Our View - Sunday

Red & yellow, black & white
It's time to end racist admissions

   It will be a great day for scholars - red and yellow, black and white - when state-sponsored racism ffnally ends. If Coloradans approve Amendment 46 in November - the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative - the University of Colorado and other public institutions of learning will have to stop discriminating on a basis of sex and race and such. As it stands today, the University of Colorado blatantly uses racial discrimination practices that are part of its official admissions policies and procedures. If approved, the Civil Rights Initiative would say: "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."

   Unfortunately, the amendment doesn't protect against "religious" discrimination, which is rampant on state university campuses. But that may be another amendment for another election. For now, voters have the option to eliminate ffve categories of government discrimination.

   Up in Boulder, university officials are scrambling to figure out their strategy in the likely event this amendment should pass. That branch of the university alone must select for admission fewer than half of 23,000 applications a year. Race is a consideration whenever possible. The biggest problem for the university is that minorities seldom apply. For years, the Boulder campus has struggled with racial crimes and complaints that say the mostly white campus is generally hostile to ethnic and racial minorities. School oficials, with sincerely noble intentions, have tried to address the problem by enrolling more ethnic and racial minorities, simply because they are minorities. Amendment 46 would end that practice.

   A more minority-friendly environment at the state's flagship campus is a laudable goal. Racist admissions policies, however, are not the solution.

   In trying to resolve the university's notorious race problems, racebased admissions policies are likely only to make them worse. Policies that consider race belittle and insult minorities. Intentionally or not, they send a message that says minorities need special favors in order to compete. State policies that favor individuals on the basis of color only exacerbate hostilities in the kind of human filth that commit racial crimes.

   In a state protected by Amendment 46, minority college students and public employees would no longer be viewed through a lens of suspicion. Nobody would suspect that a black freshman was selected for his skin color. They'd know he was selected for his mind. Nobody would suspect the new Latino superintendent's promotion was based on ethnicity, because such decisions would be illegal.

   Will CU ever become diverse, without aflrmative action? Maybe. It depends on cultural and market trends. If, for any number of possible reasons, qualifying minority students apply in droves, then CU will become more diverse. Fifty years ago, most college students were men. Because of cultural and market shifts, women now comprise majorities at most universities and the trend is only growing.

   CU oficials expressed concern to the Denver Post that Amendment 46 would somehow place at risk some 100 private scholarships directed at minorities. That shouldn't be the case at all.

   The law should not and would not prevent a black church or the NAACP from considering race when awarding scholarships. It would not prevent the National Organization for Women from doling out private scholarships to women scholars. Nor would the amendment prevent any of myriad organizations awarding scholarships to students who meet their criteria. But the scholarship must go to a student, not directly to the school. And a student's private scholarship money should have absolutely no bearing on his or her admission to a public university.

   CU should concern itself only with selecting the best and brightest, based on relevant criteria including grades, SAT scores, achievement, public service, admissions essays and interviews. A prospective student's access to private awards should not be an admission concern.

   It's perfectly lawful, ethical and even admirable for private organizations to financially assist scholars who meet criteria based in considerations of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. If the Aryan Nations wants to give scholarships to high-achieving white men, so be it. Free markets provide for all. Private money should go to private individuals who can spend it at schools chosen by the students and their benefactors alike. But state-funded institutions must admit students without regard to race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

   State schools are branches of government, after all. We can't have government, which is supposed to equally serve us all, choose winners and losers on a basis of race and sex and such. When we do, we have government-sponsored racism and sexism. It's as simple as that. And that's why Amendment 46 makes plain, old common sense.

Bring shield law to a vote

   United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, should give the Free Flow of Information Act a ffoor vote before the Senate goes into recess in another month.

   H.R. 2102, also known as the federal reporter's shield law, was written by Rep. Mike Pence, a Republican from Indiana.

   Failure to receive a vote would require the idea to go through the entire legislative process when the new Congress convenes in 2009. The bill's trek began last year, with the U.S. House of Representatives approving Pence's proposal on a 398-21 vote on Oct. 16.

   It's supported by more than 40 state attorneys general. Presumptive presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. John Mc-Cain, R-Ariz., have both indicated support of the Free Flow of Information Act. That's good news, but it's really only relevant if Congress sits on the bill and doesn't act this session.

   Protection offered by the federal law would not be as broad as what exists under some states' laws, but it's still important that the federal legislation be passed. It could help bring vital information into public light and scrutiny.

   Contrary to what some opponents may contend, Pence's bill isn't about protecting reporters, but protecting the public's right to know.

   Why is the legislation important? Because reporters have increasingly been asked by federal judges to reveal their sources. Who can forget that New York Times reporter spent 12 weeks in jail rather than reveal a source in the leak of Valerie Plame's name to the media? This assault on media independence hasn't gone unnoticed.

   "Sadly, today the free and independent press in America is under fire," Pence said in a July 18 speech on the House floor. "In recent years, more than 40 journalists have been subpoenaed, questioned or held in contempt for failure to reveal their confidential sources. For a journalist, maintaining an assurance of confidentiality to a source is sometimes the only way to bring forward news of great consequence to the nation. Being forced to reveal a source chills reporting of the news and thereby restricts the free ffiow of information to the public."

   Pence added he contends the "only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press."

   That's an argument that's difficult to refute.