A myth that mars equality
BY JESSICA PECK CORRY
Colorado Daily

Maybe I was offered this newspaper column because I’m a conservative. Maybe it was because of my gender or because of my race. I guess I never asked why I was hired. I was just happy to get the job.

Maybe I should have asked. According to the Urban League, America’s media establishment is racist. In its recent well-publicized report, titled “Sunday Morning Apartheid,” the League laments “under-representation” of black panelists on the nation’s top five Sunday morning political talk shows.

The facts are these - according to the League’s own research: only eight percent of Sunday morning political talk show guests are black, compared to their 12 percent representation in the U.S. as a whole.

Yes, you’ve got that right: the League believes that 4 percent under-representation equals Apartheid.

There is a touch of irony in the League’s insistence on this race-conscious analysis. It was, after all, under Apartheid in South Africa that racial distinctions were institutionalized into national law there. In 1950, the Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be racially classified into one of the three categories: white, black, or colored (mixed race).

It’s little wonder what those South Africans who actually suffered under Apartheid would think of the study. Where’s the discrimination, they’d likely ask.

The League’s report opens by noting that “these (television) programs consistently lack any African American participation in the discussion . . . from the war in Iraq to the economy to the electoral politics to Social Security to judicial nominations - leaving the impression that interest in and analysis of these topics are ‘for whites only.’”

Such a bogus analysis, of course, would never be suggested for other high-profile career fields dominated by blacks in America. Any study asserting that the NBA is “for blacks only” would be considered racist, and rightly so.

When I watch a basketball game on TV, I don’t turn the channel because there aren’t enough white players on the court. And as the saying goes, if my house were burning down, I wouldn’t care about the skin color of the firefighters who came to save it. Firefighters and athletes are as important to our society as any political talking head.

The Urban League is not the only institution for which “under-representation” has become the rallying cry. Such is the case for universities across the country. Take Stanford, where after years of lamenting “under-representation” of certain racial groups, the undergraduate population now boasts of a “minority-majority” of 54 percent.

At the University of New Hampshire in the late ’90s, administrators complained that minorities were “under-represented” as just 3.2 percent of the student body and 5 percent of the faculty, with one administrator saying “something had to be done about this disturbing imbalance.” This call came despite the fact that across the entire state of New Hampshire, one of the whitest states in the country, just 2.6 percent of residents were non-white, and less than one percent were black.

So, where was the “under-representation?” Clearly, there was none - at least if we’re tying representation to reality - the population from which universities can select students.

All of this raises interesting questions for the University of Colorado and other large state schools. According to CU’s web site, 14 percent of its student population is non-white, while the U.S. Census lists Colorado’s statewide minority population, as of 2003, at 17 percent.

How is this “under-representation” of 3 percent to be dealt with, and is it considered solved upon a 3 percent rise in non-white student enrollment? Similarly, will the Urban League be happy if Sunday morning talk shows increase the number of blacks on the shows by 5 percent?

What about Stanford or the University of New Hampshire-should these institutions be worried that whites are now “under-represented”?

When race and gender become a statistical game, the game can’t be won. As the examples above prove, the invention of “under-representation” by professional activists is simply a distraction from larger issues facing the noble effort to fight real discrimination in society.

This editorial originally appeared in the Colorado Daily on Thursday, August 25, 2005.

CU Students Should Look to Themselves for Savings
By Brad Jones

At a recent rally at the state capitol, CU tri-executive Jeremey Jimenez stumped in support of Referenda C and D. His message was an ominous one: scores of students, mostly the poor and minorities, would be unable to attend the state’s flagship university if the ballot measures went down. “How many of you might not be able to come back to school?” he asked.

What Mr. Jimenez failed to mention is he and his two co-executives wield the power to control a full 11.5% of an in-state student’s cost of attendance . In the 2005-06 school year, the University of Colorado Student Union will collect mandatory fees of $619.00 a year from each and every student on the Boulder campus – for a total well over $30 million.

Fees are increasingly becoming the new cash-cow for students and administrators eager to squeeze pennies out of students and parents increasingly sensitive to tuition increases. What value are students getting for their $619 a year? Some line items are more understandable than others: $162 for a recreation-center membership and $189 for upkeep of the student union building. Others would leave parents puzzled, that is if they had the time to pore through charts on the bursar’s web site.

One example: CU policy requires all full-time students to carry health insurance , but every undergraduate in Boulder pays $126 to subsidize the health center, regardless of their use of the facility. That means all students – whether insured by CU’s plan or covered by an HMO or their family doctor back in Montrose are kicking in 1 of every 3 dollars spent on student healthcare. When I was at CU, I was one of many students still carried by a parent’s plan. My one health center transaction in three years at CU – $20 to fill a prescription – would cost $378 (in today’s fees), even before I walked in the apothecary door.

