Now
Overcast
30°
High
40°
Low
22°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Editorial
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Vote no on affirmative action ban

Comments 47 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 - 12:55:34 am CDT

Initiative Measure 424 on the Nov. 4 ballot would strip away important tools for preserving equal opportunity in Nebraska.

The Journal Star editorial board recommends a vote against the proposal.

On its face, the proposed amendment seems harmless enough, perhaps even laudable.

The ballot advises voters that the amendment would “prohibit the State, any public institution of higher education, political subdivision or government institution from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in operating public employment, education or contracting.”

The crux of the debate is whether giving “preferential treatment” is justified in order to meet goals such as giving an equal chance to ethnic groups that are underrepresented in universities and in some workplaces, or to create a more stimulating academic environment and a more effective work force.

If the ability of universities and employers to grant preferential treatment, or to consider race when making hiring or admission decisions, is eliminated, college classrooms and work forces are likely to become less diverse.

“The playing field is still not level; extreme pockets of poverty and inequality exist…,” University of Nebraska President J.B. Milliken and Creighton President John P. Schlegel wrote in an op-ed column published in the Journal Star. “The proposed amendment seeks to exclude and divide, and it will limit opportunity and access to those who need it most.”

Proponents of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative have a poor record of presenting their proposal fairly and accurately. Petition circulators did not always accurately inform signers on the nature of the petition, for example.

Most recently, proponents contended that admission of minority students who had lower LSAT scores than some white students was evidence of “discrimination.” Wrong. Scores on the LSAT are not the gold standard for determining whether a candidate is qualified. They are only one criterion, and a nonobjective one at that.

As Dean Steve Willborn of the NU Law College put it, “We can better discuss foreign affairs if we admit students from other countries. We can discuss agricultural policy better of we have students from rural Nebraska and we can better discuss alleged race-based police practices if we admit African-Americans.”

There has been considerable debate on what the proposed amendment to the constitution would specifically do to hiring and college admission practices.

The best answer probably is that no one really knows for sure.

Lawsuits are sure to follow if the amendment passes. The ballot language even invites it, stating, “A cause of action for violation would be created.”

A wiser course of action is to protect the ability of employers and university officials to make fair decisions on hiring and admissions.

A wide variety of Nebraska organizations, ranging from the Lincoln and Omaha Chambers of Commerce to the Nebraska State Education Association to University of Nebraska Board of Regents, opposes the measure.

The Journal Star editorial board stands with them. So should you.


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

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
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)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Eric wrote on October 15, 2008 5:18 am:
" Leave it to the Journal Star to promote fear over the affirmitive action ban. "A wiser course of action is to protect the ability of employers and university officials to make fair decisions on hiring and admissions." It will NOT prohibit employers from hiring a diverse workforce. Hiring is governed by FEDERAL law and will still prohibit discrimination based on race or sex. What this ban will do is end reverse discrimination. Your admission to colleges and universities should be based on your qualifications and not the color of your skin or your gender. It is time to stop with the scare tactics. I would expect more from a supposed newspaper. "

 UpInSmoke wrote on October 15, 2008 5:30 am:
" The LJS editorial board must be very concerned that the Affirmative Action measure on the ballot will pass, Well they should be concerned! AA IS reverse discrimination no matter how well it's sugar coated. With current population trends, it's a mathematical certainty that caucasion's will be the minority in the U.S. in the next 50 years. I would be willing to bet that the members of the LJS editorial board have not experianced the negative effect's of Affirmative Action, If they had, their oppinion of AA would most likely be alot differant. Let people be judged purely on their credential's & not their race or sex. "

 Outraged in Omaha wrote on October 15, 2008 6:12 am:
" Affirmative action should be abolished in Nebraska. Having quotas for hiring minorites and women is an antiquated behemoth and has shown to be an instigator of nasty office politics, increased stress and reduced production. We need to hire the best qualified people and not based on race, creed, color or gender. The best qualified. The hiring process has been hindered and stifled for the last 30 years because of affirmative action. Look at our dysfunctional state and county governments. It's time to abolish affirmative action in Nebraska. "

 Berten Earnest wrote on October 15, 2008 6:31 am:
" "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr. August 28, 1963.

