Chemerinsky, Connerly on Prop. 209 Ruling

* USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky accurately described the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ action against Prop. 209 as “a slap in the face of Judge [Thelton] Henderson” (Commentary, April 10). I cannot think of a more appropriate response to the jurist who so easily slapped the collective faces of California’s voters. Maybe my children won’t have to experience the unpleasant discrimination of affirmative action as their parents did.

CLARK W. BAKER

Los Angeles

* In his April 9 commentary, Ward Connerly declared, “Anyone with a sense of history and an appreciation of the principles of American democracy must know that a system of policies that grants preferences to some citizens at the sacrifice of others cannot long endure.” That he made such a statement indicates that his own sense of American history is not so keen.

He must have forgotten about the black codes and Jim Crow laws that institutionalized race preferences in the South after the Civil War for more than 100 years. These “laws” were enforced through widespread violence and terror, and included acts such as lynchings and cross-burnings. Blacks were severely restricted in their access to public facilities and private businesses, and found few job opportunities. African Americans in the South were also generally excluded by local and state officials from federal policies designed to help Americans during times of need such as the Great Depression.

As in his distorted interpretation of the views of Martin Luther King Jr. on affirmative action and American race relations, Connerly glosses over glaring facts by emphasizing principles rather than shameful practices in the history of “American democracy.”

KURT SCHUPARRA

Sacramento

* It seems Gov. Pete Wilson, Connerly and proponents of the 209 initiative have finally found a court they can live with. Before they jump for joy and give each other toasts to a hollow victory, they must know that the battle is far from over. They have gained nothing from this out-of-step conservative court decision other than further demonstrating the ideological divide associated with this mean-spirited and divisive propo- sition.

At some point, Prop. 209 proponents will be unable to pick and choose a court panel friendly to their views. This decision will be appealed to a full panel within the 9th Circuit, and to the Supreme Court if necessary. At this point they will know that this shortsighted decision will not pass the test of equal protection articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the ‘80s. GIL FLORES, Director

League of United Latin

American Citizens, District I

Santa Ana