Opponents Revisit Red-Baiting; Backers Stir a Smelly Pot

The controversy surrounding the appearance of David Duke at Cal State Northridge to debate against affirmative action and to support indirectly Proposition 209 is a sad reminder of the worst of the guilt by association and character smears of the 1950s and 1960s.

At the height of the Cold War, anyone who held the same position as the Soviet Union leadership or any other communist leader might be publicly branded as being either a communist or communist sympathizer. If an American supported racial integration, workers’ rights, improved farm labor conditions or arms control, that was cause enough to have his patriotism and motives called into question because avowed communists also supported these views.

In those times, it was people on the right who were the most likely to apply this guilt-by-association standard. They were quick to condemn anyone whose views coincided with those of any one considered anti- or un-American.

Today, the same type of rhetoric is being directed against those who question or reject the notion of racial and gender preferences in public organizations. The difference is largely that the left is making the personal attacks upon those who oppose certain forms of affirmative action.

The attempt to link David Duke with the proponents of Proposition 209 is dishonest at best and a form of character assassination at worst. The opponents of Proposition 209 are trying to suggest that anyone who favors it must also agree with whatever Duke believes today or even what he thought about minorities years ago.

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s unsubstantiated scare statement that Jim Crow conditions would return if Proposition 209 passes did not contribute any rationality to the debate.

The appearance of Duke as representing or being associated with the advocates of Proposition 209 hinders the ability to have an informed discussion about this ballot measure. As a result, all the attention is focused on the messenger rather than on fairly evaluating the idea of group preferences.

It should be evident and not even necessary to defend the idea that a person who supports 209 could hold views different from Duke’s.

Had there been a serious desire to explore the ramifications and merits of this proposition, a more appropriate speaker would have been invited to appear at CSUN. Instead, a truly sophomoric decision was made indicating that the real purpose of the event was to garner publicity and to discredit one side of the debate.

Universities and society were not well served in the past by the personal attacks upon and the misrepresentation of the supporters of certain public policies. Neither are they helped today by the same tactics.

The search for truth and the practice of civil discourse have declined markedly on most university campuses these past years. University administrators and faculty should encourage and welcome every opportunity to nurture these conditions. When unacceptable inquiry methods come from either the right or the left, they should be recognized for what they are and condemned.