Civil Rights Commission

My compliments to Carl T. Rowan (Editorial Pages, March 11) for wishing to abolish the Civil Rights Commission. His reason, that Clarence Pendleton made it a sham, is even accurate for the most part. His only error is the word made . Pendleton simply exposed the commission as the sham that it is and always has been.

It is simply self-contradictory for there to be a commission established to overcome racism while at the same time focusing on race. (Just as it is impossible for there to be a commission to overcome sexism while focusing on sex.)

Pendleton has done more to follow the original mandate of the Civil Rights Commission than any other chairman. He has refused to make appeals on the basis of race. He has refused to offer programs on the basis of race. In fact, he has refused to do anything but ignore the question of race altogether. In other words, everything he has done has helped and is helping to eliminate racism in this country and in so doing, has made it possible to eventually abolish the Civil Rights Commission altogether.

In an oft-quoted dissent (Plessy vs. Ferguson, 1896), Supreme Court Justice Harlan stated eloquently what is and should be the goal of the civil rights movement:

Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.”

Martin Luther King Jr. also recognized that to be the goal of the civil rights movement: “A man should be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.” Racism exists whether its effects are beneficial (affirmative action) or destructive (slavery). The proper goal of the civil rights movement is not to replace “white” superiority with “black” superiority, but to eliminate the question of color altogether.

It has been quite a while since a candidate for public office has gone into a black community and addressed issues other than the “black agenda.” Pendleton is to be praised for laying a foundation on which issues can be addressed without regard to race. Only by a continuation of his and others’ efforts can racism in this country be put on the road to extinction.

JOHN C. EASTMAN

Claremont

I certainly share the anger of Rowan over the civil rights-busting antics of Clarence Pendleton, who has insulted sincere and respected black leaders with personal attacks. He has blocked every attempt to promote affirmative action. And, he has been relentless in his efforts to elevate President Reagan’s 19th-Century view of minority rights as the new policy of the commission.

But, should we let our anger over this man cloud our reason? It is not “a lame argument” to say that abolishing the Civil Rights Commission because of Pendleton, would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Men come and go, but institutions remain.

Would we have been justified in wiping the German nation and its people off the face of the earth because of the crimes of Hitler? The fact is the Civil Rights Commission is necessary and will remain an important policy suggesting body.

It was not just “created” out of the good intentions of Dwight Eisenhower in 1957, but rather came about through hard struggle by blacks in the South against Jim Crow laws and practices. The Civil Rights Commission was a key part of comprehensive civil rights legislation enacted by Congress that year.

During the turbulent 1960s, the commission played a major role in formulating many of the policy recommendations on civil rights that later became law. On voting rights, for instance, the commission was the first government body to recommend abolition of the literacy tests, and other unfair voting restrictions, reapportionment of voting districts, and the use of federal registrars to prevent discrimination in voting.

All of these steps were eventually enacted into law. So, to say that we should just abolish such an institution because of one appointee is to belittle it. The Civil Rights Commission, left alone, I suspect, will survive the Pendletons.

But what may be more difficult is for it to survive those like Carl Rowan who would literally kill it with good intentions.

EARL OFARI

Inglewood

Rowan essentially accuses Reagan’s Civil Rights Commission and its leader Clarence Pendleton of putting the civil rights movement back a hundred years.

While I do sympathize with some of the concerns that people have over some of the actions and policies that this commission has implemented, I do not agree with Rowan’s assessment. The obvious weakness of this commission’s policies comes in the fact that they are not as “handout”-oriented as previous administrations and there are some people who do need a hand right now. They are not getting it and therefore there is some hunger and unsheltered people and this should not be in this nation. But I also believe that Pendleton has brought a breath of fresh air to the political picture of how to deal with the dichotomy between the poor and the well to do.

This is not an easy issue, but the handout method and the reverse discrimination policy are at best a stop gap, and they will not in the long run change things. I know that it is not a popular thing for anyone to come out and say that it is time for blacks to forget about the past and to try and compete on a equal basis with the rest of society, or to say that in the long run the free handout system will contribute more to the keeping of blacks down then helping them out of their present state. Pendleton does not want to destroy the work of the civil rights movement, rather he wants to invest its progress in a program that will eventually eradicate the circumstances that made the movement necessary.

No one person will solve the inequality that exists in this world, but so few are really ready to make even small personal sacrifices, such as hiring a minority to give them a start. This is not in conflict with the love of Christ.

Pendleton is right, blacks do not need a handout but only an opportunity. The truth is that that many of the poor in this country are not downtrodden but only lazy and handicapped by the notion that becauses some of their ancestors were slaves, the world owes them something, and Pendleton is getting flak for saying so.

ROLF ENGWALL

La Mirada

Three cheers for Carl Rowan. I never miss one of his columns. He always makes so much sense. This one on Clarence Pendleton is the best yet.

I do hope Congress will take his advice and cancel out the Civil Rights Commission. Then we will never need to see or hear Pendleton on TV again.

MARGARET GARCIA

Homeland

Hooray for Clarence Pendleton. Kudos to Education Secretary William Bennett. Right on, Budget Director David Stockman. What this country needs are more Pendletons, Bennetts and Stockmans--people who have the guts to tell it like it is.

Enough is enough. Although I belong to the minority, I am one of the silent majority, that portion of the population who is tired of being played for a sucker by those special interest groups who really are only after their own benefits and those who prefer to be on the dole forever because it is easier.

DOLORES GARCIA

West Hollywood

I agree with Rowan. Congress “ought to vote swiftly to abolish the U.S. Civil Rights Commission” to help reduce the federal deficit.

Although the $13 million budget of the commission is only a drop in the large deficit bucket, the commission under Pendleton is worthless and the money could be put to much better use.

I am an American of African descent, and it infuriates me to hear the statements Pendleton makes about blacks and black leaders. Especially when he once held a high position in the NAACP.

Hypocrisy is the same whether it’s coming from blacks or whites. Pendleton speaks of real equality for everyone, not just for black people. Well, his statements and actions prove to me he is a bigot, not a bigot against blacks or for that matter whites. He is bigoted against people without the green (money).

But what can you expect, coming from a person who helped approve one of Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese’s controversial loans.

I am pleased to see blacks get influential positions, and I don’t think that once in the position they should only concern themselves with the black agenda. But from Pendleton we have gotten only insults and blind devotion to cronies. He personally has done more to drive a wedge between the races than anyone I’ve seen in recent years.

JOSEPH URQUHART

Tarzana