Letter to L.A. Times Responding to Peter King Column

Details

Written by Allan J. Favish

In "David Duke: Notes On a Debate Card," (Sept. 29), [[Peter H. King writes that "Duke, without question, does represent the views of those who would eliminate affirmative action to strike a blow for 'white people.'"]]

King accurately recognizes that bigots in favor of racial preferences for whites agree with Duke that racial preferences for nonwhites should be eliminated, and will vote for Propostion 209 because they believe it furthers their bigoted agenda.

But King writes as if these bigots are a significant segment of the Proposition's support. In so doing, King fails to recognize that it is he and other opponents of Prop. 209 that share Duke's central belief about the use of race by the state.

We all know that Duke's advocacy of the anti-racial preference principle is a sham; Duke really believes in racial preferences, but for whites. Prop. 209 opponents are in favor of racial preference for blacks and Hispanics.

[[Therefore, both are in favor of subordinating the merit principle to the extent necessary to achieve their desired racial outcomes in academia and the work force. Their only significant difference is the color of the finished product--white or rainbow.]]

[[In contrast,]] supporters of Prop. 209 don't care about color as long as the state chooses the best qualified person from a fairly assembled applicant pool. To the vast majority of Prop. 209 supporters, the significant thing about Prop. 209 is [[not that it will prohibit racial preferences for black and Hispanic individuals, but rather]], that it will prohibit racial preferences for ANY individuals[[--a feature that King opposes]].

Los Angeles Times, October 4, 1996

• < Prev
• Next >