(NAME-MCE) A Near Tie in Colorado

[Anselmo Villanueva]

A Near Tie in Colorado

After years in which critics of consideration of race in admissions
win big with the voters, why didn't that happen this year in Colorado?

Complete story below.  For related articles, go to:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/06/colo

November 6, 2008

A Near Tie in Colorado

When Nebraska voters on Tuesday barred the consideration of race in
public college admissions decisions, and other government operations,
there wasn't much ambiguity about the outcome. Fifty-eight percent of
voters backed the ban. That's the same percentage of voters in
Michigan who backed a ban in 2006. That's the same percentage of
voters who backed a ban in Washington State in 1998. The first
statewide referendum on such a ban — in California in 1996 — was
comparatively close. Only 55 percent of voters approved it.

All of this is to say that when voters have a chance to shoot down the
consideration of race in college admissions, they have taken that
option with gusto every single time — except for Tuesday in Colorado.
There, a similar proposed ban was on the ballot. While some votes
still haven't been counted, the measure was narrowly behind late
Wednesday, with 50 percent voting no and 49 percent yes. Enough
provisional ballots exist that no one is calling the outcome.

Even if the measure somehow pulls out a victory, the Colorado
experience appears to demonstrate that it is possible to defeat a
proposed ban at the ballot box. Until now, defenders of affirmative
action have feared that once an item is on the ballot, it was almost
inevitably a winner.

"I am surprised. I expected that this initiative would pass easily,"
said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation,
author of The Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative Action. "There are
states that are darker blue than Colorado — Michigan, Washington,
California — that passed these sorts of initiatives."

So what happened in Colorado? And what happens next?

For now, vote counting continues. If the final outcome is within 0.5
percent (not the case now, but certainly a possibility), a recount
will take place. The why is more difficult to determine.

Defenders of affirmative action point to a tough strategy in which
they didn't just talk about the benefits of diversity, but directly
attacked the sponsors of the ban and challenged just about everything
about it — from its name to its purpose. Proponents of banning the use
of race say that this campaign was unfair and confusing to voters.
Both sides admit that one factor may be that many Colorado voters are
fed up with voter initiatives — which were plentiful this year. When
voters get frustrated, they are more likely to vote no than yes.

Melissa Hart, an associate professor of law at the University of
Colorado at Boulder and one of the chief organizers of the campaign to
defend affirmative action, said she was "incredibly proud that the
organization has come this close" to an outright win. She said the
success was due to a variety of efforts, including traditional
door-to-door canvassing.

But even a quick glance at the No on 46 Web site shows a very
different, and more aggressive, strategy than that used in other
states. Some of the states that first faced these referendums
responded with arguably highbrow approaches — speeches by prominent
educators, research studies and so forth. In Michigan, defenders of
affirmative action had high hopes for advertising that emphasized the
role of affirmative action in helping women, not just members of
minority groups.These approaches appear to have been largely ignored
by voters.

On the No on 46 Web site, there is information about how the Ku Klux
Klan backs the movement to bar affirmative action. There are ads
attacking the pay given to Ward Connerly, leader of the national
movement to eliminate the use of preferences, and a critique of the
way the measures in Colorado and elsewhere have "civil rights" in
their names. "When voters see the truth about the referendum, they
don't like what they see," said Hart. "People hear that this is a
civil rights measure and think it's about ending discrimination and
when you tell people that it's about ending affirmative action, they
are shocked," she said.

The emphasis of the campaign, she added, was "educating voters so they
wouldn't be fooled."

Jessica Cory, executive director of the Colorado Civil Rights
Initiative, which backed the proposed ban, agreed that this approach
had an impact. "It was a relentless, ugly campaign," she said. The
Klan has nothing to do with the Colorado measure, she said, and
attacks on Connerly are "stealing the identity of a black civil rights
hero." Cory said that she thinks the measure would have passed
comfortably but for the "last minute vicious attacks" of those
defending affirmative action.

Jennifer Gratz, who is one of the leaders of the American Civil Rights
Initiative, the group through which Connerly promotes his campaign,
said that those who oppose the consideration of race in admissions
decisions wouldn't be deterred by the vote in Colorado. "America is on
a path to end race preferences," she said, and more states will see
votes. "This is a marathon, not a sprint."

— Scott Jaschik