Marti Chaatsmith of Columbus, Ohio writes:

I was wondering how people are selected to serve on the discussion panels, especially in terms of American Indian representation. I felt that Sherman Alexie contributed well to the discussion, and brought insight to the experience of American Indians in the PBS Dialogue last Thursday. There are several American Indians in academia, also, who are serving in university administration and as faculty, including Dr. Duane Champagne (UCLA), Dr. Gary Sandefur (U of Wisconsin-Madison), Dr. Matthew Snipp, just to name three.

Celeste of Covina, CA writes:

As mentioned on the program with President Clinton, race relations are different for African Americans than for Hispanics or Asians It is still harder to get equal jobs and pay and equal education and housing than for other minorities. I'm glad to hear this issue raised and feel affirmative action is still needed for blacks. Twenty-five years of affirmative action was only a start to make up for the years of poverty, discrimination and slavery. Other minorities did not come from slavery and Jim Crow . Let's continue to give help where it is needed and due.

Brian Murphy of Amboy, WA writes:

I find the nation wide discussion of "race" a disgrace. During my life I have traveled across our great country. I have seen areas where black people are the subclass and I have seen areas where the white people are the inferior class of people. I personally have been discriminated against by both blacks, Asians, and females. I am coming to feel like a minority myself. I am a 31 year old white male. I think that the President of the United States of America getting up in front of the American public and talking about discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women; and not including white males as a category is not "FAIR."

Remi Adeyeye of Adelphi, MD writes:

I read the transcript of the discussion on race hosted by Jim Lehrer and concluded that the issue is really complex. The one thing that I got of is that we have to pay attention to our children's education, as being championed by the President. While we grope around for the language to use for discussing the complex issue of race relations, we cannot afford to delay action on securing good education for all of our kids, of all races.

Andrew Macaulay of Idaho Falls, ID writes:

I enjoyed the discussion by the special NewsHour panel including the President. However, I was dismayed that no representation from people with known conservative views was present. Someone like Congressman J. C. Watts or writer like Walter Williams would have balanced the discussion. Without all sides being represented, this initiative on race will go nowhere. The problem we've had to date in race relations has been the one-sided public discussion. All American people must be heard if the issue is ever to be solved.

Lawrence Smallwood of New York, NY writes:

As a radical of the sixties who is now 50, I no longer believe America can or desires to live up to the ideals of Rev. Dr. King, Jr. As a black man I no longer think it really matters. What does matter is our individual commitment to basic Christian values, which an authority higher than any of us will surely hold us all accountable for. Most Americans will never change. And I no longer wish to fret away my life convincing them of the value to America that "diversity" could have brought. Let's just give up !!!

Doug Owens of Omaha, NE writes:

Dear Sirs,

If a white person can be a racist, which some are, why can't a black, a Hispanic, or an Asian? The answer is they can be. But, praise the Lord, the vast majority of people are NOT racists. But my point is, is that this topic is NEVER brought up by the media or any one else at the risk of offending anyone who is NOT white or male. America needs to realize this fact.

Gentlemen, I pray that you can come up with solutions that DO work, as this is surely not an easy task. Good Luck.

Daureen Nesdill of Auburn, AL writes:

Elaine talked about how an above average Chinese-American child couldn't attend the school of her choice, others talked about how affirmative action was eliminated from Texas schools because of one person's lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't the same argument be made here as is used when the power of eminent(?) domain is invoked to take property from citizens, i.e. it's for the good of society/community? The students denied admission are having "property" taken away for the good of society/community.

Second point about affirmative action - Studies have shown that a "critical mass" (a minimum number of like people) are needed in a class/ office/ organization/ whatever before members of the group are comfortable enough to succeed. If this is true then once the "critical mass" has been reached then affirmative action can be phased out.

Howard Lynn Hopffgarten of Washington, D.C. writes:

Without qualification, last night's special program on race relations including President Clinton may have been the finest news panel I have ever seen on television. I sincerely hope it will be the first of a regular series.

Without seeking to detract from the opportunity this forum affords, in general, and last night's excellently moderated exchange proved in particular, I wish to make three comments. First, for a program in the near future, I hope you will ask Nicholas Lemann and Tamar Jacoby to participate as guests. Although quite different in bearing, both are substantial authors who have studied race and poverty in relation to government and have worked diligently to see beyond the stereotypes and bromides of race relations.

