Our View - Friday

CU'S CREED-BASED LITMUS TEST ADMISSION INVOLVES DISCRIMINATION

The University of Colorado's flagship campus has a wellknown reputation for discrimination and racism.
A recent opinion column by Chancellor G.P. "Bud" Peterson raises new concerns about discrimination based on values and beliefs. Peterson, in an April 1 article for the Colorado Daily, said CU favors admitting applicants who ascribe to a particular "creed." Never mind the fact that CU policy forbids consideration of creed when admitting students.

In recent years, discrimination concerns have been well documented at CU. A 2006 study by the Education Trust, a Washington-based nonprofit, gave CU an F in the number of African-American, Latino and Native American students enrolled relative to the number of minority high-school seniors in Colorado. After a string of racist incidents on and near the flagship campus that year, then-CU President Hank Brown appointed a 60-member blue-ribbon commission to study the lack of diversity.

The solution to low minority enrollment, of course, rests in working to better prepare all Colorado high school students for college by improving all schools and enhancing school choice. It also involves sophisticated marketing to minority students, so the best and brightest don't go out of state to more reputable schools. As for racial violence, the solution requires a criminal justice system that's relentless in punishing violent crime.

Discussions of race and diversity, unfortunately, seldom focus on goals to improve individual achievement, schools, law enforcement and social standards. Generally, the discussions center on a false and unspoken premise that minorities can be expected to perform at a lower level than whites. As such, CU's diversity panelists recommended lowering admissions standards to bring in more minorities. To ensure peace, freshman would attend "racialtolerance" courses.

Perhaps forgetting CU's F for diversity, and its history of racial hostility, Peterson wrote: "Historically, students at the University of Colorado at Boulder have exhibited a strong sense of social consciousness." For example, he writes, students have "a deep-seated concern for the environment."

Peterson attributes the high character of Colorado students to a practice by CU to consider more than achievement alone when admitting them. Peterson said CU also selects students based on "their commitment to the spirit of the Colorado Creed."

The Colorado Creed, which was recently formalized at CU, says this: "Act, Honor, Integrity, Respect, Accept, Contribute and Be Accountable."

It's a creed, for sure. It's a set of beliefs, values, morals and principles. To attend CU, one must "accept." What will they do with prospective students who don't accept polygamy, homosexual marriage, global warming theory or racism? And should prospective students "be accountable" to God, Earth, Buddha or the diversity panel? And how does the admissions board define "honor"? Some find honor in the Bible, others in the Quran, or The Urantia Book.

Chancellor Peterson, CU has a tradition of discrimination - often in conflict with community standards. We don't need more of it. Therefore, the administration has no business using a "creed" to determine who gets into our state's flagship school. Doing so violates your own discrimination policy, which states: "UCB does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status in admission." (see: www.colorado.edu/policies/discrimination.html)

CU is not a private school. It may not discriminate on any basis other than achievement alone. Want diversity? Then don't prescribe a creed, which forces students to think alike. And get beyond fixations about skin. Your product should be knowledge, without regard for a customer's race, color or creed.

PUEBLO'S ANTI-PLUMBING ACTIVISTS

It's a pipeline for water. It's not a nuclear power plant, a corporate pig farm, or a war. It's a simple plumbing project needed for Colorado Springs to obtain water it owns. It will be underground, out of sight and out of mind in an existing utilities corridor. It's really just that simple.

Yet the Southern Delivery System has become a topic of histrionics among some who want to deprive the Springs of water. They're activists in need of a worthy cause.

About 100 people attended a public meeting in Pueblo on Wednesday, some to suggest that Colorado Springs shouldn't take the water it owns in Pueblo Reservoir - a storage facility paid for mostly by the Springs.

"It simply is a subsidy, by the rest of the Arkansas River partners, of Colorado Springs' development," said Velma Campbell, as quoted in a Gazette news story.

Not even close. The water doesn't belong to the Arkansas River partners. It belongs to Colorado Springs.

Dick Balfour worries the pipeline will reduce currents in the Arkansas River through downtown Pueblo, which features a white-water rafting course.

Again, it's not Pueblo's water. It belongs to Colorado Springs. Furthermore, Colorado Springs has graciously entered a minimum stream flow agreement that's tied to the pipeline project. If opponents succeed in derailing plans to tap the reservoir, Colorado Springs can take its water from upstream. Then Pueblo can forget the minimum flow contract, and Colorado Springs can function with disregard for the rafting course. Want to be bad neighbors Pueblo? If so, you'll reap what you sow.

It's a pipeline. It's simple, run-of-the-mill, urban plumbing. Without it, Colorado Springs will not have enough water to meet future needs. The city will acquire this water one way or another, and the best option for Pueblo involves the Springs tapping its own storage reservoir.

Pipeline opponents need to stop acting like a cheerleading squad pulling pranks to annoy a nearby town. The pipeline won't hurt you. Get bored with plumbing and get on with your lives.