Sorry Dr. King, apparently we still need mandates to judge each individual's merits based on the color of their skin and not on the content of their character. "

 Gerard Harbison wrote on October 15, 2008 7:08 am:
" "Most recently, proponents contended that admission of minority students who had lower LSAT scores than some white students was evidence of “discrimination.” Wrong. Scores on the LSAT are not the gold standard for determining whether a candidate is qualified. They are only one criterion, and a nonobjective one at that."

CEO presented two lines of evidence: undergraduate GPA, and LSATs, to support the existence of discrimination. I suppose it's possible that the minority applicants scored much higher on other criteria, on average, than whites, but why would one assume that? Where's the evidence?

So the Journal Star claims the only evidence presented is not evidence, and then, without evidence, conjectures that minority applicants might have scored better on other, unspecified criteria. Please! If LSAT scores aren't evidence of the relative merit of applicants, why does UNL Law College use them?

But what's even funnier is the Journal Star says the CEO study is not evidence discrimination occurred, and then quotes the Dean, who admits discrimination occurred, but says it's OK!

Doesn't matter. Nebraska voters have heard too much of this kind of prevarication already, and are going to vote massively for the ban on preferences. "

 Quick note wrote on October 15, 2008 7:23 am:
" If the amendment above included sexual orientation and you wouldn't vote for it - you have no business voting for it as it is. Because if that's the case, you don't actually think discrimination is wrong. "

 WCG wrote on October 15, 2008 7:31 am:
" Exactly right. The playing field is NOT level. It is hugely weighted towards whites, due to inequities built up over centuries in America. We will never be the country we should be until we level the playing field, and right now, that requires affirmative action.

Most Nebraskans aren't deliberately racist (though far, FAR too many are). But unconscious, implicit racism is everywhere. Look how McCain and Palin use it to imply that Barack Obama is 'foreign,' somehow. The reality, of course, is that he's as American as any of us, a man who has lived the American dream, rising from poverty on his own intelligence and drive. But,... he's black, which means 'alien' to most Nebraskans.

The color of your skin still matters in Nebraska, still matters in America. And it is a huge DISADVANTAGE. Some truly exceptional people can overcome that, but more ordinary Americans have a much harder time. So, are we going to pick what's good for the state, what's good for the country,... or are we going to pick what might be good for ourselves only? If it's the later, note that this will be just a short-term benefit, because in the long-term, continued affirmative action will benefit ALL of us. "

 Roger Clegg Ctr for Equal Opportunity wrote on October 15, 2008 7:43 am:
" What an unpersuasive editorial! Let me start with its claim that a recent study by my organization, the Center for Equal Opportunity, did not produce evidence of admissions discrimination at the University of Nebraska law school. This is simply false, and I urge those interested to take a look at the study itself, at this link: http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/627/119/

There’s really no controversy: When confronted with the study, the law school dean conceded that the school engages in such discrimination, and admits students from the favored races with lower academic qualifications than those of unfavored races. Not only are their LSAT scores lower, but their undergraduate grades are as well. As a result, a white resident of Nebraska in 2007 was more than twenty times less likely to be admitted than an African American applicant from out of state with the same academic qualifications.

The editorial’s other arguments are no better. For example, leveling the playing field is fine, but you can find people of all colors at both ends. Help for the disadvantaged should not depend on skin color. Finally, the states that have passed these ballot initiatives--California, Washington, and Michigan--have not seen a flood of litigation. Nebraska won’t either. "

 bob wrote on October 15, 2008 8:18 am:
" California passed this initiative without any following problems for minority opportunities. Prior to the initiative, Calif. set quotas for women and minorities in all gov't hiring. The L.A. Fire Dept had to hire so many women. But the women couldn't lift the ladders off of the trucks or carry the hoses- they were not strong enough. People wwere promoted only because they fit the quotas. Now look at the finances of Calif. gov't. they are bankrupt. Jobs should go to the best qualified, not base on race and gender. "

 Bill wrote on October 15, 2008 8:45 am:
" It would appear that your afraid of the truth.