Student-leader Jimenez didn’t mention all this because he has a horse – nay, a stable – in the race. According to his campaign web site he is a member of no less than nine separate “diversity” organizations at CU, all propped up by mandatory fees. Don’t expect him to demand reforms of other fees for “Student Worker,” the “Indegenous Support Network” or the “Boulder Rainforest Action Group.”

Students can make school more affordable for themselves; they just need to get an early lesson in politics and resisting special interests. Who says CU doesn’t teach real-life lessons?

Brad Jones is vice-president of the Colorado Civil Justice League and talk radio host on 1310 KFKA in Greeley.

Accused plagiarist Churchill let off on racial lie
By Jessica & Rob Corry
Originally Published On BackboneAmerica.net
August 23, 2005

David Lane, media spinster and attorney to the Far Left, has finally come to a point where he can spin no more. He and his client, Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado’s America-hating professor of the moment, laughably claimed “victory” yesterday upon learning that CU will move forward with its investigation into the professor’s professional incompetence and fraud. Nice try, Mr Lane, but no sale.

In its lead editorial Tuesday, the Rocky Mountain News correctly observes, “CU may have made plenty of mistakes in the way it hired and promoted Churchill over the years, but it has taken another small step toward partial redemption” with its findings.

While this is big news—and good news—it’s not good enough. CU’s subcommittee on research misconduct also stated that it will not move forward with allegations that Churchill lied about his ethnicity to nab positions that CU officials have admitted were offered to him at least partially because he falsely claimed Native American ancestry.

By refusing to reprimand Churchill on this count, and in spite of plenty of evidence that would allow them to do so, CU officials have failed to take one of the most important steps toward redemption. Essentially, they have said CU will continue to look the other way when it comes to questions of race.

Ultimately, the committee’s actions make Churchill’s dismissal more likely, but they do nothing to address CU’s continued reliance on race (and racism) in hiring and admissions. Churchill, hired because he was thought to be Indian, is just another white guy on a white campus. Does his ethnicity matter? Are his views less desirable on the campus because of his skin color? Or simply because they are filled with lies and inaccuracies?

The taxpayers deserve an answer. And as the legal bills inevitably mount, they deserve a flagship higher education institution where ideas and research—not skin color—get people jobs.

For those interested in learning more specifics on the Churchill investigation, including his unproven claim to Native American ancestry, visit my higher education section for our report from Claremont Institute Colorado, “No License To Lie: Standards For Impartial Judgment in the Churchill Scandal.”

CU diversity panel a good first step
By Jessica Peck Corry
Rocky Mountain News
August 12, 2005

Hank Brown managed an interesting feat his first week on the job. He made conservatives and liberals happy on the same day and with the same decision.

In announcing the creation of a blue-ribbon panel that will evaluate the University of Colorado’s diversity programs, liberals heard that the university’s newest president cares enough about diversity to convene the state’s top civic and business leaders to talk about it. Conservatives, after years of lamenting a lack of access and accountability within diversity programming, heard that they may finally be included in the process.

In an era when government and the private sector have created report cards to evaluate everything from the quality of K-12 education to the accessibility of health care, little is known about CU’s diversity programs or their effectiveness. Brown’s panel might provide much needed insight for CU’s 90-plus programs and initiatives.

Both camps might go home happy. And, in the end, taxpayers could be the beneficiaries with strengthened programs and more fiscal responsibility within CU’s diversity administration. Before this can happen, however, several important questions must be answered. At the top of the list: Just what exactly is diversity?

At CU, it appears to entail two objectives. First, it means promoting race-conscious programs that encourage students to view their education through the lens of race, gender and other non-intellectual characteristics. For this, CU has devoted portions of its student housing, counseling department, and academic fields. The mentality behind these programs is conflicted. People learn better when they are around people of other races, their logic goes, yet all too often these programs encourage students to segregate themselves based on race.

Diversity at CU also means helping those who might not otherwise have a chance to attend CU to do so. Brown is familiar with such efforts, which he took part in while serving as president of the University of Northern Colorado. These programs promote aggressive preparation and outreach for Colorado’s disadvantaged high school students, regardless of their race or gender.

Equally important to defining diversity, the panel must determine whether diversity of thought matters to CU. According to conservative student activists, it does not. Despite heated debates over ideological diversity and a subsequent commitment by university administrators to protect it over the last few years, students alleging this type of bigotry still have nowhere to go within the university to have their allegations adequately addressed.

One former conservative CU student activist alleging discrimination says he was laughed out of a high-ranking administrator’s office after being told that conservatives couldn’t be victims of bias because they “have all the power in our society.”

