowledge that race and gender should not be used as indicators of disadvantage. Amendment 46 will not abolish a single outreach program. Instead, it will open all of our publicly funded programs to all individuals regardless of race or gender. Civil rights is about opening the door to those who have been excluded from the process and that's what Amendment 46 is all about.
roger44(Q) On some applications, they ask for voluntary information as to race, etc. do you see that being stopped?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) No. This data is required by the federal government. When used appropriately, it can help ensure that government is not discriminating against a single race or gender group. It is important to note, however, that race boxes should not be relied on too heavily to prove or disprove discrimination. We see that nationally students are declining to indicate a race on applications, they are listing multiple races, or they are listing "other". Too many students simply don't fit into tidy little race boxes any longer. If we look at Barack Obama and his sister--they are both born to the same white mother, but Barack had an African father and his sister had an Asian father. Which box should they check? Under many preference programs, if Barack's sister checked Asian or white, she would not qualify for preference programs. If Barack checked black (which he declined to do when applying to Harvard) he would qualify for a preference. He would not, however, if he checked white. We should not divide families based on race.
cassidy22(Q) I have been heavily involved in an organization called the Society of Women engineers - its membership is open to anyone who supports its mission. There are hundreds of professional Sections, as well as over 500 collegiate sections in the US. Their mission is to support women in engineering, and encourage young women to pursue math and science education. How would this amendment affect these collegiate organizations (Mines, CU, DU and CSU all have sections, as well as 2 professional sections in Colorado)
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Great question. Organizations like yours, even if they are publicly funded would be unaffected should Amendment 46 pass. Our initiative prohibits discrimination or preferential treatment based on race or gender in public hiring, public contracting, and public education. As long as your organization doesn't discriminate based on gender or race in its membership requirements, you're good to go. Despite the myths our opposition perpetuates, gender-based engineering programs have gone on in other states where similar initiatives have passed. The only difference is that those with gender restrictions have been forced to open the door to men. The focus on gender issues remains.
jpeck(Q) How does 46 change government funded programs that are gender specific like girl only or boy only organizations?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) As a follow up to the last question--these programs can go on. The difference would be that they would have to open their doors to those of a non-preferred gender. We believe this is really important in an era when nearly 60 percent of Colorado college students are women. It just doesn't make sense to continue discriminating against boys (as the vast majority of gender-based programs do) when we face this imbalance. It is sexist to assume that girls can only succeed when boys are excluded from the process.
jpeck(Q) Why is the governor opposed to this ammendment?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) An important note on the last question quickly: This initiative only applies to publicly funded programs--so the girl scouts or boy scouts or any private programs would be unaffected. Regarding the governor's decision: here is what we know. He broke Colorado's Fair Campaign Practices Act in his advocacy against our initiative. He used taxpayer dollars to advocate a "no" position against our effort. From what he has said, it sounds like he believes that preferences are still needed. The question is not, however, "are we there yet?", the question is "how do we get there?" Do we get there by perpetuating programs that discriminate based on biology, that continue to assume the inferiority of women and minorities? Or instead, do we achieve a progressive approach that acknowledges that women and minorities have made tremendous progress--and that to "get there", we should base outreach on a factor that doesn't force the government to discriminate--that factor is economic disadvantage.
Ezana(Q) Do you believe that ethnic minorities and women no longer face descrimination in the workplace?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Unfortunately, discrimination exists in all facets of American life. Fortunately, we have civil rights statutes to address discrimination against individuals. We are an imperfect nation that has gotten it wrong on race and gender for much of our two centuries. We should not assume that we've suddenly gotten it right. In addition, giving the government a tool that allows for discrimination against one group over another is a dangerous game. While those in power today may support preferences for certain groups, there is no guarantee that tomorrow we might not see other groups "preferred". Tax dollars should never be used to discriminate. Instead, we should focus on outreach--preparing all indviduals to compete on the basis of their own merit in the marketplace.
Mark_Wolf(Q) Via email from aaway: The decision to end discrimination in 64 was not put to a popular vote, why would we put the equal opportunity programs that stem from the civil rights movement to a popular vote, especially given our history of voter suppression in the communities the equal opp programs are meant to serve?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Fortunately, in Colorado we have an initiative process that has created an avenue for citizens to fight for civil rights. The 1964 Civil Rights Act--as well as the 14th Amendment decades earlier--was long overdue. There is no evidence in Colorado that any communities--whether ethnic, gender, or economic-based--have been suppressed in their voting abilities this year. If such evidence was discovered, we would be the first to be out there fighting against voter oppression.
wonky_monkey(Q) If my school at CU decides to put a premium on recruitment of students of color through our student reps and administration, why can't we pursue that goal?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Thanks for asking this question. It's an important one. First, this initiative allows for continued outreach of minority students--it just doesn't allow our public universities to discriminate against any individual who was born with the skin color or gender. We anticipate that should our initiative pass, based on examples in other states that have passed initiatives similar to Amendment 46, that we will see aggressive outreach efforts based on class. This is so critically important when our K-12 pipeline is failing too many students of all races and both genders every year. Tax dollars should never be used to discriminate.
