The Question of Diversity
You did a good job of probing into the legal and political aspects of affirmative action (“Spinning Race,” Jan. 27). Yes, an increase in the minority-enrollment rate is the apparent and immediate effect of affirmative action. But what’s needed is an assessment of this policy’s long-term impact. After more than 30 years, have minorities achieved upward social mobility, as originally intended? You can’t maintain affirmative action just because there is so much emotion around it. If it failed to achieve what it was created for, then what’s the point of keeping it? Kelly Y. Lin El Cerrito, Calif.
With affirmative action coming to the fore again, it is heartening to see the discussion begin to move to a greater concern for the truly disadvantaged: the poor. As a teacher in a diverse public school, I struggle daily to bridge the gap that exists between minority students (mostly black and Hispanic) and the white majority. In my classroom, students whose parents make millions sit next to students who depend on public aid for basic necessities, and this difference–not the color of their skin–is the single biggest indicator of their success or failure in school and often life. In my school’s recent state test scores, low-income students as a group scored lower in both reading and math than black, Hispanic or special-education students. It is time to stop simplifying the “gap” as the difference between black and white and begin to start seeing it as the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. Elizabeth Jackson Chicago, Ill.
My son is currently applying to medical school. He comes from an average family. We have instilled in him what I feel to be the right values regarding all people he meets. I think it is outrageous to award placement in schools or jobs based on race. In the 1960s, when I was a teenager, perhaps race and segregation were big factors in admissions. Today I believe this is no longer necessary and anything remotely like affirmative action is just another “dumbing down” of our schools and our businesses. My point is: evaluate all applicants for grades, personality, expertise in their field, etc., and totally leave out race. Rita Bograd Coral Springs, Fla.
Why do we fail to recognize that affirmative action is merely a bandage for a larger and more important problem? If those who are in lower socioeconomic classes had access to comparable educational resources, this would not be an issue. The ultimate goal is to improve precollege public education, do away with affirmative action and accept students based on merit. Norman C. Wang Latham, N.Y.
The affirmative-action debate frequently cites examples of other non-merit-based factors that may gain students some access. But considerations of who your family is, which sports you play and where you’re from are not illegal. Race-based programs are. Just read the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. The merits of affirmative action aside, let’s be honest. If you believe it’s the way to go, then say it loud and clear: amend the Constitution. Norm Brennan Kenai, Alaska
Affirmative action was a bitter pill for me to swallow when I applied to medical school in 1976. It still tastes pretty damn sour. Phillip I. Menashe, M.D. Yakima, Wash.
Armstrong Williams certainly hit the nail on the head with his column ("… But Not at This Cost"). I am a black woman who wholeheartedly agrees with him. I want my children and grandchildren to earn whatever they get and not have it given to them. Affirmative action should be based on need and not race. I know there are still inequities handed out because of race. In my 58 years, I’ve felt them. But my father always taught my siblings and me that you have to work for what you want. That way you will appreciate having it and feel some self-worth. Jackie Cobbs Aiken, S.C.
I’m waiting anxiously for the president to file a friend of the court brief questioning the constitutionality of admissions policies that give preference to rich white kids with mediocre academics whose daddies happen to be influential alumni. Dan Frakes San Francisco, Calif.
Skin-pigment diversity is not cultural diversity. There is more cultural diversity between a Bronx merchant and an Arizona rancher than between black and white high-school students raised in suburban Minneapolis. Frank Deft Horse Shoe, N.C.
Blacks and native Americans have both been the victims of official, government-sanctioned repression and, indeed, violence. Both peoples have been in this country from the very beginning (or much longer) and both are, by any quantifier, Americans. If there is to be affirmative action, blacks and Native Americans certainly merit inclusion. But I cannot understand how Hispanics got into the picture. The Hispanic population is made up largely of immigrants or children of immigrants and has not been oppressed by government policies. I am not aware of affirmative action concerning immigrants from Greece or Italy or Russia. Why, then, are Hispanics singled out for inclusion in programs that were originally devised to assist those who have been historically held back? Donald M. Miller Greensboro, N.C.
Thank you for your coverage of affirmative action and for showing both sides of the issue. But what your articles fail to say is that Executive Order 11246 was amended in 1967 to include women. Additional acts included veterans and the disabled. My experience has been that affirmative action is never an issue until it involves people of color. The University of Michigan attempts to be objective in its selection process by assigning points to various areas, eliminating the potential for bias. Race is not the determining factor. I’d like to add that while white women have benefited most from affirmative action, they were the initiators of the complaints in both the Texas and Michigan cases. How unfortunate that what was a cause for those discriminated against in the past has now become a divisive issue based on race. Theresa Rodriguez Joliet, Ill.