Second, the ambivalence usually jovial Clarence Page projected on matters of race where he is personally concerned was disturbing. I wonder if his ambivalence, beyond whatever deeply personal history it must have, may also reflect the ambivalence in America (white, black, altogether) over "integration" and "desegregation." As Nicholas Lemann advises in "Promised Land" the former term denotes a "maximum" mingling of races whereas the latter a "minimum" required to meet, ostensibly, the requirements of law, civic freedom, and justice. Page's painful ambivalence suggests three important questions: (a) do black and white Americans "really want" integration? Survey after survey surely suggests anything but consensus on this; (b) could this lack of consensus be the result of the paradox of ethnic difference and vitality (enriching our civilization) on one hand, counterpoised to homogenization and acculturation, powerful forces which account for the hegemony of the U.S. economy as well as the "successful integration" (as Page used the term) of business and the military? and (c) is it not time for a new, more sophisticated model for what we have previously valorized as "integration" and "desegregation"? Perhaps such a model could help clarify the vast difference between conflicts of "race" as distinguished from our urgent, collective problems of "class," poverty, and lack of education? And third, while I agree we talk best and most sincerely about race when we "talk from our own experience," to survive as a culture or, if you prefer, "a nation," we must also have a way to talk beyond ourselves, to speak of our families, of our communities, of our civilization. Without this counterbalance to the me-centric experience model, we promote, whether subtle intended or not, a society where every group, nay, every individual seeks power for themselves. As an historian, I cannot find this a desirable road to the future, believing, as I do, America is the idea that its promise of freedom can be fulfilled for all people.

Steve Grube of Aptos, CA writes:

When will we stop the lie that in America we live in a "classless society"? I was glad to hear Cynthia Tucker raise class as an issue to recognize and attack. We have policy in this country which in fact is "class directed"-- the criminal justice system which disproportionately affects the poor and people of color; police departments that act harshly against the poor and people of color and are little prosecuted by DA's and Attorney's General; global "free-market" policy which exploits poor and people of color in less developed countries. These policies need to be discussed in terms of the class conflicts they cause which exacerbate racial tensions.

Steven Greenberg of Beaverton, OR writes:

In listening to the President's nanologue on race, it came to me how to mend affirmative action not end it. My solution addresses the problem raised by the Asian-American panelist in discussing the incident in the San Francisco schools.

Credit should be given a person for overcoming an obstacle. For instance, in college admissions, you give some weight to test scores and grades. You also give some weight to obstacles overcome to get the scores and grades. Let me emphasize that it is only some weight. Overcoming small obstacles does not trump someone with far, far superior scores.

A black, middle class student who went to excellent schools in grades K-12 would get a lesser advantage for overcoming obstacles than would an economically poor Asian student who went to inferior schools.

You could argue that overcoming an obstacle to get an equivalent grade or test score does show some additional merit over and above the numerical value of the test score or grade.

I think that this is something that all fair-minded people could understand. If you lost out to someone who had the equivalent test scores, but had to work harder to get there, you might be able to fathom the fairness in the choice.

It really turns affirmative action back into a merit based program and yet furthers the goal of diversity.

Elizabeth Christian of Atlanta, GA writes:

I work in higher education and have noticed that in any class... and here I am talking adults, already working, usually above 30 years old... and in class they seat themselves by race... white black, Asian...

If you went across the country with a video camera you would see the same thing. What if teachers at all level systematically implemented seating patterns and study groups in such a way that students from preschool through graduate education were to sit with other races ? Would this simple change increase the dialogue ?

William A. James of Spring Valley, CA writes:

I participated in a diversity program at the University Of California Medical Center for sever years. I fully believe in the Issue of diversity in the workplace as well as in society. The problem that I have as an African-American is the the discussion rarely goes beyond words and symbolic gestures. So while I agree that it is important to discuss these issues, discussion without action leads to cynicism, frustration and in the worst case a worsening of conditions. Conditions become ongoing discussion without actions raises expectations of those who are oppressed and makes those who feel that they are identified as the oppressor become defensive, and increasingly hostile toward the whole discussion of race.

Kern Pegues of Atlanta, GA writes:

What a joke. This president does everything for the polls. This is a serious matter yet he makes it political.

Louise Stanton of Lambertville, NJ writes:

I have a couple of points:

1. The program was very good. I hope J. Lehrer will consider doing another. As one panelist said and several others concurred at the end of the hour, we're just getting started.

2. The problem of race has not been defined. The discussion last night showed that. After reading some accounts on the J.H. Franklin Commission, I was disturbed to see that the President wants the goals to be a colorblind society and diversity. I don't see how that can happen. Acknowledging color is OK; in this country color presumes a part of American history, politics and social history that should be out there. Color and appearance are what white Americans respond to. White Americans must be asked to go beyond appearances to get to know a person.

