Conceding that they cannot win an honest contest over racial preferences, the opponents of colorblind equality in Colorado have turned, as preferentialists always do, to disingenuousness and obfuscation.
Combining a sly version of the tried and true “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” tactic with a bait and switch, two sentence initiative where the second sentence negates the first, the clever Colorado preferentialists are proposing their own counter initiative:
Colorado Equal Opportunity Initiative
The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting, or public education. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as limiting the State’s authority to act consistently with standards set under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, in public employment, public education, or public contracting.
That first sentence is quite good. In fact, it is same language that passed overwhelmingly in California, Washington, and Michigan to prohibit race, ethnic, and gender preferences. But that second sentence reveals that this clever fake is a classic example of what in my benighted youth (and in some politically incorrect enclaves even today) would be called “Indian giving” — appearing to give something and then immediately snatching it back. That second sentence, in short, means that this proposed initiative would prohibit nothing at all.
The key point, of course, is that the Supreme Court has, unfortunately, allowed states to engage in certain limited forms of racial preference, but it has not required them to do so. The civil rights initiatives that have passed in three states and that are being proposed in five additional states, including Colorado, prohibit preference programs that the Supreme Court has not ruled unconstitutional. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and the Colorado preferentialists, by their attempted obfuscation, recognize that voters will approve such an initiative if given the clear opportunity.
Here’s a test: before this language is approved by the title board or the Colorado Supreme Court, its proponents should be forced to provide examples — even one example would do — of a program or policy in Colorado that would be prohibited if their initiative passes. They, of course, can’t, revealing that their only motive is to sew confusion and prevent an initiative that would bar preferential treatment from passing.
Ther cannot be enogh emphasis on the hypocrisy of these people who do THIS whilst accusing the proponents of the civil rights initiatives of “deceit”.
Somehow it is consistent with their further arguments
– of affirmative action supposedly NOT discriminiating and being threatened by the petition to illegalize discrimination…
– of the claim that banning discrimination is racist whilst excluding certain people from certain publically funded programs because of their race (and or gender) alledgedly is not racist…
I just cannot figure out if they are inable to fully understand what they are claiming or if they are just plain racist liars and bigots.
Either way, the counter initiative clearly shows how honest they are.
In my opinion, a good measure would be to ask the seven or so people who claimed to have been deceited by the MCRI to explain the meaning and effect of this strange petition in their own words. I would bet, that this time they really cannot understand it.
John,
I’m not so sure this sneaky try actually does what it’s proponents think it would. It has the same operative language as CCRI-etc. in sentence one. The state SHALL NOT… In sentence, it has a clause that allows the state
“to act consistently with the US Constitution”. Of course, such a clause is unnecessary redundant since the US Constitution wouldn’t allow the state to act inconsistently with it, but it’s intent and designers wanted it to allow Grutter-like remedies. Unfortunately, they often misunderstand Grutter as “requiring” remedies rather than merely allowing universities the choice to use them. Since no preference is just as “consistent” with Grutter as some educationally beneficial preference, I’d suggest that the last clause doesn’t save preferences. Grutter also recognizes anti-preference state laws and says they are consistent with Grutter. The first clause prohibits them, the second clause merely allows the state to act consistently with the Constitution. Of course, it depends on how consistent your definition of consistently is is. I can see now the convoluted English argument for this language.
Chet – I see your point, and it’s theoretically true. But practically I’m convinced that second sentence in fact would obliterate the first, giving the state a free hand to do anything that is not inconsistent with Grutter. And since many preference programs either are consistent with Grutter, or can be plausibly argued before a compliant judge to be consistent with Grutter, I remain convinced that this initiative would not in the end prohibit anything at all.
John,
I see (and saw) how the language could literally allow anything, but I’m not willing to concede that interpretation since, if the stealth initiative gets more votes than the CCRI my legal argument will be the one that has to be made in federal court. This stealth version truly is deceptive and vague because it truly has multiple meanings, depending on how you parse the language and rules of grammar.
I give the writers of it great credit for crafting something so ambiguous.
It’s like looking at an Escher diagram – the stairs go up and down depending on your angle.
Ultimately, its purpose is less to win than it is to confuse the heck out of voters on both drives, and force CCRI to spend money defining the real versus the stealth.