Now
Fair
82°
High
82°
Low
49°

Regents oppose affirmative-action ban

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By MELISSA LEE / Lincoln Journal Star

Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 - 12:33:09 am CST

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents on Friday gave its unanimous disapproval to a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution that would ban affirmative action in public education and employment.

The amendment, which will appear on November ballots if supporters gather enough petition signatures, would end the use of racial, gender and ethnic preferences by public colleges and state agencies.

If passed, it could have a dangerous effect on university programs and practices that aim to diversify the campuses, NU officials warned.

Story Photo
Harvey Perlman

Scholarships for minority students, women’s commissions, minority recruitment efforts and numerous other programs could be at risk, they said.

“And I worry as much about the symbolism as the petition itself,” University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chancellor Harvey Perlman said. “It sends a message that Nebraskans don’t care about diversity.”

The initiative is led by Ward Connerly, a California businessman who has successfully spearheaded similar efforts in Washington, Michigan and his home state.

Nebraska is one of five states being targeted by Connerly this year. The others are Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma.

In Nebraska, supporters need to gather about 115,000 voter signatures by July 4. They’re confident they will do so, and that voters will pass the measure in November.

“Nebraskans are fair-minded people,” said Doug Tietz, executive director of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, which supports Connerly’s mission.

“They know that people shouldn’t be judged by what they look like. It’s as simple as that.”

A number of programs across NU’s four campuses seek to recruit and retain minorities, women and international students. They include Native American College Day at UNL, Cultural Unity Conference in Kearney and the Black Executive Exchange Program in Omaha.

Campuses also are home to chancellor’s commissions on the status of women and people of color and other race- or gender-specific groups. In addition, the university hosts meetings and conferences for outside organizations that are race- or gender-based.

All those things — as well as the university’s ability to recruit international students from specific countries — could be on shaky ground if the Connerly initiative passes, NU leaders fear.

“The language is so broad,” said Carmen Maurer, NU associate general counsel.

Particularly as Nebraska experiences a boom in its Hispanic population, NU must be able to make specific efforts to recruit underrepresented populations, regents said.

“If they don’t succeed, we don’t succeed,” said Regent Chuck Hassebrook of Lyons. “Those folks face special barriers to getting into college.”

Echoed NU President J.B. Milliken: “We must maximize and leverage the talent of all Nebraskans.”

NU officials acknowledged they couldn’t say exactly how the Connerly initiative might affect NU’s race- or gender-specific programs, or how the initiative has played out in states where it has passed. Perlman did say minority recruitment in those states has taken a hit.

But colleges in those states still can — and do — promote diversity, Tietz said.

The University of California San Diego, for example, still has a women’s center, a diversity council and a chief diversity officer, according to its Web site.

The university simply is prohibited from denying anyone a scholarship or membership to an organization based on race or gender, Tietz said.

“Our mission is simple: It is about ending judging people based on physical characteristics,” he said.

Tietz accused NU of using scare tactics by raising the possibility the Connerly initiative could put certain race- and gender-based programs at risk.

“This game plan of, ‘Oh, we’re not sure and we’re going to raise these questions of fear or doubt,’ I mean, come on,” he said. “A question to ask the chancellor is: Do you truly believe this?”

Perlman does.

He said he’s unwilling to endanger programs that show NU cares about diversity.

“Why would you want to put those things in jeopardy?”

Reach Melissa Lee at 473-2682 or mlee@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Clarence wrote on January 19, 2008 9:03 am:
" These programs not only raise grave constitutional questions, they also undermine the moral basis of the equal protection principle. Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering, the equal protection principle reflects our Nation's understanding that such classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and our society. Unquestionably, "invidious [racial] discrimination is an engine of oppression." It is also true that "remedial" racial preferences may reflect "a desire to foster equality in society.” But there can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination. So-called "benign" discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence. Inevitably, such programs engender attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government's use of race. These programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority and may cause them to develop dependencies or to adopt an attitude that they are "entitled" to preferences. "