The truth that people can do well if they work at it, the truth that Government should not be inside of everything. "

 lillian wald wrote on October 15, 2008 8:56 am:
" this is an awesome editorial. i am so thrilled to see the journal star standing up for what is right. until minorities have equal opportunity (and anyone who thinks they do right now has not done their homework on the issue), programs such as affirmative action will continue to be necessary. thank you, journal star!!!! "

 Edgar Pearlstein wrote on October 15, 2008 9:01 am:
" Sometimes a prestigious college or university will give admission preferences to "legacy" students. Such a student has a parent or grandparent who is an alumnus. The military academies are examples, for they give preferences to kids whose fathers are high-up officers.

Still another kind of preference is geographical, as some colleges like to brag that they have students from all fifty ststes. "

 Ricky wrote on October 15, 2008 9:17 am:
" Not to worry!
I predict the initiative will fail by about 60 - 40.

Ricky From Omaha "

 rac wrote on October 15, 2008 9:59 am:
" Sorry, am voting yes. I don't really care for "special interest groups" and quotas (no need to insist "but there are no quotas"!). "

 dave wrote on October 15, 2008 10:44 am:
" I am strongly in favor of 424 and respectful disagree with the presumption above that our public institutions can make the ommipotent decision about who to discrimate against. Presidents Milligan and Schlegel should not assume that their decision on who to descrimate against is proper because they will discriminate towards the greater good.

Preferential treatment is simply discrimination against the non preferred class. Our current policy allows for and even encourages exclusion and division. Their actions are the reason to approve 424.

Discrimination is like a disease such as small pox. It has disfigured our society in the past with things that we can hardly even imagine today. It has improved greatly in the last 35 years. However, the disease can only be eliminated when every form of it is eradicted. As long as we have discrimination morphing into reverse discrimination, politically called preferrence, it can not be cured, it simply changes who it strikes.

It is PC to be against 424. However, discrimination because of race and gender must be eliminated, not celebrated by our public institutions as diversity.

Our university officials are seeking authority to decide on education by "who needs it most" by ethnic, racial or gender preference, not who is more qualified irregarless of these items. They are no more qualified to make this decision than you or I.

The decision is exceeding simple, If you want to continue discrimination then vote no and your unelected school officials can continue to decide who they wish to give preferrence to in hiring and in admittance into advance programs. However, if like me, you believe that discrimination based on gender and race is repugnant and needs eliminated then certainly vote yes. Don't let op ed pieces and editorials try to convince you that you can do away with discrimination by discriminating. That is as rediculous in depth as it is on its face. "

 Perspective wrote on October 15, 2008 10:47 am:
" What everyone seems to forget here is about perspective. Now I've met some of you and debated this issue tremendously time and time again.

After countless discussions I can gather that the real reasoning behind the two sides are

1.) Minorities are getting the jobs they don't deserve only because of their race, gender, and/or ethnicity.

Well we have to remember that being simply a Native American women does get anyone a job, they have to be qualified.

We also should remember that in our society white privilege is everywhere. Now white priviliege is not simply getting off on a traffic stop, but its also not having to be worried being scrutinized at work for being an Affirmative Action hire, not having members of your race being constantly viewed as criminals, and learning about history from your racial standing (Columbus day is really a federal holiday? We don't celebrate any other mass murderer's holiday).

Also do not demonize those who are white and who do not support this ban, I believe what they're doing (making the institution account for its past misdeeds) is very brave and noble especially in a state that votes whatever party leaders say.

