Affirmative action can work for all
Charles Proctor’s article “All sides of debate on
Prop. 209 use ruling” (News, May 18) was right on target.
Affirmative action is a polarizing issue. But I support an evolving
form of affirmative action. It has benefited society, and it
should be extended to all people facing difficult situations,
including whites. The strict definition as race-based preferences
is simply due to its history and that living conditions are often
correlated to race.
When Lyndon B. Johnson introduced Executive Order 11873, he did
so believing that you cannot take a person “hobbled by chains
and liberate him “¦ and then say, “˜You are free to
compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that
you have been completely fair.”Â
To ensure equal opportunity for all, it was essential to give
preference to underrepresented groups at the time. In some
ways, that should still be the case, but the playing field is much
more even now. Thus, race and gender should only be considered
when the individuals in consideration are otherwise equally
competent.
Many people argue that employers shouldn’t consider race.
Many of the Forbes 500 companies would argue the other side of
things, but of course, they do not neglect other criteria. The
most successful companies have embraced diversity of race, gender,
sexual orientation and ideas.
Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina ““ one of the most
prominent female business leaders ““ has been quoted as
saying, “Stop the rhetoric and embrace diversity.” By
hiring qualified people of different races and ideas, companies add
to a pool of talented people who will think differently and
challenge each other to produce the best products that will satisfy
more customers and open new markets.
All efforts to ensure equality of opportunity are equally
important to all, including white males. As a result of those
efforts, we will have a more educated society and thus, a safer and
more productive one.
Ignacio Zendejas Second-year, computer
scienceÂ
Column wrong to rationalize scandal
Garin Hovannisian’s column (“Prison scandal should
be put in context,” May 19) displays an ignoble capacity to
rationalize the actions of the powerful and a disturbing inability
to hold the leadership of this country to minimal standards of
human rights.
Hovannisian’s suggestion that it is
“unthinkable” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
would create permissive conditions for such abuses requires more
substantiation than the unsupported assertion that it is
“pointless.”
Hovannisian goes on to lambaste those who might be so
“deluded” as to respond to these reports with
“self-destructive outrage” that might lead to an
independent review or a renewed commitment to upholding the Geneva
Convention. Given the outrage that these reports have engendered
among the Iraqi population, it will be self-destructive not to
engage in such inquiries.
Hovannisian’s thrust amounts to the argument that since in
all of our military engagements malfeasance by our troops against
the occupied population has been discovered, there is no reason for
anger in this particular instance. This is the sort of moral
reasoning a child knows is ludicrous. (I’ve hit you many
times in the past, so it’s OK now too.) Hovannisian should be
ashamed of himself for displaying such an openly sycophantic
relationship with those who have time and time again demonstrated
an inability to adhere to basic standards of decency.
John D. O’Brien Graduate student,
biomathematics