Affirmative Action Debate

Re “Affirmative Action: Fairness or Favoritism?,” series, Feb. 19-21:

With all the discussion on affirmative action it seems apparent that those people who favor its elimination possess a short memory, are unaware of this country’s history regarding civil rights (not minority rights), or are just plain bigots.

Strictly from an African-American perspective: We didn’t choose to come here, we were enslaved. We didn’t classify ourselves as chattel (three-quarters human). You did. We didn’t choose to stop speaking our language our worshiping God in our way. You forbade us. We didn’t sell ourselves away from our families (remember family values?). You did. We didn’t pass laws to require us to stay away from the voting booths, restaurant counters, public restrooms, or schools. You did.

All the aforementioned are now allowed because we fought and died for those rights. We asked politely at first, but you said no. We protested, marched, rioted, killed and died. You did not give those rights to us willingly, we took them. And now you want us to believe that you will be fair and equitable without legal requirements.

Remember, the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Emancipation Proclamation were present and in force before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ask yourself why, before you start abolishing affirmative action.

GREGORY MILLER

Inglewood

“Battle Against Bias Waged on Shifting Legal Ground” (Feb. 20) helps perpetuate the myths about affirmative action when you write that in 1987 the Supreme Court “upheld a Santa Clara County affirmative action plan that resulted in promoting a woman to a job as a road dispatcher over a more qualified man . . . “ The case referred to was Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County.

It is curious to note that most news stories at that time characterized Diane Joyce (the woman in the case) as “less qualified” than Paul Johnson (the male plaintiff), though she had 18 years of clerical experience compared to his 11 years; she had four years experience as a road maintenance worker compared to his two years; both had occasionally worked outside their job classification as road dispatchers though no difference in the frequency was noted; and the only indication that Johnson was “better qualified” was his two-point higher score in the panel interview in which subjective evaluations were made which could have been biased in his favor by virtue of sex-prejudice. Joyce had previous disagreements with two of the three member of that interview panel and one of them had described her as a “rabble-rousing, skirt-wearing person.”

The court’s decision only affirmed that among otherwise equally qualified applicants, sex could be a factor as part of affirmative action. Contrary to being “preferential treatment,” this really meant that a person could not be disqualified simply on the basis of sex or race.

TONI CARABILLO

Los Angeles

Affirmative action policies can be abolished just as soon as we put an end to inequality and prejudice!

RONALD ROWE

Moorpark