Wilson on Hiring Preferences

* Re “ ‘Societal Guilt’ Led to Hiring Preferences, Wilson Says,” June 1:

It is, in my opinion, profane for any conservative politician to quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

On this occasion, however, Gov. Pete Wilson is right. It was societal guilt that brought about “hiring preferences.” That guilt, however, was an extremely justifiable guilt.

Would that more Americans knew and understood our horrible history of exploitation and abuse of women, and of so-called minorities. Maybe then we would understand that affirmative action benefits our country much more than it will ever benefit any individual.

PAUL P. DuPLESSIS

Diamond Bar

* The dismantlers of affirmative action are the blind leading the blind, asking the loyal subjects to admire “the emperor’s new clothes.” Racism has always been and will always be with us. It is part of the fire that constantly tests and tempers our human nature. Wilson will have you believe that Dr. King would not have wanted it this way. How self-serving, how manipulative and how conveniently interpreted.

I too dream of a day when my children live in a nation “where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” We have traveled a long way on a rough road to get where we are, but our nation has not yet reached that day. There is still bigotry, prejudice and discrimination and there is still much work to be done. It is not the destination that our road leads us to that is important, it is how we journey there together.

What alternatives does Wilson offer? A system based on merit is what we had before--that is like taking two steps back and one step forward. Instead of dismantling affirmative action, it should be refined. Preferential treatment is what we will have without affirmative action.

The survival of our nation in the global marketplace depends on the strength of our diversity. We desperately need fresh thinking to solve our problems, and our minorities can supply that thinking.

REUBEN M. QUESADA

Irvine

* Re “A Negative Start for Wilson ‘96,” editorial, June 2:

In the early days of the civil rights movement we were taught that race-based or even race-conscious decisions of any kind were wrong, discriminatory and divisive. Today, however, when leaders such as Wilson decry such practices, The Times considers it “divisive.” You can’t have it both ways.

The majority of all American groups (with the exception of a 50-50 split among African Americans) are opposed to the continuation of the present affirmative action system simply because it is wrong; it is always wrong to base almost any decision on one’s membership in a group as opposed to one’s individual achievement or personal characteristics. Such a system is doomed to failure in a country based on the rights of individuals.

Wilson’s style may be a bit curt, but he is nonetheless correct in his actions and support for the return to a system based on merit. Despite The Times’ obvious disdain for his actions, time will prove him right.

DONNA GRIFKA

Los Angeles

* “Properly done, affirmative action is inclusive, not exclusive,” you suggest. “A number of studies, including a finding by the Glass Ceiling Commission that only 5% of top jobs are held by women and minorities combined . . .,” you say.

When did affirmative action become a highway to wealth and riches? If that is a civil right, the courts are going to be jammed.

PHILIP W. GREGG

Venice

* I can’t disagree more with The Times’ continual harping on Wilson’s quest to end years of well-intentioned, but wrongheaded affirmative action programs. Put simply, we can’t continue condoning one form of discrimination to reconcile years of past discrimination. There is something inherently un-American about this.

For example, in checking my mortgage application, my undergraduate and graduate school applications and a recent government contract, there are specific questions regarding my race. This was also the case in trying to gain admission to a public elementary school for my child, where she will most likely not gain admission because she is white! These are just some of the examples of affirmative action in action. I don’t think this is what our early civil rights pioneers, from Hubert Humphrey to King, had in mind. This kind of race-consciousness has no place in America.

LYNNE McDONALD

Culver City

* Whenever minorities and women are denied employment opportunities and/or admission to universities, it is due to lack of qualifications. Whenever white males are denied employment opportunities and/or admissions to universities, it is due to reverse discrimination. Therefore, qualified minorities and women, and unqualified white males must be oxymorons.

ROBERT L. MARTIN

Los Angeles