Letters

For years, conservatives have argued that the Constitution requires neutrality with regard to race and have assailed liberals for attacking neutral laws just because they don't like the results. Now that overt racial preferences are being replaced by racially neutral forms of affirmative action, many conservatives are abandoning their previous position and sounding a lot like liberals ("Preferences for (Almost) All," by John O'Sullivan, April 17).

We simply have to acknowledge that we have not fulfilled the promise of equal opportunity to millions in our society. To counteract abysmal public schooling and regulatory rules that are rigged against the poor, it is appropriate to use true (i.e., nonracial) affirmative action to level the playing field. Because minorities are disproportionately among the poor, they will benefit disproportionately from such programs. But the point is that they will do so not because they are minorities, but because they are truly disadvantaged.

The most serious question asked of those of us who would ban government's power to discriminate on the basis of race is: What should we do to help those for whom the playing field is not level? For some conservatives, the answer is nothing-and that is why the GOP is becoming the minority party (but not the party of minorities). For leaders with vision, like Jeb Bush, the answer is race-neutral efforts to clear away barriers to opportunity.

Where racial considerations seep into the process, we should diligently remove them. But to morally equate a "talented 20" program with racial preferences is not only wrong, it suggests that we have lost sight of our commitment to opportunity.

Clint Bolick

Institute for Justice

Washington, D.C.

Congratulations to John O'Sullivan for clear thinking about race and gender privileges. He understands that basing privileges on need instead of race and gender does nothing to restore equality under the law.

Quotas are expanding despite public opposition, referenda, and court decisions because most of those who oppose quotas accept the analyses and decisions that led to quotas. For example, both Clint Bolick and Stephan Thernstrom accept Brown v. Board of Education and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Both were explicitly based on the presumption that white Americans are so irredeemably racist that democracy would forever uphold segregation. With goodwill and persuasion dismissed as ineffective, coercion was employed as the remedy for segregation.

Brown's aftermath is not merely busing and racial preferences, but also judicial usurpation of legislative power. The Civil Rights Act extended Brown's premise of inexorable racism from politics to private life. It reflects the belief that freedom of conscience would perpetuate racial discrimination in private affairs just as democracy would perpetuate segregation in public life.

Until we understand that Brown and the 1964 act attacked not only racial discrimination but also the foundations of civil society- goodwill and freedom of conscience-we have little chance of reclaiming self-rule and equality under law.

Paul Craig Roberts

Panama City Beach, Fla.

THREE STRIKES

What's up with your April 17 issue ("Man's Best Friend")? Your "cover story" on guns consists of three short, pointless articles that don't really say much of anything. It seems you've squandered the opportunity to add something meaningful to the debate. As a subscriber and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I find that most unfortunate.

Aaron Broaddus

Highland Park, Ill.

Dave Kopel states that gun-control advocates have put forward lies, exaggerations, and skewed statistics ("An Army of Gun Lies"). This is the same as the pot calling the kettle black, since both sides on this issue are equally guilty. Example: Kopel says rifles" do not fire any faster than ordinary rifles and that the bullets are less powerful. He needs to check his source. Assault rifles, many based on the Russian AK-47, were designed specifically to fire on full automatic, like a machine gun, in order to provide the regular infantryman with the fire power of a machine gun. If they were merely semi-automatic they would be of no more use than the World War II M-1 Garand or the M-1 carbine, which were semi-automatic. Additionally, if they were not fully automatic they would not require such a large magazine.

Even strict gun controls would never completely eliminate gun accidents or gun violence, but some commonsense measures could reduce both. If people on both sides of this issue would get off their high horses and start working together, I'm sure that an acceptable system could be worked out. So far the two sides have acted like schoolboys yelling epithets at each other.

I'm no liberal. I grew up in a small town in Vermont and had my own rifle at the age of eight. No self-respecting hunter or competition shooter, however, would have any use for an assault weapon.

Malcolm L. Torrey

Carmichael, Calif.

DAVE KOPEL RESPONDS: Mr. Torrey's letter shows how effective the gun- ban groups and their media puppets have been in confusing many well- intentioned gun owners. The phrase "assault rifles" is a military term of art for the types of rifle that Mr. Torrey knows about. My article, however, never mentions "assault rifles." Rather, my discussion is about "so-called 'assault weapons.'" Just read the federal law that bans "so-called assault weapons" and you won't find a single "full automatic" weapon. Instead, the Clinton/Feinstein ban on "assault weapons" applies only to firearms that are not automatic. The banned guns simply look military, because they use black plastic stocks instead of brown wooden ones, or have other cosmetically incorrect features.