Zurich(Q) Do you think that there was a time for affirmative action, but that time has passed? It's hard not to get the impression that you and your supporters think that affirmative action was never a good idea despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Affirmative Action--originally designed by President Johnson--was intended to "cast a wider net" and take "affirmative action" to ensure that women and minorities gained access to America's power structure. We support this concept and believe in aggressive outreach efforts to our poor communities to make sure this happens. What we don't support is preferential treatment or discrimination. It is these last two policies that have hindered healing in our nation over the last several decades. Preferences perpetuate a notion that women and minorities are inferior and can't make it on their own. No woman or minority should be saddled with this assumption when he or she walks into a classroom or boardroom.
Charles(Q) This deceitful amendment to the Colorado constitution started a few months ago with 68% in favor. The recent poll in the Rocky Mountain News highlights the fact that when people truly understand the harmful effects of this amendment they vote NO on 46. Now, the amendment only has 53% with a significant portion of those only slightly in favor. It appears that the tide has turned on this amendment and Colorado voters are catching on. Jessica, how will your campaign work to continue to trick voters out of voting No on 46.
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Charles, you are correct that two independent polls show that Colorado voters support this effort to bring fairness and equality to admissions and hiring in Colorado. There have been several national independent polls showing positive voter support. We attribute any decline (which we are not suggesting--given that you are talking about two different polling companies with different statistical approaches and question types) to two specific sources: 1. An angry, personal, deceitful campaign designed by our opposition. 2. a general dislike by voters this year of the initiative process. This year's ballot will be the second longest in Colorado history and voters may have a hard time decifering between legitimate amendments like ours, and others that arguably do not belong in the constitution. We know that voters across Colorado--and the U.S.--support our effort. Independent national polls show that people of all skin colors and both genders believe that the time has come to end discrimination based on race or gender in public hiring, public contracting, and public education. It just makes sense in an era when race is a dissolving concept and women now represent close to 60 percent of all Colorado college students. You may believe in trickery, but we trust in the intelligence of Colorado voters. Our opposition has taken its "deception" argument to four judicial bodies in Colorado, including our Supreme Court, and it has failed all four times. Let's have an honest conversation about whether the government should continue to support race and gender discrimination--in the name of ending discrimination. It just doesn't make sense in the 21st Century. Yes on 46.
rathmone(Q) Following up on the Society of Women Engineers question- CU Boulder also has a program called WIEP (Women in Engineering Program). It's open to all, and offers counseling and mentoring to anyone who wants it. However, WIEP offers a few scholarships to freshman women who enroll inthe Engineering school. Free Counseling/mentoring is great, but as any policy person knows, money talks. 46 would ban those scholarships. Can you honestly say that is a good thing?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) Amendment 46 bans public funding of gender-based scholarships. It does not, however, prohibit private funding of such scholarships. So, as is the case in California where voters passed a similar initiative in 1996, private-funded "women in engineering" scholarships still exist. The WISE program is a national program and it is funded by the Chevron Corporation, so it could continue to offer gender-based scholarships. Now concerning race-based scholarships: It is worth noting that a federal court decision concerning a race-exclusive scholarship at the University of Maryland prohibits CU from using public funds for the administration of privately-funded race-based scholarships. So if CU is doing that now, it is breaking the law. This is a fact regardless of the outcome of this election. Now to your larger point of whether public funds should be used to encourage women to go into science: We should be more concerned about the fact that nearly 6 in 10 college students are women. Instead of offering preferences to females, we should be focusing on putting an end to a four-decade long gender-based outreach campaign that has excluded men from the dialogue.
Mark_Wolf(Q) Via e-mail from aaway: If you are really concerned with class issues why not challenge cases such as San Antonio v. Rodriguez, which holds it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment to dispoportionately fund public schools based on the tax base of the surrounding community. There are a myriad of ways to challenge classism outside of ending equal opportunity programs.
