Panel on affirmative action highlights divides
The fires of contrasting affirmative action views are still burning hot on the CU campus.
Experts tip-toed on sticky slopes Wednesday night at Norlin Library during a panel discussion titled “Affirmative Action: Institutionalizing or Eliminating Racism?”
“I’ve never felt blacker than when I stepped onto the CU campus,” noted one audience member.
A crowd observed the discussion and engaged with the panelists, rehashing controversy fully loaded with passion and emotion.
“The issue is immediately salient for everyone here,” said Eric Juenke, moderator of the panel and an assistant professor of political science at CU.
Adding to his preface before the panel, Juenke went on to clarify the event was to be a discussion and not a debate. He said he hoped to eventually find commonality between the opposing sides for and against affirmative action.
“Civil society does not require respect, but it does require you to fake it,” Juenke said.
The panelists opposing affirmative action included Robert Nagel, the Ira C. Rothgerber Junior. Professor of Constitutional Law at the CU Law School, and Brad Jones, political consultant and former chair of CU’s College Republicans.
Speaking in favor of affirmative action were Michele Moses, an associate professor in the School of Education, and Melissa Hart, an associate professor at the CU Law School.
The discussion hit its first speed bump as the panelists grappled with an agreeable definition for affirmative action. Jones prefaced his first response by rejecting the term altogether, using the phrase “racial preference” instead.
Jones explained that he agreed with the traditional model of affirmative action, which he said were similar to the ideals of John F. Kennedy’s campaign. However, Jones noted that in practice, it is more like meeting a set quota, which he described as racial preference.
As soon as Hart was able to speak, she confronted Jones’ assertions of the term.
“There is such a large range of affirmative action measures,” Hart said. “It is far from racial preference.”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines affirmative action as “an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons.”
Moses pointed out the root of the discrepancy.
“Affirmative action and racial preference are very different,” Moses said. “Language is crucial in this issue. It is a big deal what word you say.”
The panelists never agreed on a universal definition.
None of the panelists, however, refuted the existence of racial oppression in the United States.
“There has been severe problems with racial inequality since before we were the United States and continuously thereafter,” Nagel said.
Nagel said his concern with affirmative action did not stem from a refusal to acknowledge racial injustice, but with the effectiveness of affirmative action programs themselves.
“[Affirmative action] provides a set of motivations and aspirations, and is a good effort at inclusiveness and fairness,” Nagel said. “We need to look at the extent to which programs are effective in addressing racial inequality.”
According to Nagel, affirmative action programs fall short in helping people of color and sometimes hinder them. However, the supporting side said they think such programs are vital.
Moses described her hope for the future when asked there will be a point where affirmative action programs will not be needed.
“My answer’s ‘yes’, which is the easy part,” Moses said. “It’s the when which is the hard part.”
Moses spoke of a future when all public schools will be funded at an excellent level in which students of color truly receive equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work. Moses also said she envisioned a future when a black man running for president is not viewed as unusual.
Moses stood vehemently by her beliefs and refused to “relax her idealism.”
Hart wasn’t quite as optimistic as her counterpart.
“If I’m honest in my heart, I don’t think we have had, do have, or will have a color-blind society,” Hart said. “I hope there will be a time where race is not a barrier, but there won’t be a time where race is irrelevant to a person’s experience.”
Another topic discussed by the panel was diversity in higher education classrooms.
Jones said the lack of diversity on campus was intellectual laziness on the part of the university. Stressing that CU worships the word “diversity”, Nagel said he is infuriated by the term.
“I’m just not convinced, and I’ve been around this kind of talk for 30 years,” Nagel said. “I have never heard any discussion about the real advantages to having racial diversity in the classrooms.”
Hart opposed his comment, explaining that by ensuring a range of backgrounds, a class is more likely to have a richer debate.
“Any individual’s viewpoint will be shaped by their race,” Hart said.
The affirmative action debate is anticipated to gain momentum going into the summer because of two current initiatives on the table for the ballot.
Initiative 31, titled the “Colorado Civil Rights Initiative,” opposes affirmative action and seeks to eradicate any type of preferential treatment, and basically all affirmative action programs.
The second initiative, Initiative 61, is in direct response to the civil rights initiative and differs in allowing diversity and retention programs.
Clara Nevarez, a second year law student, supports moderate equal opportunity programs like recruitment. She supports Initiative 61.
“Initiative 31 is dangerous,” Nevarez said. “It is deceptively framing itself as an anti-discrimination initiative, but is really doing away with all moderate equal opportunity programs.
Darrell Jackson, a first year doctoral candidate in law, said the panel was fantastic and enabled him to see glimpses of commonality between the opposing panelists.
“There was a good cross-section of views, and a good discussion of definitions,” Jackson said. “I could see one understanding the other. I definitely saw some areas where the light was the same.”
Contact Campus Press Staff Writer Monica Stone at monica.stone@colorado.edu.
