Supreme Court on Preferences

* Re “High Court Deals Severe Blow to Federal Affirmative Action,” June 13:

There are two fundamental defects in affirmative action as it is now implemented: It grants rights to people, not as individuals, but on basis of belonging to a group; and it establishes programs that make government a permanent provider to those who can show they are members of a group. Both defects only serve to “Balkanize” our nation into special-interest constituencies that divide rather than unite. In the end, the government becomes the chief architect for programs that pit one group against another.

Two Supreme Court rulings moved to correct these defects by redirecting federal power away from programs whose only purpose is to try and bring fairness to one group by denying it to another. Yet, in reporting this event, the media could only describe the court’s action as “a setback,” “a defeat,” or “turning back the clock.” I doubt that those writing the majority opinion felt they were engaged in such regressive action. Perhaps if such phrases were limited to opinions and commentaries, there would not be such widespread belief that the media are biased.

WILLIAM S. LaSOR JR.

Trabuco Canyon

* Interesting. The abuses, real and imagined, of affirmative action have received judicial redress after only a few years of existence, while the social injuries which led eventually to affirmative action accumulated for centuries before pressure was brought upon the Supreme Court for action. Interesting.

J. S. KLEINSASSER

Bakersfield

* Lest we forget, the Great Experiment of American democracy is an ongoing process of minor revolutions and upheavals. The danger to freedom and liberty is not in the swing of the pendulum, but in the stopping of it. The Supreme Court’s decision by no means “reverses” affirmative action’s significant and constructive advances. If anything, it reaffirms the necessary and healthy reactions which tune any living organism, even a political system.

Affirmative Action, like Jim Crow, or any other institution that has become entrenched must be questioned--must be revolted against. The pendulum must be free to swing. In this manner dissatisfaction and injustices felt by both sides may be aired and addressed.

DAVID G. TROTTI

Fullerton

* Re “Mahony Calls For No Retreat From Affirmative Action,” June 9:

Those who will criticize Cardinal Roger Mahony for speaking out on social issues forget something basic about Christianity: Jesus said that how we treat “the least” of those in our midst is how we treat him and the basis upon which we will be judged. It is hypocrisy to pretend that these words have nothing to do with the effects of discrimination (affirmative action), vaccination of immigrant children against deadly diseases (Proposition 187) or cutting the living allowances of children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (welfare reform). To speak out for the oppressed is not “politics,” it is a religious act. Mahony has become the tribune of the downtrodden and the voice of social conscience in California precisely because he is a faithful disciple of the Lord.

GEORGE D. CROOK

Los Angeles

* If the Catholic Church practiced what Mahony is now preaching, the good cardinal would probably still be a lowly priest in some Podunk parish and Los Angeles would now have a black woman cardinal. Perhaps in the spirit of affirmative action, the cardinal might now like to step aside and give up his place to some minority. Clearly, minorities and women are underrepresented in the Catholic hierarchy.

H. MILLARD

Costa Mesa

* As a retired professor of Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, I was heartened by Cardinal Mahony’s unequivocal acknowledgment that racial discrimination continues to plague our society and that affirmative action measures are still very much needed.

In my capacity of chair of the psychology department for many years, I was instrumental in the hiring of many well-qualified black, Latino and female professors because of affirmative action. These professors were not only excellent teachers but were also positive role models for Loyola Marymount’s ethnically diverse student body. But perhaps most importantly, our new co-workers were able to enrich and influence the entire teaching community with their own perspectives, sensitivities and life experiences.

In the early days of affirmative action, many people claimed that well-educated, qualified female, Latino, black and Native American professionals simply did not exist. I wonder if it is these same people who are now claiming that racism and other forms of discrimination also do not exist.

IRVING KESSLER Ph.D.

Van Nuys