Apr 2, 2003 3 min read

April 1 at the Supreme Court was affirmative action day: student diversity improves education. Consider these points from the NYT: Diversity programs don’t raise standards; three of four students oppose relaxing academic standards; 71 percent of minorities oppose preferences. Forty-seven percent administering programs are opposed, and two-thirds see no positive effect on academic standards. And “of those who think preferences have some impact on academic standards, those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1.”

We should no longer have to tolerate the half-enchanted slope of affirmative action, which is like a prostitute who has, for a price, laid her head on the unfaithful arm of disenchanted liberals – those fashionable madmen who turned equal opportunity into equal results and treated the change as a political fib. Affirmative action is one source of liberal wrong-headedness funding a second, and a third, until the quality of the university is isotopically third and fourth rate.

The AA’s live in an enclosed garden in which they wander in a state of licorice affection and vanilla dislike – in other words a state of complete receptivity and satisfaction. The AA’s discover the out-numbered, the under-represented, the incompetent, the poor, the indifferent, and even the suspiciously grateful, who, they think, are everywhere alike and deserving. Their garden becomes the theme of presumed faults.

Contrary evidence to the garden’s theme is unthinkable. But is it possible that everyone doesn’t deserve to be recipient of affirmative action and relaxed standards? Is it possible that not everyone can profit from special care?

The exceptive liberal speaks of affirmative action not in linear narration but in ever expanding contexts so that it becomes quotas, so that equal opportunity becomes equal results, and so that discrimination is captured and recaptured in every relationship. Every event in which minorities do not benefit is alien and discriminatory and requires a preferential fix.

Professor Connie Mack Rea

Winter Haven, Fla.

Changing Pearl Harbor story

After more than 60 years since the sacrifice of Pearl Harbor to an infamy, isn’t it time that writers and broadcasters cease using the world “surprise” when referring to the attack?

The only segment of the military that was not aware of the approach of the Japanese fleet was the Pacific command, including General MacArthur in the South Pacific and especially the military command at Pearl Harbor.

Having broken the international Japanese code, and learning of the Japanese naval fleet designs on Pearl Harbor, our military, including President Franklin Roosevelt, General George Marshall, and the Navy’s code deciphering team, decided that it would be better to keep the Japanese’s intention quiet in order to allow the enemy to fire the first shot. The reasoning behind this decision was logical. The nation at that time was sharply divided against becoming involved in the war. However, it was correctly established that a “surprise attack” would unify the country to respond, and it did.

However, not bringing the Pacific Command officers into Washington’s plan was the infamy of the tragic episode. Afterwards, Washington publicly held the commanders responsible for not being prepared for the attack. Admirals Kimmel and Short were allowed to retire in disgrace. Thus, the truth of the matter could not be brought to light in court martial proceedings. The Pearl Harbor myth was thus conceived.

The truth needs to be congressionally acted upon in order to clear the innocent parties whose lives and naval records have been permanently marred. The powerful have protected the powerful long enough.

Al Hopfer

Greensburg