PS. My last rant, can we please have an educated discussion, its troubling to see these comments about quotas still. They're outlawed end of story. "

 wally wrote on October 15, 2008 11:03 am:
" The above editorial states that the wise course of action is "to protect the ability of employers and university officials to make fair decisions on hiring and admissions". Isn't that exactly what this ban would do? Wouldn't this ban allow those in charge of hiring and admissions to determine who is most qualified without having to consider race, ethnicity or gender? The fact that the LJS come out against the ban and then, in effect, recommended the ban in their editorial indicates most people recognize this ban's validity, but don't like the yucky feeling that comes from openly endorsing it. "

 MarkyMark wrote on October 15, 2008 11:12 am:
" I am voting yes to the ban. This will make Nebraska place where the best and most qualified will be hired. Watch our economy flourish after this passes. We will no longer discriminate based on race or color. We have come a long way in Nebraska and this will only help. "

 Amber wrote on October 15, 2008 11:37 am:
" MarkyMark: You really think that getting rid of AA will resolve racist attitudes in Nebraska and will inadvertently boost our economy? That has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

All people, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, etc have some sort of prejudices. It is up to the person to confront these issues, accept them, and decide to not act on them. We are socialized to think and feel this way--we are a product of our society; however, we have the power to not let these unconscious feelings/beliefs overtake us.

Most Nebrakans are racists- although not all are outwardly racist. Banning AA is NOT going to make our society better. If anything, it is going to propel the disenfranchisment of minorities INCLUDING women!

Women, do you want white men to hold all the jobs? Do you want to continue making $.75 to every man's dollar? If yes, vote for the ban. I only hope that you can step up to the plate and realize that AA not only benefits minorities BUT more importantly- YOU!

Vote NO on the amendment- do something good for your state. "

 Michael wrote on October 15, 2008 11:43 am:
" The time for affirmitive action programs has come and gone. Really. "

 R wrote on October 15, 2008 12:19 pm:
" stay in your area of expertise please. You are not a Dean of the Law College and not at all involved in the admissions process at the Law College. You have no idea what criteria are used and you don't understand the needs of the Law College. As a white law student, my education is harmed if this ban passes. The experiences I will have in law school will be limited. And, job opportunities may also be limited. National law firms value diversity and are going to be less likely to come to a University that lacks it to conduct on campus interviews. Law firms value diversity and focus on ensuring that they achieve it. It's sad that people who have no idea what the law school needs or what the legal community is asking for would have the power to alter how the law school conducts its admissions.

It's further evidence that this is a racially motivated ballot initiative. Instead of learning the real issues involved - why, for example, a law school may want to consider race, or class, or gender, or geographic location in admissions - all that matters is that people with dark skin are getting in when someone with white skin thinks they don't deserve to be.

November 4th will be an embarrassment to all Nebraskans who believe in TRUE fairness and equality, not a made-up measure of it that helps perpetuate centuries of racism in this country. "

 A Nebraska Minority wrote on October 15, 2008 12:26 pm:
" I am pleased to see so many thoughtful, educated responses to this editorial.

As a minority here in Nebraska, I am disgusted, yet not surprised, by the decision of the Lincoln Journal Star (among others) to take such a discriminatory stance against "leveling the playing field". My minority status does not mean I'm starting in a hole. And it does not qualify me for a head start. My childhood poverty and lack of "superior" education does not keep me from achieving and exceeding the standards put before me in education and work. The occasional acts of discrimination and hatred I and other minorities experience are not enough to keep me from pursuing my dreams. Please stop seeing me as needing "a leg up" because I'm a minority.

Though I can understand why Affirmative Action was necessary at first, years ago, it is not necessary for me today, and has truly become detrimental to my future and self-esteem. Without Affirmative Action, I am still protected by law from discrimination because of my minority status. With Affirmative Action, I am almost always recognized and evaluated based primarily on my minority status, sometimes for nearly nothing more.

I cannot wait for the day that my minority status does not influence my ability to compete with my fellow Americans fair and square. Only then will Nebraskans begin to accurately judge my worth as a person of character and integrity rather than as minority, here only to bring "diversity" to campuses and corporations.

If "diversity" is what you seek, please bring some successful minorities from the community in to lecture and/or participate in the learning process. There are plenty of them, and I'm sure they'd be willing to help. Don't expect it from me if I am an under-qualified student -- this just sets me up to eventually fail if I can't overcome obstacles far greater than the ones other "majority" students are presented with. I am not here for your lesson in "diversity". I am here to fairly compete with and learn from my fellow peers.

