Redefining Affirmative Action

Either I don’t understand affirmative action, or I didn’t read right, or worse, I don’t understand the English language. But there seems to be a confusion as to what affirmative action is or isn’t.

To quote from the editorial: “A commitment to affirmative action, properly applied, asks only that gender, race and ethnicity be considered as factors in decisions about employment and education, not that they be the only considerations.” And a quote in the last paragraph: “Affirmative action asks employers and university admissions officers to choose or reject individuals not according to skin color and gender but on the basis of all the skills and experience they bring.”

One can have it one way or the other, but one can’t have it both ways. Either gender, race and ethnicity are taken into account or they aren’t. Clarity in such statements does not need a Supreme Court decision.

ERNEST ZIMDARS

Claremont

* Gilbert Sanchez’s case for retaining affirmative action (Voices, Nov. 22) is no case at all. I’m glad that Sanchez found a program that helped him stay out of gangs and get a college degree, and I’m glad about any gang member who is able to get out with help. But aren’t there white children who are gang members or at-risk youth? Or children of minorities that aren’t officially recognized by affirmative action programs? Don’t they deserve the same chance? The affirmative action programs that helped Sanchez don’t give an equal chance to these children.

It may well be worthwhile to develop special programs that target gang members, at-risk youth and others who need them, but there’s no reason for such programs to pay any attention to race. And if they aren’t based on race, they would not be prohibited by Prop. 209. This is something I think supporters as well as opponents of Prop. 209 sometimes forget.

ADAM BENESCHAN

Mission Viejo