Heed the Sparks to Avoid Conflagration : Affirmative action should be reformed before an initiative further divides Californians.

California is a racial and ethnic tinderbox. And the raw emotions that have dominated the recent debate over illegal immigration have come perilously close to igniting flames like those that burned through South-Central Los Angeles almost three years ago.

But the sparks thrown off by Proposition 187 will be child’s play compared with the firestorm that’s likely to rage over the next two years as the future of affirmative action is fought across the state and nation. And since avoiding the debate is no longer either practical or desirable, what is almost as important as the result will be the manner in which it is conducted.

So before beginning to focus on the question of how a level playing field can be achieved, it may make more sense at the outset to discuss the lessons of Proposition 187. Maybe those of us on both sides can find in that experience a way to talk about issues related to race and ethnicity without allowing the discussion to devolve into demagoguery and race-baiting.

Proposition 187, it is important to remember, did not spring fully grown from the bellies of illegal immigration opponents. Rather, it was the almost inevitable byproduct of the rejection of a series of less inflammatory steps designed to slow the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. But calls for relief from the federal government, increased border control and tamper-proof identification systems were immediately rejected amid charges of racism, xenophobia and scapegoating.

By the time the argument reached the initiative stage and the populist forces supporting it were unleashed, the opposition realized its predicament. Illegal immigration is a problem, they now said, but Proposition 187 is not the answer. Instead, they suggested tighter border control, federal reimbursement for services for illegals and an identification system that would allow for stiffer penalties against exploitative employers--precisely the same measures they had earlier rejected so vehemently. But by then, it was too late. And what could have been a straightforward discussion of public policy became instead the staging ground for another step backward in the relationship between the races in California.

As the opponents of Proposition 187 survey the damaged political landscape, they still blame their foes for the destruction that was caused. What they fail to realize is that these forces materialized because a potential problem was left to grow unchecked until it reached such an incendiary stage. What they fail to recognize is that debate over illegal immigration did not ignite such passions because of Proposition 187, but rather because a growing crisis had not been realistically addressed until that point.

As the arguments against affirmative action begin to gather force, defenders of the system face a similar dilemma. Worse, there is still no sign that they understand that the coming debates over affirmative action, welfare reform and public safety will lead them down the same self-destructive path unless they abandon the tactics of intimidation and name-calling for a more conciliatory approach.

But still, it continues. Welfare reform, we are told, is racist. Controlling illegal immigration is xenophobic. Death penalty enforcement is for bigots. There are even those who will tell you that targeted tax relief discriminates against minorities. Year after year, issue after issue, the anger and frustration build. As society’s problems worsen, as the schools become less effective and the streets more dangerous, serious debate over how to solve these problems is squelched by an ever less subtle series of racially coded messages.

And so the mystery of last fall’s elections becomes not why the frustration and anger of white-male backlash exploded but what took it so long and how long it will last. The storm of anger and frustration that burned through the 1994 campaign has not yet been extinguished. And if those fires continue to burn through another campaign season two years away, they will leave even greater societal devastation.

But it doesn’t have to happen. The ballot initiative has always been the bluntest of instruments, the weapon of last resort. Like most blunt instruments, it serves a purpose only when more precise weapons are not at hand. The more precise instrument of legislation is available to address the obvious flaws in the affirmative-action process, if the political will exists on both sides to put aside the bludgeons of race-baiting and resentment. Then maybe we can work toward a solution that makes California a more equitable place to live and work--without burning it to the ground in the process.