For Immediate Release February 11, 1998

Racism at the University of Colorado

Towards the end of his "State of the Union" address, President Clinton got to the part on race. His words were eloquent: "Discrimination against any American is un-American." Why then, is the University of Colorado discriminating against Americans?

Three decades after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly outlawed racial discrimination by state governments, why do the Regents of the University of Colorado tolerate and abet racial discrimination?

Some of you deny that discrimination is practiced. Why then do you not--at least--tell CU’s admissions officers to make public the entire screening process for all –all--admittees and rejectees to the University? Does CU have something to hide? If written in plain English, most of us would be able to understand an explanation or description of how CU applicants compete for admission on a level playing field.

Question: "Beyond standardized test scores and grade point averages, what other factors are used to ‘qualify’ applicants for admission to the University, and are all criteria or factors applied equally to both non-minority and minority applicants?"

If all applicants are admitted without regard to race, why is it that in 1995, "more than half of all white and Asian rejectees had higher SAT (scholastic aptitude test) scores than half of all blacks and more than a quarter of all Hispanics who were offered admission"? In other words, why did you exclude many Asians and whites who scored better than many of the Hispanics and blacks whom you admitted?

And why is it that "the average white student scored 205 points higher on the SAT (out of a possible 1600), and 4 points higher on the ACT (American College Test) out of a possible 36, and nearly half a point higher on grades (on a 4-point scale) than the average black student?" In other words, if you are white, you need much higher grades and test scores to be admitted to CU than if you are black.

The quotes above are from a new report, "Racial Preferences in Colorado Higher Education," by the Center for Equal Opportunity, which details systematic racial discrimination at the University of Colorado. (The report is available for free on the world-wide web at http://www.ceousa.org/Colorado.html).

What does the color of an applicant’s skin have to do with the content of his character?

The lower scores of a disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics are a sign of an educational problem—but the solution is not racial discrimination in higher education. The solution is to directly address the source of the problem: the inferior education that so many minority and other children receiving in government-run high schools and grade schools. The solution to bad primary and secondary education is better primary and secondary education.

Sadly, President Clinton and the CU bureaucracy both talk a beautiful game about non-discrimination, but then turn around and discriminate. Commented Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who helped ban racial discrimination in the California state colleges: "The President says he wants to bring us together as one nation. But he wants us to use race to treat ourselves differently."

Treating people differently--as racial quotas do--because of race is racism, pure and simple. It tramples on one of our most cherished common interests: equal opportunity before the law.

How can we live up to the President’s challenge " bridge the opportunity gaps that keep us from becoming one America" if we keep treating one another on the basis of race, as Clinton insists that we do? Affirmative action—the code word for quotas--does precisely that: it treats people differently by race, thus producing precisely the opposite effects from those Clinton professes to want. Abolishing preferences would be a giant step towards our becoming one America.

If President Clinton sincerely wanted to help us become "one America," he would by a simple stroke of his pen abolish all quota programs established by presidential executive orders. He would make decided efforts to reestablish equal opportunity as equal opportunity, not equal results Jerry-rigged by Washington bureaucrats.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." You don’t have to have a Ph.D. or be an academic administrator to understand that "No person" means no person.

Even if that person is white.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email)webmngr@i2i.org

Parent Information Center (report cards on Colorado schools); Criminal Justice  & Second Amendment, Education, Environment, Immigration, Personal Freedom Center, Politics & Government, Stevinson Center on Local Government, Transportation, Waco. Op-ed archive. Columns by Linda Gorman; Columns by Dave Kopel; Hot Topics this week. Great Books page. Publications catalogue.

Shop your favorite sites while supporting
 the Independence Institute!

Copyright© 2000 Independence Institute