CU proclaims that ideological discrimination is not a problem. If true, where is the data to prove it? After all, the university collects statistics on every other type of discrimination, why not include ideological?

Another essential question: Are CU’s diversity programs open to all students as they should be? While the vast majority of CU’s diversity programs purport to be open to all students of all races, in reality many are not. Some wear the label of being open to “students of color” and “first-generation” students (those who are the first in their family to attend college). But what is CU doing to reach out to the poor white kid from rural Colorado whose parents attended college but who today cannot afford to fund his tuition? Does he matter under CU’s diversity objectives? He should.

Just last year, it took the threat of a federal lawsuit to lift bigoted admissions restrictions on a course within CU’s Education Department. The course had been previously advertised as open only to minority and first-generation students.

To be successful, Brown’s diversity panel must create a strong methodology that includes cost-benefit analysis. How do graduation rates for program participants rate when compared to the student population overall? Are more successful programs forced to compete for funding with those lagging behind?

Ultimately, the entire system needs - and deserves - a reliable report card. By asking the right questions, Brown’s panel has the promise of providing just that. If diversity is a worthy objective, it should ensure excellence and not just politically accepted forms of discrimination.

Care about Ref C? Interested in the red hot race for governor? Join Jessica and Rob Corry as they guest host a special edition of Backbone Radio on KNUS 710 AM from 5 to 8 p.m this Sunday, August 14th.

Headlining the show will be GOP gubernatorial candidates Marc Holtzman & Bob Beauprez.

Also joining us will be Rick O’Donnell, executive director of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. He’ll be discussing tuition increases at Colorado’s colleges, as well as other higher ed issues.

Finally, Denver Post columnist and audience favorite David Harsanyi will join us for a discussion surrounding the recent controversy over taxpayer-funded Spanish porn comics in the Denver public libraries.

We’ll be taking your calls on-air at 303-696-1971.

U. Colorado education class ‘desegregated’
08/04/2004

(U-WIRE) BOULDER, Colo. — University of Colorado-Boulder students who threatened to sue CU last week over an education class that was reserved for students of color or first-generation college students claimed victory Tuesday when CU announced it made a mistake.

Capitulating to the terms laid out by the students’ attorney, Robert J. Corry, CU sent an e-mail Tuesday to students enrolled in and waitlisted for the School of Education class “School and Society,” clarifying that a section of the class in question is not restricted only to racial minorities and students who are the first in their family to go to college.

“It was basically a total victory in this case,” said Corry. “This is a victory for equal protection and non-discrimination.”

Controversy arose from a July 27 e-mail sent to students advertising the class section, for which CU said it was attempting to recruit a “critical mass” of minority students. One student who attempted to register for the section was told by the academic advisor that he could only enroll if he met one of the two requirements — he must be a first-generation university attendee or a student of color.

School of Education Dean Lorrie Shepard defended the restricted section in the media, saying it was not against university policy or state regulations because the restrictions were not solely based on race. However, Corry and his clients argued that since students of color were not required to be first-generation to enroll, the class section was essentially “separate but equal,” a status that does not historically meet constitutional muster.

In Tuesday’s clarification e-mail, the university claimed that the class was never racially segregated, but the original e-mail was erroneous and the section was in fact open to all students.

“It is the intention of the School of Education to recruit students of color and first generation college students to participate in a special section of (’School and Society’) for the purpose of creating a critical mass of such students,” stated the e-mail. It went on to say that restricted enrollment based on race is against university policy and apologized for the “misunderstanding.”

The e-mail then encouraged students who wanted to sign up for the class to respond.

Shepard claimed that even before the “furor” over the erroneous e-mail, students who did not meet the requirements could have gotten into the special section if they asked an advisor.

“When students contact the student adviser — if they are in a section (of ‘School and Society’) already, they can move over. If they are waitlisted, they still have to operate by their priority on the waitlist,” Shepard explained.

The special section, which meets on Friday morning, still exists and administrators still hope to achieve a “critical mass,” whatever the definition, of minorities in the class.

“Having a special section does not go against state law. And working to have a critical mass does not go against state law,” said Shepard. “You can recruit. You just mustn’t absolutely say you can’t get in if you aren’t in one of these two groups.”

Despite popular belief, the student plaintiffs were not affiliated with CU’s College Republicans, but belonged to the Campus Accountability Project, led by Corry’s wife, Jessica Corry. CAP operates within the Independence Institute, a conservative think tank in Golden.

“Fifty years after the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, CU learned a valuable lesson today,” said Jessica Corry. “Segregation was wrong then, it is wrong now, and it will always be wrong.”