I, unlike the Lincoln Journal Star, am asking my fellow Nebraskans to consider my need and desire to be accepted as equal when voting this November. Please help us eliminate Affirmative Action. "

 Tom wrote on October 15, 2008 1:11 pm:
" Thanks LJS editors. If I would have been confused on this matter your opinion piece would have helped. Way I see it - LJS promoted King George twice - anyone intelligent enough to do that makes you understand to do exactly opposite of what they say is good. You say to vote no, I am voting yes. Can not ever go wrong to do opposite of what these editors tihnk you should do. "

 Sadie wrote on October 15, 2008 1:38 pm:
" I was born in Mexico and am now a naturalized citizen. I also oppose this ban. I have worked very hard putting myself through community college while raising three kids. to finish off a four year degree I moved to UNL, I have had numerous job oppourtunities since. I would like to think that where I am today is from my hard work, perservation and diligence, not handed to me to fill a ststus quo because of my ethnicity. I would be dissapointed to find out I got special treatment down my hard road while others who were more qualified went without oppourtunity because they are white. "

 Jeannie Jackson wrote on October 15, 2008 2:35 pm:
" I may not live in Nebraska, but a ban on affirmative action hurts us all. How about someone giving an opportunity to you when you needed it. That's all it is. For years minorities and women were shut out from the opportunities and now people feel it's a level playing field - but it isn't. I would vote "NO" on the ban on affirmative action. "

 Tanya wrote on October 15, 2008 2:38 pm:
" None of the arguments in support of 424 have addressed the issue of how one becomes "qualified" for college/university matriculation or a job in the first place. A person is ignorant of American history if he or she believes that everyone in the U.S. has equal access--yes, even today--to an elementary and secondary education that prepares one for college or a career. Inequalities are still inherent in our system. How can an institution of higher education or an employer choose the most qualified when the avenues for getting to that point are already unequal? For example, consider how some school districts--those largely populated by minorities--struggle financially and, therefore, scholastically (i.e., fewer resources, less technology, etc.) because taxes are not distributed equally but are based on who lives in those districts (which raises issues of class). The pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps model doesn't work. What's unfair is being kicked down over and over even when a person if trying to pick him- or herself up. "

 Gerard Harbison wrote on October 15, 2008 4:27 pm:
" The poorest county in Nebraska is 98% white. The second poorest county in Nebraska is also 98% white. Poverty has no skin color, particularly in this state, where most of the poverty is rural. If you want to help poor people or students from poor school districts, this amendment will not hinder you. It will simply prevent you from choosing the recipients of your preferences by their race or ethnicity. And you shouldn't be using race or ethnicity as a proxy for disadvantage anyway. "

 RD wrote on October 15, 2008 4:28 pm:
" From the Daily Nebraskan, October 15th: The University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law has a discriminatory admissions process that favors black students over white students 442 to one, according to a new study from the Center for Equal Opportunity. The study, published Oct. 8, said in 2006 and 2007, the law school admitted some minority students over white students with higher test scores and higher GPAs.

It doesn't sound like UNL is telling the truth. This is reverse discrimination. I think affirmative action should be banned in Nebraska and all over America. No more quotas. The best qualified should go to Law School and Medical School, and the best qualified should be hired as first-responders; ie Policemen, Firemen and our Military. We need to quit choosing people based on quotas, color, gender, marital status or race.

It appears that the federal earmark-loving, politically correct UNL School of Law believes in the 'dumbing down of America' concept and the Lincoln Journal Star endorsed King George the Psychopath twice, so I'm voting YES on IM 424. "

 Clear wrote on October 15, 2008 4:54 pm:
" Let's be clear.

Regardless of whether Initiative 424 passes or does not, discrimination based on race and/or sex will continue to be illegal in Nebraska and in the United States. I say this with the caveat that if the initiative fails, it will continue to be legal to discriminate against white males under Affirmative Action programs in Nebraska.

