Replies

I'm a black guy who certainly has benefited from affirmative action. Yet I think it must be halted--at least the form which is based on race and sets lower standards for minorities.

Is that inconsistency? Not at all. And here's why. To the extent that this form of AA makes sense, it's as a tactic to give a boost to first-generation "strivers." I mean, minority folks who come from deprived backgrounds and didn't have all the opportunities of middle-class whites. That description covers me pretty accurately.

But it doesn't at all apply to my kids, who have a nice middle-class existence, go to good schools and get good grades. Why should they be treated as "deprived," and in need of extra help? They'll do fine.

Treating my kids as cripples because they're black is frankly insulting. I don't want that to happen to them. And that's why I think Bush is right.

I supported affirmative action when it was first implemented back in the Nineteen-sixties and I had the understanding at the time that such action was a temporary remedy to jump start a badly broken system.

I never expected that it would become a permanent fixture of our political landscape.

As you say, if the subtext of the message is that Black Americans will ALWAYS need a break then affirmative action becomes an insult to human pride- and it becomes counter-productive, since expectations for blacks will be lower and performance will always tend to match the expectation. I'm sure that this phenomenon can be seen up close and persoanal in many back families right now.

Your insight and experience is greatly appreciated.

I wish both parties would support outreach for the economically disadvantaged (which disproportionately help blacks and hispanics) and jettison this fixation on pigmentation. This would hopefully eliminate the stigma of affirmative action and promote excellence among all socioeconomic strata.