Our View - Sunday

TWO PHRASES, ONE MEANING
Affirmative action equals discrimination 

    Freddie Whitney, a 78-year-old black woman from Denver, signed a petition saying she opposes state discrimination and wants it outlawed in Colorado.

Many decent people would do the same, when confronted by signature seekers asking "are you against discrimination?" Whitney should be applauded, as should others who've supported a ballot measure called the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative.

    But Whitney regrets signing the petition, and she wants her signature removed. Several others who have signed the petition have also changed their minds, apparently deciding they do, in fact, support state discrimination. They've told their stories to the New York Times, the Denver Post and the Associated Press, explaining they were deceived.

    The Colorado Unity Coalition, a group that opposes the antidiscrimination ballot initiative, directs the media to Whitney and others who regret signing. None have compelling stories that back their complaints of deception.

    It's difficult to understand how they could feel deceived. Signing a petition is like casting a vote, or signing a contract: don't do it if you're not prepared. And everyone has been told not to sign documents without reading them first. That's difficult when it comes to a lengthy contract involving a minor purchase. But the petition for a civil rights initiative couldn't be simpler. Here's what it says:

    "The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."

    It's abundantly clear the initiative would forbid state "discrimination" and "preferential treatment" based on superficial criterion. By ending "preferential treatment," it would end the most common form: "affirmative action."

    When the state gives special treatment to people because of their skin, the state engages in racial discrimination. One person has been deemed a winner, by virtue of race, and another person has lost by virtue of race. We can call it "affirmative action" all we want, but it's racism pure and simple. Anything that makes race a central consideration is racist. Anything that makes sex a central consideration is sexist. This is not a difficult concept.

    Ward Connerly, a conservative black civil rights activist from California, started the petition in Colorado. Connerly, who has worked on similar initiatives in other states, has become a controversial figure among those who advocate race-based discrimination in the form of affirmative action.

    Whitney was pleased with her support of the measure until someone told her that it would end affirmative action. Though she supports affirmative action, she apparently opposes the concept when its described as "preferential treatment."

    From this, we learn much about the power of politicized terms. "Affirmative action" and "preferential treatment" are the same. Whitney and others didn't like preferential treatment based on superficial traits, so they signed. When told they had opposed affirmative action, however, their feelings changed.

    There's little chance any signatures will be removed from the petition. Not one complaint aired in the media indicates the signers were lied to or misled. One complainant told the Post she felt deceived because a petition promoter "implied it was a pro-affirmative action amendment."

    So what? For anyone who has been on the losing side of an affirmative-action hire, the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative may seem like affirmative action. It would be an affirmative move in favor of future employment.

    Colorado needs the Civil Rights Initiative. Government has no business choosing winners and losers on a basis of sex, color, ethnicity, national origin or race. Pure merit, without regard to superficialities, is the only criterion governments should use.

POST-TRAUMATIC GUN SYNDROME 

    It's a tale of gun hysteria gone wild.

In Santa Ana, Calif., a third grade teacher was arrested Thursday after students found a handgun and ammunition in a classroom cabinet. Jayne DeArmond, the Associated Press reports, was charged with felony possession of a firearm on a school campus and misdemeanor child endangerment. Students told an instructional aide, and police were notified. DeArmond was released on $20,000 bond. She will certainly be fired.

    Children could benefit from properly trained teachers, licensed to carry weapons, bringing guns to campus. If teachers had guns, they could defend students against those deranged maniacs who show up on occasion to shoot up schools.

    One cannot defend a gun left in a cabinet, however, where children would find it. Adults who leave guns lying around are not responsible gun handlers. And it's hard to defend bringing a gun to school at all, until laws are changed to allow for it. If DeArmond did what's been charged, she played into the worst fears of antigun activists. She deserves punishment, by the school and the courts, if she's found guilty.

    But here's where the story gets nutty.

    "Students were moved to another classroom after the gun and ammunition were found," the AP reports.

    The gun did not contaminate the room. Take it out, arrest DeArmond, and get on with the day. It gets even nuttier.

    "Counseling has been made available to students and staff," the AP reported.

    For what? Post traumatic gun syndrome? It's not as if someone died. Kids found an unloaded gun and did exactly what we hope all kids do in that situation: they told an adult.

    Instead of counseling, the school should give gun lessons. It should hold classes that tell children guns are abundant in society, they're dangerous, but mostly they do good. It should teach them exactly what to do when they encounter a gun: leave it alone, tell an adult. That would help children. Counseling? That's just for show.