3. There seemed to be a glaring omission in the discussion on TV and I perhaps you can tell me if it has come up in Commission talks - white Americans must confront the feeling of superiority towards others that are different. It is painful and difficult. Do you agree?

4. Are there any groups engaging in this dialogue in NJ? If so, Can you tell me where I can contact them. Also, I am trying to confront my own assumptions about color and differences. It is a very difficult experience. Are there forums, online discussions that I could enter?

5. Presidential leadership - While I'm glad Pres. Clinton raises and talks about race, I found his contributions to the discussion not useful. He tried to focus discussion on what the government can do. The problem is not identified yet. He talked too much about himself. And, he seemed to want the American people to exercise leadership in their own lives on race issues and that he'd follow (by way of polls) rather than exercising leadership himself.

Adly Girgis of Mission Hills, CA writes:

I am an immigrant myself from Egypt and I made it a rule at home to speak with my children only in English since we arrived to this country. All this about preserving our culture should only be kept as history telling at home. Assimilation in our community should be of utmost importance and we should mix so that physical features aside we should speak the English language in such a way as to avoid any perceivable accent. This I believe is another way to cut down on discrimination. When we left our country to immigrate to this great land we resolved that we will put our old country behind us and never use it as our inherited culture, because we knew then and we are sure now that this attitude eliminates the friction between people.

William E. Baer of Anniston, AL writes:

Are race relations really poor or just made so by constantly stirring the pot? It seems to me it is a political issue that some do not want to let go... or be solved. Agitators!!

Dibya Sarkar of Washington, D.C. writes:

I saw the panel discussion last night on race, but I was very disappointed to see the lack of real diversity. There was no one there who "represented" Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Thais, Indonesians, Koreans, Japanese, Sri Lankans etc. Elaine Chao was picked as the "token" Asian-American, but this is quite unfair to pick one person to represent a growing presence of these diverse groups in this country. There was also no one of Middle Eastern descent represented on the panel. These are important minority groups with a voice. Sherman Alexie said Native Americans have been basically ignored, isn't this happening to these groups as well? I know you can't represent everyone and please everyone, but I thought I should point this out. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to voice my opinion.

Teksta of E.Orange writes:

I think this race issue boils down to economics; if everyone can sustain themselves economically within their community; I think there will be better respect within the races .

Constance L. Mui of New Orleans, LA writes:

As an Asian American ,I am quite disappointed with the NewsHour's choice of Elaine Chao to represent her views as the only Asian American on the panel. While Ms. Chao is certainly entitled to her views, I believe that other points of view from members of the Asian American community ought to be included as well.

Ms. Chao speaks more for the angry white male, and her position on affirmative action certainly reflects the most common misconception about affirmative action-- that AA=quotas. What people like Ms. Chao have failed to acknowledge is that there are many other forms of affirmative action at work in our system. In university admissions, for example, there are seats reserved for "legacy" applicants. Why is it that people who challenge affirmative action programs for minorities don't challenge those other forms of affirmative action? Is it because they are in a position to take advantage of them? Finally, I find it interesting that Ms. Chao had focused only on affirmative action in a discussion on race relations in the United States. And what she had to say was divisive. I believe that the NewsHour should have included a second Asian American voice on the panel, one that does not reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.

Paul West of Cleveland, OH writes:

Question: To what extent do differing personal values play a role in prejudicial attitudes and behavior?

Related comment: When I listen to people talk of how they "have a problem" with a particular culture, neighborhood, or group of people, my feeling is that their real problem is, in part, with what they observe to be values different from their own. I can personally attest to the power of personal values: I had a "falling out" with my father after he and my mother divorced. To this day, I don't feel comfortable being in the same room with him because we do not share many of the same core values. Such is the power of a person's inner values and beliefs. If it can be the source of discomfort between flesh and blood, I can just imagine its influence in situations where a person feels they have little in common with whomever to begin with!

Tom Reedy of Alton, IL writes:

I watched with a great deal of interest and appreciation (for PBS) the July 8th special "Dialogue on Race with President Clinton" and was greatly saddened that we as a multi-ethnic nation are still wrestling with questions on how do we all get along in this country of ours. One of the problems, as I see it, in addressing the issues of race relations is the historical unresolved issue of citizenship: do all "citizens" or rather residents of the United States of America really feel a sense of ownership or belonging in the collective community of our nation? I think as long as we continue to talk in terms of white/black relations to the exclusion of relations among all peoples of color and ethnic backgrounds we can never get started on the path of national healing in order to truly be the world leader in human relations that we were destined to be. Please continue to host more panel discussions on this most important subject.