Think About It wrote on January 19, 2008 10:18 am:
" The problem is not trying to recruit and diversify campuses. The problem lies when the selection of diversifying students becomes a priority, in effect discriminating against those who are NOT in the minority. I believe the Regents are against this amendment because they are too comfortable with hiding behind the laws surrounding affirmative action and diversity..it would be too much work to find personal peace with accepting the trend for diverse populations. "

I hope.... wrote on January 19, 2008 10:42 am:
" all this talk I hear about Nebraskans being so independent and fair minded will prevent OUTSIDE interests from trying to control what happens inside Nebraska. Simply put, this is an thinly veiled attempt at outside interests to try and control Nebraska. I truly hope Nebraskans see that. "

Mark wrote on January 19, 2008 11:13 am:
" I support this. End affirmative discrimination and make it equal. UNL has a policy of "whites need not apply." "

Ah yes, wrote on January 19, 2008 3:30 pm:
" all those "entitled" minorities... The idea that reverse discrimination exists is what is entitled. The idea that the only reason white males don't get jobs is because some less qualified minority got it instead is entitled. There have been many people to suggest this is needed because the university of is admitting less qualified students, and hiring less qualified faculty - yet they provide no evidence. If you're so aware that this is happening - name names. It's time to put up or shut up. "

Nicole wrote on January 19, 2008 3:54 pm:
" I highly doubt that affirmative action gives those benefiting from this an entitlement. It gives them a chance. Entitlement requires a process of thinking that what you have been given was yours all the time and that is not the case for those students who come from a background where college was not even an option for them. I agree with Ward Connerly to a point. We cannot judge and merit people based on something no one can change. If you didn't know Mr. Connerly is an advocate for Gay rights for the same reason. Where I differ with him is killing a program that is trying to give some equality instead of finding a suitable replacement. The point of affirmative action is to redress the effects of current and past discrimination and to give ACCESS to those people. It's here to give people a foot in the door, the rest is up to them. If Mr. Connerly wants to end affirmative action, he should try to end discrimination first and all other programs in place to counter it would end as well. "

Lloyd Hansen wrote on January 21, 2008 10:36 am:
" “Our mission is simple: It is about ending judging people based on physical characteristics,” he said.

Discriminating on the basis of race and gender is so common that we need ballot initiatives to ban it again. By the way, it is already illegal but are branded and packaged under the name of "diversity." It's hard to believe that so many people continue to force racial and gender preferences on the general public and tell us to like it. We don't like it and will prove we don't by passing this ballot proposal. "

Um... wrote on January 21, 2008 3:24 pm:
" based on Nebraska's own Nebraska Fair Employment Act (FEPA) isn't discrimination already outlawed? In fact, if we're really being honest - the same language used in the proposed amendment is already present on the University fo Nebraska's website. If this "reverse discrimination" is so rampant, why haven't rampant numbers of complaints been filed with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission?

By having to give your amendments/groups misleading names (Civil Rights Initiative when they have nothing to do with Civil Rights) and refusing to provide examples, it suggests this is nothing but histrionics designed to encourage the thought that every minority that has achieved a position in this state did so through preferential treatment when that is simply not the case.

"

President ReNee' S. Dunman, American Association for Affirmative Action wrote on January 23, 2008 8:01 am:
" On behalf of the American Association for Affirmative Action I applaud President Milliken, Dr.Perlman and all others in Nebraska who will continue to take a stand to support affirmative action. The assault on affirmative action has been extremely harmful to the pursuit of equal opportunity in education particularly. Proponents of anti-affirmative action initiatives have been successful by using language suggesting a vote against affirmative action is a vote for equality. It is unfortunate the language fails to accurately inform those who will have to live with the consequences of passing the legislation. This subversive strategy is disingenuous. Thank you NU for setting the record straight. Discrimination still exists. The unemployment rate for minority males is still twice as high as for white males. Even college-educated minority men, and women of every race and ethnic background, are paid less than comparably educated and trained white men. It is still harder for minorities and some women to rent apartments, get mortgages, get hired or promoted, in many places even to vote, than for whites. These are facts that can not and should not be ignored. When antibiotics are prescribed, patients are warned about discontinuance simply because symptoms subside. Instead, they are instructed to finish for optimum effect and prevention of reoccurrence. In the same vein, affirmative action must continue until a suitable alternative is introduced or discrimination has been eradicated. "