Letters to the Editors

'Equal protection' doesn't permit affirmative action

Re: University of Michigan's affirmative action program.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees all citizens "equal protection of the law." Therefore, President Bush was completely correct when he stated that "all races must be treated equally under the law."

It is my understanding that the University of Michigan's affirmative action program provides an additional 20 points for socioeconomic disadvantage or racial-ethnic minority status. This policy is completely unconstitutional since it is discriminating against a segment of society. Furthermore, to grant a minority entrance to the college based on the basis of race while denying college admission to a nonminority applicant who may have had higher grades in high school is completely outside the realm of capitalistic and democratic principles. On the contrary, attempts to equalize every aspect of life smacks of socialism and communism.

President Bush's "affirmative access" program, which guarantees the top 10 percent of all high school students eligibility for college admissions, is certainly a fair and legal alternative to the divisive, unconstitutional affirmative action policies. Affirmative access promotes healthy competition among high school students regardless of their ethnic or racial background. Like capitalism itself, the "affirmative access" program rewards effort and hard work.

The United States cannot win its struggle with past injustices by perpetuating laws and policies that provide unfair opportunities to a segment of the population. All students must be held accountable to the exact same standards for college admissions.
-- Thomas W. Cunningham Jr., St. Petersburg

Bush's courageous stance

Thank God President Bush has the courage to take a stand against affirmative action. Special favors based on race are immoral, degrading and clearly illegal by any fair reading of the Constitution. Many people who have faced hardships worse than the slavery of their great-grandparents come to America, compete and achieve on their own merit. That is equality. That should be the goal of America, and not special programs to address every minority grievance, real or imagined.

George Bush took this stand knowing full well the demagogues and professional bigots of the Democratic Party along with the NAACP will be screaming racism and making the usual threats. Thank God for George W. Bush showing both leadership and courage.
-- Ronnie Dubs, St. Petersburg

A strange interest

Why has President Bush taken a sudden interest in affirmative action? Where in the midst of his busy schedule of trying to fabricate the basis of a war with Iraq, trying to deflect attention from the failure of his war on terrorism, and trying to kowtow and placate the nuclear-tipped monster of North Korea, will he find time to give attention to the issues surrounding admissions policies at the University of Michigan?

Here we are, about to have a war, maybe two, and our appointed president takes time out to make sure the interests of white folks are protected. Hmm . . . I guess maybe he had some time available because there were no more environmental regulations left to gut.
-- Kevin Reilly, Palm Harbor

A questionable fairness

Re: Powell differs on affirmative action case, Jan. 20.

I read with interest Secretary of State Colin Powell's position that supports the University of Michigan's 20-point advantage to African-American or Hispanic applicants. Even though I have great admiration for Secretary Powell, I question the fairness in a system that would allow his child, if he were to enroll, to get a 20-point advantage over a poor white child from Appalachia or anywhere else!
-- Marvin Merrill, Madeira Beach

Don't forget the 'legacies'

Re: Affirmative action at universities.

What everyone seems to be overlooking here is that most prestigious universities give preferential treatment to a category of applicants known as "legacies." These are the children, grandchildren, and other descendants of alumni. George W. Bush, for instance, probably would never have made it into Yale but for the fact that he was a third generation legacy.

The fact is there are not a whole lot of African-American legacies in most major colleges and universities in this country. So if all those Republicans want to have college admission with no preferences whatever, then the abolition of affirmative action must also come with the abolition of preferential treatment to those who are well connected.
-- Thoms H. McGowan, St. Petersburg

Take a fair-minded approach

Michelle Malkin's Jan. 18 column, Let's get rid of the racial boxes, espouses the tired elitism of those whose only philosophy appears to be: I've got mine; to heck with everybody else. She seeks a race-neutral society without dealing with the aftermath of the race-conscious society that covered the bulk of this country's history.

It has long been known that children of well-to-do parents generally perform better in school than children of poorer parents. There are probably many reasons why that is so, not the least of which would be their parents' greater knowledge of the educational system and the ability to provide more tutoring and preparation for test-taking. And no reasonable person would argue that having more experienced teachers and teachers better qualified in the courses they teach wouldn't work to a student's advantage. A report issued recently indicates that less-experienced teachers and those not certified in the subjects they teach are more likely to be found in schools located in poorer areas or those with a predominantly poor population.

