LETTERS: In defense of affirmative action

To the Editor: example, the ad in the DP states "Nearly every elite college in America violates the law?. Using racial preferences to achieve a particular mix of students has been illegal for twenty years. Yet many schools persist treating applicants differently by race in order to promote racial diversity." This statement is highly misleading. The Supreme Court, in the Bakke decision of 1978, outlawed racial quotas but actually affirmed the use of race as a criterion to be considered in admissions. Universities and colleges cannot have predetermined admissions quotas based on race, but they can use race as a factor, in conjunction with other characteristics of an applicant, when making admissions decisions. This is in fact how the majority of elite colleges use race in admissions. The Center for Individual Rights wants to eliminate consideration of race altogether and is willing to misrepresent both the law and the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement to do so. The ad in the DP shows that the affirmative action debate can and will come to Penn. All of us who recognize the value of minority presence and permanence on campus need to prepare for this debacle. Vinay Harpalani Education '99 A column well done To the Editor: With regard to Monday's column by Mark Fiore, I was very surprised to see a Pennsylvania man in the con-Clinton camp ("Please go away, Mr. Clinton," DP, 1/25/99). Fiore has written a well-reasoned analysis of the situation, although he lets Mr. Starr off a little too lightly. Fact of the matter is that had the secretary of defense, the attorney general or Bob Packwood, for chrissake, engaged in such behaviour -- especially perjury and obstruction -- they would have been gone January 20th, 1998. Good work, Mr. Fiore! Winston Lee College '73 An appropriate speech To the Editor: The editorial that ran in the DP yesterday ("A poor caretaker for King's dream," DP, 1/26/99) stated that Rev. Al Sharpton was not an "appropriate" choice for a keynote speaker to commemorate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. However, I am inclined to argue that Sharpton delivered a powerful and well-orated speech that bore none of the "inappropriateness" that was of concern. Sharpton did indeed reflect on King's message, especially drawing on the aspect of political activism, which often becomes "diluted" to a simple message of unity. Sharpton was in no way undermining this unity, but rather was emphasizing, to paraphrase him, that unity of all races accompanied by action for specific policies of social justice is indeed what Dr. King advocated. In his column, ("A not-so-welcome speaker," DP, 1/26/99), Binyamin Appelbaum characterized Sharpton's dreams as "rarely multicolored or hopeful" and stated that "only a small fragment of one community marches with Sharpton." Yet in his address on Tuesday, Sharpton did not cast a picture of an exclusively black movement. He portrayed a movement aiming to put an end to the social injustice and economic oppression that characterizes our society. Lack of resources for public education, lack of quality job opportunities, and unsafe neighborhoods were several of the injustices he mentioned. He did not engage in black-white rhetoric except to specifically mention that he did not believe that "white" was always wrong, nor "black" always right. I do not claim to have an understanding of Sharpton's controversial past nor to defend it. Yet, the keynote address he gave on Tuesday was one that I, as a socially conscientious citizen, as a student and as a white person, found not only "appropriate" but also relevant and encompassing. Miriam Joffe-Block College '00