Affirmative Action programs are institutionalized systems of giving preference to individuals based on their race or sex. In other words, legally approved and even mandated discrimination. Granted this discrimination is intended to offset the 'advantages' that white males have in our society. Of course this ignores the fact that there are many privileged women and persons of color, and many white males who are underprivileged.

I believe that racism and sexism still exist in our society. And I believe that for the past 40 years Affirmative Action played a role in improving those social ills. However, now after 40 years of this institutionalized discrimination, I do not believe that it is currently a viable strategy. Discriminating against some as a way to ‘fix’ discrimination against others was a desperate move in desperate times. It is time to leave those desperate measures behind. "

 stignob wrote on October 15, 2008 5:17 pm:
" Shouldn't LJS be fair and un-biased. Though it is an op-ed we now know the where the they stand on issues, just like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN.... "

 We as a nation wrote on October 15, 2008 5:19 pm:
" We as a nation are not ready to remove Affirmative action in this country. We have a very large pockets of prejudice in places you might not even imagine them being.
We haven't grown enough to eliminate the NEED for Affirmative Action. In another 50-100 years, perhaps we will. "

 Jody P. wrote on October 15, 2008 6:54 pm:
" Tanya, you couldn't be more wrong. People pull themselves up by their bootstraps all the time. For example, I've worked with many Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in this country (a) speaking little English, (b) with only one change of clothes, and (c) with only a few dollars in their pocket. One in particular described how he worked two low-paying jobs at once and put himself through school, often getting his sleep by napping between jobs in his old car. He became a highly-paid engineer, and of course his CHILDREN now have all the extra benefits this country can offer, including good schools.

And the examples aren't limited to Asians, either. People from eastern Europe and the West Indies do the same thing. Throughout our history immigrants like the Italians and Irish have achieved success through sheer hard work.

That's something that liberal neo-socialists just can't grasp. They want people to be saying "give me this, give me that,..." instead of pulling themselves up the way millions upon millions of people have done. "

 TR wrote on October 15, 2008 9:01 pm:
" Jody, how do people pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they can't afford boots?

You and lots of others willfully ignore the social and economic structures that people are born into.

And just what does "neo-socialist" mean, in your world? "

 Ugh wrote on October 15, 2008 10:44 pm:
" It's not just limited to Asians, Jody? REALLY!! Thanks for enlightening us that other minorities actually work hard too. Good grief we already knew that. The problem is, there are studies showing that when those who pull themselves up by their bootstraps send their resume, or submit an application, the same application with an "ethnic" sounding name is less likely to get invited for an interview than if that same application has a more "white" sounding name. With that kind of measurable discrimination, it's not simply a matter of pulling yourself up, it's a matter of racist disrimination. "

 In other words wrote on October 15, 2008 11:19 pm:
" TR says: "You and lots of others willfully ignore the social and economic structures that people are born into."

In other words, you and lots of others have hope for mankind.

I, for one, am glad! "

 Cornfused wrote on October 15, 2008 11:46 pm:
" Can someone please explain to me how the EEOC and AA can coexist on the books? They seem to be paradoxical to me. "

 Tzi wrote on October 16, 2008 12:06 am:
" Wow - a bunch of libs backing Affirmative Action. I'm so...not shocked at all.

You're all in favor of "racial preferences" as long as the preference isn't white? Got it.

If diversity is so great, why isn't there more conservative opinion amongst your staff and at UNL campus? "

 Nina wrote on October 16, 2008 9:13 am:
" As a 64 1/2 year old woman whose work hours have recently been cut 25%, I am acutely aware of discrimination against older workers. I don't plan to retire, but instead to work as long as health permits. Even in my sideline business of providing live music for restaurants, etc. age is a factor. I tailor my music to the ages of my audience, which many appreciate. But a young person recently told me, incredibly, 'Why, you're just an old grandma rocker!' Humorous, but another instance of age discrimination. There are all sorts of discrimination, including ethnic, personal appearance, age, religion, etc. and not until one of them hits personally are some people willing to see that it's a problem we need to keep fighting. "

