|
Letters to the EditorsEnding race preferences makes sense
© St. Petersburg Times, published February 28, 1999 Your political editor says common sense dictates that I would be foolish to heed overtures from many Floridians to help them abolish race-based affirmative action preferences (Re: True fact: This is not California, Feb. 14). If his comments were meant to frighten me into focusing on other states in pursuit of affirmative action reform, he needs to know that common sense is the main reason I have been invited to Florida to join the chorus speaking out against divisive preferential policies. I know Florida is not California. But is Florida less progressive than California and Washington in recognizing that a statewide ban on race-based affirmative action preferences is a matter not only of common sense but also constitutional and moral principles of equal treatment under the law? Just three months ago, voters in Washington supported an anti-preferences measure by a 17-point margin, in spite of vehement opposition from the "mainstream" media, labor leaders, big business and liberal politicians. The Washington Civil Rights Initiative garnered support from a majority of women, 57 percent of voters 65 and older, 62 percent of independents, 54 percent of union members, 35 percent of liberals, 37 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of Clinton voters and 53 percent of those who supported legalization of "medical marijuana." The nonpartisan Florida Voter poll in 1997 found that 84 percent of Floridians -- and 86 percent of blacks -- would support an anti-preference measure. In Washington State, the Republican Party hierarchy and its elected officials largely wouldn't touch this issue. A few, such as congresswomen Jennifer Dunn and Linda Smith, would bravely speak out in support. Yet, 79 percent of Republicans voted to end race preferences. So your political editor's reliance on the Republican Party as the key to passage of a Florida civil rights initiative ignores the broad-based appeal of the principle of equal treatment. Finally, I must address the false belief that Gov. Pete Wilson "recruited" me to chair the California Civil Rights Initiative. In fact, Wilson played no role in my decision to become chairman of Proposition 209. It is also worth noting that Wilson won 21 percent of black and 23 percent of Hispanic support in his re-election, so if your political analyst continues to cite Gov. Jeb Bush's 14 percent showing among blacks as "acceptance," Wilson as the leader of an anti-illegal immigration initiative and an opponent of racial preferences must be positively overwhelmed.
How can we get along? Re: Finding the courage to speak of blackness, by Bill Maxwell,
The puzzle of "blackness'Re: Finding the courage to speak of blackness. I've been reading and rereading Bill Maxwell's column on "blackness." Perhaps I fail to understand it because I'm white. "Black maleness." An interesting concept but which "maleness"? Dennis Rodman? Barry White? Colin Powell? How about the people bell hooks refers to as the ones who stayed with their families? The latter haven't received the benefits that many affluent blacks have. Where is the helping hand from the black race? All that most blacks have seen from well educated, affluent blacks are theories, platitudes and the revocation of affirmative action, i.e. California. Slavery and discrimination based on race or creed is wrong. But putting the burden on "white people to redeem their race" is not the solution to the problem. Most people not of color won't accept this solution. Telling white people to "redeem their race" is playing into the hands of the many groups who hate blacks. Try to come up with something positive instead of wondering if you have been inspired to reveal "blackness." Unfortunately, most of the people you are trying to help are unable to attend seminars at USF or anywhere else. They are too busy trying to make a living, just like the rest of us.
Don't condone violence Re: Though wounds heal, fight goes on, Feb. 21.The attorneys representing Charles Bader must be proud to have set women's rights back several hundred years. To say that Cynthia Bader shares responsibility for the vicious maiming she suffered at his hands is not only ridiculous but irresponsible. This kind of mentality opens the door for some chauvinist men who will say, "She fooled around; she deserved it" and feel entitled to do the same. There is no defensible reason for a man to hit a woman, much less inflict this kind of brutal beating in front of their children. Charles Bader obviously has a serious rage problem for which he needs immediate help and a good long time in prison to think about it.
Victim is not to blameRe: Though wounds heal, fight goes on. I am incensed, appalled, horrified and saddened to read the comments by Anthony Battaglia. As an officer of the court, his role should be to uphold and enforce the laws of the land. When those in the system continue to place blame on the victim for violence committed, can we see any end to the growing incidents of domestic violence? No matter what she did or did not do, Charles Bader beat her. If she was not married to him, there would be no question of his guilt. And if he were not a wealthy man, one can be sure Anthony Battaglia and his crew would not be there to defend his actions.
The limits of gun lawsRe: The wrong way to stop gun suits, editorial, Feb. 24. On the topic of municipal suits against gun manufacturers, the Times said, ". . . shouldn't lawmakers be working to give all law-abiding citizens more protection from gun violence? Here's one suggestion: The Legislature should pass a law that limits citizen gun purchases to one firearm a month." Wouldn't it make more sense to limit criminals' gun purchases instead? After all, it's the criminals you should be concerned about, not law-abiding citizens. Now that I think about it more, we do limit criminals' gun purchases to zero per month, yet they still manage to acquire guns. This should tell you something about efforts to make it harder for citizens to arm themselves. Does it?
A cautionary taleRe: Story was a corrupting influence, letter, Feb. 23. Many thanks to the letter writer who commented on your Feb. 10 article Cupid shrugged. After reading his diatribe, I took the trouble to dig out that article and read it thoroughly. It is an interesting object lesson in the perils of the contemporary "mating game." Learning this lesson will surely decrease the moral degradation of the next generation, not add to it, as the letter writer fears. Now I know why you publish letters critical of your newspaper. Keep up the good work.
Action |
Alive! |
Business |
Citrus |
Columnists
|
Games
