Affirmative Action Dispute

Kudos to state Sen. Diane Watson for her courageous repudiation of University of California Regent Ward Connerly (Feb. 21). He denigrates his appointment by his personal opportunism and nukes his fiduciary responsibilities by destroying the tradition of shared governance in the UC system.

Finally someone of stature, a senior state senator, has the courage to confront Connerly and his message and, voicing a large segment of constituent opinion, demand his resignation. It is an assault on our democratic process that he sits as a regent while concurrently spearheading the unconscionable and imperiling CCRI campaign for an initiative that would constitutionally license discrimination against women and girls, allowing “bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation public employment, public education, or public con- tracting.”

I am appalled by Connerly’s blatant cheap shots at Watson but not surprised, for it is apparently only a continuation of his recent tactics against the UC administration. He should resign!

D. DIANE MILLER

Executive Director, Women

of America, Venice

* I am appalled that you would, in your Feb. 22 editorial, attempt to morally equate the remarks made by Watson and Connerly in their verbal exchange. You appear to criticize Connerly for even bringing up Watson’s racist criticism of him for marrying a white woman and therefore not having “ethnic pride.” In President Clinton’s remarks to the NAACP, he condemned the circulation of a document during the Louisiana Republican caucus that similarly criticized Sen. Phil Gramm for marrying an Asian American woman (Feb. 21). Does any Democratic leader have the courage to condemn Watson for her racist remarks?

I am sick and tired of the type of argument raised by Watson which implies that Connerly has some obligation to support affirmative action due to the fact that Connerly likely has benefited from it. Should all white people who have benefited from pro-white racism therefore be obligated to oppose civil rights legislation that prohibits pro-white racist policies? This line of reasoning is a morally bankrupt appeal to racial self-interest which has nothing to do with the soundness of affirmative action, and is antithetical to the democratic notion that anyone, regardless of skin color, has the right to question any public policy.

RONALD A. MORALES

San Gabriel

* It’s about time someone had the courage to call it like it is. As Connerly so honestly phrased it, there is only one word to describe Watson and other advocates of a policy that discriminates against one racial group to benefit another--a bigot!

KENNETH D. DeGIORGIO

Los Angeles