Given all the above, one would think that a fair-minded person would be so impressed with achieving students from poorer schools that he or she would argue for special consideration for students who strive and excel despite their environmental shortcomings. But, it is clear that Malkin is not one of those fair-minded persons.

With all the advantages and preferences given to various students, why pick on race-conscious initiatives alone? If a student happens to know someone at a given school, and that connection leads to acceptance at that school, it doesn't appear to bother Malkin. If a student's parents or grandparents or other relatives happen to be alumni of a school and that relationship leads to acceptance for that student, it doesn't bother Malkin. If a school gives preferences to students from areas that are not very well represented at the school or from a foreign country, that doesn't bother Malkin. And if she is like many who oppose any form of affirmative action, it doesn't even bother her if a minority student without the grades to be admitted gets admitted anyway, just as long as that student can help one of the sports teams win games.

We simply cannot wait until inferior schools are brought up to the standard of the superior schools. We should not be content to let another generation of minority students be left behind. We should not reduce academic standards for any student. But, we should give all students an opportunity. Or, failing that, we should eliminate ALL preferences, not just race-conscious ones.
-- Robert A. Monroe, Tampa

Carried away with boxes

Re: Let's get rid of the racial boxes, by Michelle Malkin, Jan. 18.

"Racial boxes" are getting to be ridiculous! I recently filled out a warranty card for a new appliance. There were "racial boxes" to check off. If my appliance is "on the fritz," what difference does it make as far as my ethnicity? It's still broken!
-- Dorothy E. Karkheck, Dunedin

Let's drop the hyphens, too

Re: Let's get rid of the racial boxes.

With regard to this column, it is also time that not only do the racial boxes disappear but also that hyphenated Americans disappear. If you live in this country as a citizen then you are an American, period. Heritage is not part of the hyphenated American syndrome. That you can personally keep and observe as you wish. When we are all Americans, then the character of all people will be judged, not skin color.
-- Carol Hess, Hudson

An inappropriate comparison

Re: Hypocrisy on Sharpton, by Jeff Jacoby, Jan. 20.

This column is so unbalanced it hardly deserves the paper and ink devoted to it by the Times. It compares Trent Lott's treatment following his racially charged comments to those of the Rev. Al Sharpton who has made numerous (and, yes, worse) comments.

Jacoby completely ignores the one point that derails his entire argument: Sen. Lott was the elected leader of his party in the U.S. Senate. Whereas, citizen Sharpton is nothing but a loose cannon, elected by no one, and certainly not chosen by the Democratic Party to represent its ideals.

Jacoby notes that Sharpton is "shown much deference." He notes that "Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him." Jacoby fails to mention who has embraced him and just who is courting him. Are we supposed to believe that just because it is in print that it must be true? If he has researched the facts, present them. Where are the quotes of Democratic leaders lining up behind Sharpton? It sounds like the columnist simply wanted to paint the worst face on the Democratic Party and would reach to the most outrageous character to accomplish his task.

Lott is an elected leader of his party and should be held accountable for his words and actions by his own party. Jacoby's unbalanced column does not accomplish his task of diminishing that.
-- Scott J. Moore, Tampa

Sharpton gets away with too much

Re: Hypocrisy on Sharpton.

Columnist Jeff Jacoby is, of course, absolutely correct in his on-target comments regarding "the Reverend" Al Sharpton, but I am afraid that he is literally a voice crying in the wilderness if he expects that people of liberal (left wing) persuasion or Democrats of any stripe will ever repudiate this suited street thug or his ilk.

There is something in the left-of-center psyche that absolutely forbids any real discussion, much less censure, of any individual like Sharpton. There will never be a day when Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or similar black demagogues will be censured, especially by liberals or Democrats, and certainly not by nervous Republican politicians.

I only find it a bit strange that the Times saw fit to print this column, as it is certainly so far out of synch with the editorial mind-set of your newspaper.
-- David C. Cumming, Clearwater

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com . E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, use the cut and paste functions to place it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright