Court Ruling on Civil Rights

Edwin Yoder’s column “Heading Back to Square One: Affirmative Action Is Again a Tricky Business for Courts,” and William Raspberry’s companion column “. . . and the Winners Are: White Males (Op-Ed Page, June 15) simply chart the rise and fall of judicial endorsement of affirmative action programs, while giving a cursory treatment to the goal of affirmative action programs, a representative bureaucracy.

Yoder and Raspberry respond to the Supreme Court decisions in the Birmingham Fire Department promotion case and the female demotion case at AT&T; by once again giving affirmative action programs center stage while the programs’ goal of equality through a representative bureaucracy fades into the background. The end goal of a representative democracy, equality, must remain separate from its controversial implementation through affirmative action programs. Until our governmental bureaucracies are representative of the people they serve, we are only paying lip service to equality, the hallmark of democracy. Ultimately, the change in attitude towards equality must come from the people, but a representative bureaucracy will help bring about the change.

We all have an equal opportunity to pay taxes. These tax dollars create public jobs which all people should have the right to hold. It seems only equitable that when all people bear the burden of taxation, they too should reap the rewards.

Finally, it is imperative that our government lead the march toward equality. A representative bureaucracy serves as the catalyst to equality among people. We look to our government for leadership and guidance.

In the end, the elimination of discrimination and the achievement of equality depends on people, not on the judiciary, the legislature, or the President. We must not allow constitutional controversies over the means of implementing affirmative action programs taint the end goal of equality among people.

OLIVIA OLSEN

Buena Park