 Diversity wrote on October 16, 2008 9:38 am:
" If racial diversity is so great, how can China possibly compete so well with us. Their universities, government, workplaces are all far less diverse than ours. Not to mention their olympic teams, 100 percent ethnic chinese, oh the homogenous horror! "

 Agree with Tom wrote on October 16, 2008 10:25 am:
" If the LJS and the University tell me to vote no, then I will vote yes. Thanks for the help. The public has to stand up to the powers that be in this state. The University thinks it runs the state and boy oh boy the LJS sure backs them up. The University dictated taking the State Fairgrounds and now they are telling us how to vote on this issue. Sorry, the University is here to provide an education not to dictate public policy. An yes, I am a University of Nebraska graduate. But when they took the Fairgrounds that's where my support stops for the University. The Fair belongs in Lincoln at its historic site. "

 Oh please. wrote on October 16, 2008 12:34 pm:
" Nebraska is completely intolerant. And when someone whips out 'reverse discrimination', I always laugh. Really? Nebraska discriminates against whites? Hmm. "

 key word wrote on October 20, 2008 8:59 pm:
" The key phrase in this article seems to be preferential treatment. You've proven the argument against your point. No preferential treatment should be given to anyone. The best candidate for the position should get the job. Whats unfair about that? "

 Tanya wrote on October 21, 2008 11:49 am:
" Yet again, who decides how "best candidate" is defined? Too many people seem to want to avoid the complexity of this issue.

And Jody, you insinuate because I have an opinion on the bootstrap metaphor/grand narrative that somehow I'm a "liberal neo-socialist"? Why can't I just be someone who cares about America and Americans and wants to participate in a civil, democratic debate?

A few or even thousands of examples do not necessarily justify a generalization or form a truth. And I say that even though my own grandfather, an Italian immigrant, was a fairly successful businessman. Even so, my family's one experience does not outweigh a social history and current events that demonstrate that the bootstrap model does not work. (For a discussion about this metaphor and how it is born out of the strict father model, consider language scholar George Lakeoff's work; a short piece of his can be found here: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/01_lakoff_gop2.shtml.)

And just an off-topic word about socialism...From it's birth, America has had socialistic--i.e., "in common"--qualities, including the postal service, public works, education, etc. Actually the most audacious act of "socialism" in American in my lifetime appears to be the current administration's rescue of the American banking system (note the deliberate choice of the word "rescue" versus some other word such as "takeover"). All of us, regardless of party affiliation or leaning, should be concerned about this decision. "

 Bob Hopper wrote on October 27, 2008 11:06 am:
" Lets see, we are trying to be "FAIR".... Humm, I wonder what happens to the USA when we don't strive to be competitive but instead worry more about being "FAIR"? "

 Lisa wrote on October 29, 2008 1:53 am:
" I'm SO glad to hear that there are minorities that are insulted by AA! You should be. "Here, based the color of your skin, I'm going to assume you had a terrible education, aren't smart enough or hard working enough to get into college or a good job on your own." That's terrible! If anything, this sort of assistance should be based on socioeconomic status, not race. Race does NOT determine whether or not someone has the opportunities to have a successful life. "

 no name wrote on November 2, 2008 9:54 pm:
" “The playing field is still not level; extreme pockets of poverty and inequality exist…,” University of Nebraska President J.B. Milliken and Creighton President John P. Schlegel wrote in an op-ed column published in the Journal Star.

One point only: Measure 424 states NOTHING about eliminating programs/scholarships/etc. based on economic need. If your argument is that minorities are poor and need assistance, then poor minorities can still get such assistance. So can poor whites. So can rural poor. So can urban poor.

Economic need is and would still remain a viable factor for consideration. "

 Angee wrote on November 3, 2008 8:28 am:
" It is clear that we live in a racists state most of Nebraskans are clearly racists in there own way! we meaning black people DO NOT HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY we can have two or three degrees & go against one person that is white & they have no degree, trust me they will get the job before we do! Lets be real people you no it is true so until it gets better here in this prejudice state we need this!!!!!!!!! & that is keeping it real "

Ads by Yahoo!