Amendment 46 isn’t as simple as it seems, and there have been disingenuous arguments on both sides of the issue to further muddy the waters.
We hope Colorado voters take the time to understand what it means and what it will do. And then, we hope they vote it down.
In short, this ballot question purports to end discrimination, but what it would really do is slam shut the small — and let us emphasize small — window that allows race and gender to be factors in state college admissions and in the awarding of government contracts.
Amendment 46 is being pushed by Ward Connerly, a Californian trying to export his political solutions to states that don’t necessarily want or need them.
For instance, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, recruiters have been working to increase student diversity. At the Colorado School of Mines, attracting female students is a perpetual mission.
Amendment 46 would almost certainly reduce their numbers, particularly at those flagship schools.
Colorado’s higher education admissions policies are lengthy and complicated. But the bottom line where race and gender are concerned is this: Colorado colleges and universities have a small window — it ranges from 10 percent of the freshman class at the most selective school to 20 percent at less selective schools — through which students who don’t quite have the transcripts or test scores can be admitted.
Race or gender can be a factor that schools consider when admitting students. Admissions officers can also look at socio-economic status, life experience or military veteran status.
Amendment 46 eliminates that consideration, no matter how small. And the effects would be more wide- reaching. It would eliminate state- sponsored science camps for girls or outreach programs that encourage minorities to consider certain fields or professions. It would stop state programs that encourage women-owned and minority-owned businesses to apply for contracts.
The devilish genius of 46 is it exploits the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make voters think they’re extending protection to women and minorities when it would take away the small discretion that institutions can exercise to help them in certain circumstances.
Amendment 46 is a wrong-headed solution looking for problems that don’t exist.
