Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Obfuscation In Colorado

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.

Full post as published by Discriminations on February 12, 2008 (boomark / email).