Ethics and Elder Health Care
Thanks to Diana Conway for her excellent article about Medicaid and nursing homes (“Cheating Uncle Sam for Mom and Dad,” My Turn, Jan. 27). I had an identical experience five years ago when my mother entered a nursing home. I found people there who quite obviously had given their assets to their children so that they could receive Medicaid. I even had a former nursing-home official advise me to have my mother’s assets arranged so the nursing home would not “get all her money.” Medicaid was intended to provide medical assistance to the indigent, not to people who make themselves indigent so that they can live at the government’s expense. William J. Gordon Hopkinsville, Ky.
My 80-plus-year-old parents live on a small farm and have little income and no savings. They have spent their entire lives below the poverty line, but they’ve always had enough to live on. The farm is their only asset, but if either needs nursing-home care, the government will devour it. According to Diana Conway, if my family tries to protect this farm from being lost, we are unethical. We live in the richest nation on earth, yet we fail to provide adequate health care (and long-term care) for millions of our children, elderly and others who simply can’t pay. Our country’s choice to be irresponsible about health care is what’s truly unethical and something for which we should all be ashamed. John Fletcher Colorado Springs, Colo.
As someone who sells insurance and financial products, I often tell my clients about a third possibility other than finding ways to cheat the government or seeing one’s life savings go to a nursing-home owner. Buying long-term health-care insurance for those who qualify is an effective solution. For relatively little cost, policies will pay the money for care in a nursing facility or at home if a person becomes infirm. In this way, people like Diana Conway’s father can leave a moral as well as fiscal legacy to their children. Barry P. Goldberg Livingston, N.J.
Who Controls the Womb?
I’m one of the women Anna Quindlen describes in her Jan. 27 column (“Out of the Time Warp”). I “understand the fine points of reproduction,” “have a sense of ownership of the equipment” and even know my “rights and limitations.” But none of that means I automatically support abortion. There is more at stake here than Quindlen seems willing to admit. There is also a developing life, a beating heart, a potential baby. I don’t want women to resort to back-alley abortions, nor be forced to bear the children of their rapists. And I don’t want women denied the means to end a truly devastating pregnancy. But neither do I think abortion should be seen as just an assertion of control over our bodies, the moral equivalent of liposuction or a nose job. Can’t we admit that an abortion is a terrible thing and acknowledge that while sometimes necessary, it’s always a tragedy? Elaine Rose Glickman Houston, Texas
Opposing what goes on in someone else’s body to the extent that laws are passed is insane. Would the anti-abortionists then want laws against being fat? Let’s not legislate any additional morality but instead make churches, schools and families do their jobs to prevent unwanted pregnancy. We must teach prevention and abstinence. When both sides can come together, we’ll solve the question. Frank Adair Gulfport, Miss.
When the day comes that there are no children in need of good foster care and none left languishing in orphanages, even I may reconsider Roe v. Wade. Until then, I agree wholeheartedly with Anna Quindlen. Ellen McKeon-Levine Natick, Mass.V
Marching for Peace
I was pleased to see the photo of the antiwar gatherings of Jan. 18 (“Peaceful Protest,” 1000 Words, Jan. 27). But I was angered that you said the antiwar slogans “mingling with pro-marijuana pamphlets and pro-choice signs… felt, at times, like a grab bag of activist causes.” This makes the rallies seem as if they were just another liberal stunt made up of pro-abortion pot smokers. This is not true. People who took the stand against war in Iraq included my Republican, pro-life, Christian parents as well as two busloads of people from my conservative town. If there were signs advocating other causes, they were a few out of hundreds of thousands. Anne Wendland Rochester, Minn.
The Widening Taxation Debate
If I understand Robert J. Samuelson correctly, the rich are different because they pay more taxes, and the poor are corrupted by things like Social Security benefits, free public schooling and probably toll-free highways (“The Rich and Everyone Else,” Jan. 27). So my view that the rich also have more and better vacations, bigger houses and the ability to pay for elite educations for their children, while the poor struggle to afford health insurance, decent housing and college tuition, is an example of European-style class warfare? What country does Samuelson live in? Not mine. Barbara McGowan Ripon, Wis.
There is a huge question of how much is enough when it comes to taxation and narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. At what point do taxes become a disincentive for the wealthy to work hard and keep trying to earn more? At what point does redistribution to the less well off become a disincentive to do the same? It seems that with the huge and widening gap between rich and poor in this country, we are a long way from reaching either of those points. This is not to say that redistribution couldn’t be done better. What really disturbs me about Samuelson’s essay is the implication that we vote for our short-term pocketbooks rather than what is best for society at large (and, therefore, ultimately ourselves) in the long term. More disturbing is my fear that he’s right. Peter H. Sammond Minnetonka, Minn.
Correction
In a caption accompanying a photo of the 1941 University of Michigan football team in our Jan. 27 issue, we said that 4.3 percent of the players on the team were black (“What’s at Stake”). The correct figure (for the varsity team) is 1.7 percent. We also said that 45 percent of the 2002 team was black; the correct number is 42 percent.