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) This initiative is one part of a larger civil rights campaign designed to open up so-called equal opportunity programs. This initiative doesn't abolish a single program--it only requires race and gender restrictions be eliminated. We must stop insisting that women and minorities can only succeed when men or non-preferred racial groups are excluded. Tax dollars should never be used to discriminate in favor of one group over another. We should insist on a class-based approach that doesn't discriminate on the basis of characteristics that we're born with--but over which we have no control.
Mark_Wolf(Q) Via e-mail from Kevin: I want to know why the trendy category of "sexual orientation" wasn't included in Amendment 46. If you're taking on the affirmative action spoils system, why let that one influential group benefit from the remaining perks? Were proposal writers afraid of attracting the ire of gay rights multi-millionaire Tim Gill, perhaps?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) This initiative does not address sexual orientation for a few key reasons: 1. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 2. There are no known publicly funded preference programs in Colorado based on sexual orientation.
Zurich(Q) How do you expect African-American enrollment at state universities to change as a result of 46's passage?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) In other states where similar initiatives have passed, we've seen that minorities and women do well. In California, where voters approved Proposition 209 in 1996, women now represent 56 percent of all UC students (the same percentage as Colorado) and black student enrollment has risen at 7 of 9 UC campuses--with black graduation rates up at all nine campuses. While enrollment is down at two campuses--UCLA and UC-Berkeley--the drop in actual numbers is small. While California's statewide black population is six percent, UCLA and UC-Berkeley's black population is about 2 percent--so we're talking about a small population to start with. In Michigan, which passed a similar initiative in 2006, black students have seen their enrollment at top state institutions remain consistent or benefit from slight increases. In Colorado, where we have great institutions--but no institutions as competitive as the Berekeleys or University of Michigans--we anticipate that the impact on admissions will not be great. The real impact will be on outreach programs--where black students will still be welcomed to participate, but also welcomed will be disadvantaged students from race or gender groups that were previously denied participation.
cassidy22(Q) SWE's membership is open to men (and has no effect on any university admissions process, aside from encouraging young women to pursue an engineering degree), and open to those who are not engineers, or pursuing an engineering degree, however, we do provide scholarships and awards, and many of those, even on a National level, are prohibited to female engineering students only... Would that activity be prohibited? Would companies be prohibited from providing donations to an organization like ours, IF we give scholarships based on gender? Also - for women in engineering, I don't believe it's an economic disadvantage. It's been proven by scientific studies to be impacted socially during middle school years, when girls are self conscious in school, and are taught by social pressures that math and science is "geeky" and "uncool." The response is that we have 20% of engineering students as women, however, many change majors, leaving the work force at only 6% women engineers. I can't believe this is all due to females, as a group, having an economic disadvantage over boys to get an engineering degree.
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) I've only got a few minutes here--but let me clarify. As long as no taxpayer dollars are used to offer sex-specific programming, you are good to go. As far as why women are less likely to be engineers--there are probably a multitude of reasons. I was a journalism major in a school where 80 percent of all students were female. We see gender imbalances in other fields as well. While it may be desirable for specific industries or fields to offer training programs designed to cultivate more paritipants from a specific gender, our public programs should not discriminate.
rathmone(Q) As you acknowledged that discrimination still exists, the simply fact is that if 46 passes, minority enrollment in public universities will plummet. won't this do a disservice to all Colorado students attending those institutions?
Jessica_Peck_Corry(A) With all due respect, there simply is no evidence to prove your thesis. Please see my response to the question above. The vast majority of Colorado's 20 + campuses accept or enroll nearly all--or all--applicants who apply. For more competitive institutions, like CU-Boulder or the School of Mines, we can look to the examples seen in other states that demonstrate that women and minorities can and do excel when race or gender preferences are not taken into consideration. Thanks everyone for your questions. If you'd like to get more information on Amendment 46, please visit www.ColoradoCRI.org. Vote Yes on Amendment 46 on November 4th!
cassidy22(C) It's nice that 60% of college students are women. BUt only 20% of engineering students are women. SWE works to change that. I don't know what the statistics are for African Americans or Hispanics in engineering, but NSBE and SHPE are there to change that. Regardless of the demographic in college as a whole, the engineering profession is still wildly unbalanced in comparison to the demographics of society. We can still use finances donated by private companies, but can no longer get assistance from our own public universities. Not only that, Colorado already has a lower GPA requirement in order to earn an engineering degree (I went to school in Michigan, where the standards are higher) I don't think lowering the GPA is the answer. I think supporting programs that encourage children to be interested in math and science are, and we are losing those programs by tying the hands of minority programs offices, and organizations like SWE, SHPE, NSBE, AISES, etc....
Join the discussion