Carey Chapman of Marietta, GA writes:

It seems to me that race relations are not progressing as well as they should because of preferential treatment given to blacks. Ending affirmative action type programs would be a major factor in improving race relations as it would lessen the resentment whites have towards blacks. Fortunately we have seen reduced racism amongst whites towards blacks. However, racism amongst blacks is not only tolerated but largely encouraged. This is a major area we need to work on.

Joanne Marinelli of Philadelphia PA writes:

I watched the President and the PBS contributors when it was aired Thursday evening, and as a physically disabled Caucasian female of 35, I would add to the discussion the following point: the physically disabled, whom experience the most discrimination in America today, were of course not addressed in the President's discussion because of course, we are not a race, but I think we are an oppressed minority and should be included in the dialogue.

Second point: I am unfortunately, going to prove a portion of Clarence Page's argument right. I fear working class African American males. When I lived in North Philadelphia proper in the early 90's, I was attacked by one because he wanted drug money. I put him in jail but when I am out on the street, any black male in T-shirt and jeans with a terse expression on his face gets a wide berth from me, rolling along in my electric wheelchair, and I feel anxious until I am well out of the way; this fear is wrong but I cannot deny its existence, despite the fact that, no doubt if I knew Clarence Page, I would end up enjoying a discussion with him. I enjoyed the discussion, and commend the NewsHour staff for its excellent television journalism. Keep up the good work.

Albert Hirsch of Chevy Chase, MD writes:

I believe that there is a downside to our recent extolling of "diversity". In promoting diversity, we first go through the almost unconscious process of putting people into categorical cubicles and then urge that we must have representation from each of these cubicles or as many as possible. This only tends to reinforce the sense of "otherness" about which Roger Rosenblatt spoke. Diversity among different species, which we term "biodiversity", has an important biological role. But human beings of different races, ethnic groups are one species. Yes, these human categories derive from our historical past and we cannot deny their existence deep in the human psyche. But the sooner we appreciate each other as unique individuals rather than as representatives of arbitrarily defined groups, the better off we shall be. Replies are welcome.

Robert W. Johnston of Florence, KY writes:

I was quite surprised and relieved to see Native American representation on the Jim Lehrer/President Clinton PBS discussion. I am very concerned about the exclusion of the Native American experience in discussions about race. Racism against Native Americans is far more widespread and destructive in America than is generally recognized. The dominant Native American image in our country is a male warrior frozen in the pre-twentieth century. We supposedly "honor" Native people by naming our sports teams after them. Would we dare claim that naming sports teams after other races such as Jews would be acceptable? When we play cowboys and Indians we desensitize ourselves as children to the humanity of Native persons - as if being Indian is a role like a cowboy rather than a birthright. The attack on Native identity is a real problem. Go into any non-Indian school and ask children what they know about "Indians." The answers will be a frightening reflection of our failure to understand the Native experience. Is it any wonder suicide among Native youth is so exceptionally high? I wish to emphasize two issues regarding race. One is that we need to ask each other to be honest about what images come up when we think of the word "Indian," or "African American'" or "Asian" or "Jew," or "White." The answers will reveal a lot. We need to ask how to appreciate and emphasize the similarities between races while appreciating the distinctions. Second, we need to have a public school system which teaches the true American history so that we do not only learn that the Louisiana Purchase was bought from France, but that it bought the European rights to the land and that transactions still had to be made with the Native peoples occupying those lands. We need to learn of the Supreme Court case the Cherokee nation won against the state of Georgia and how President Jackson mocked the Supreme Court and moved the Cherokee anyway. This is an example of the racism against Indians which is in our nations history. Unless we learn about it, we cannot grow out of it. In short we need to learn Native American history when we learn American history because the two are inseparable. More focus on Native American Indian reservations and news is definitely needed in the media. When can such a change of affairs be expected and when will the work begin? How can I help?

Ilze Choi of New Orleans, LA writes:

I just finished viewing your special on the President's Race Initiative. Thank you for including a representative, Sherman Alexie, from the Native American community.

I was struck, however, by two things. First, President Clinton's admission that when he took office, he knew nearly nothing about Native Americans. He obviously did his homework for he seems to have an understanding of their predicament.

Nevertheless, it is incredible that so few Americans, including those with power over Native Americans,(Presidents and the Congress,)know so little about them. Please, can you devote one of your in depth programs to Native American issues? They are currently under multi-pronged attacks in Congress which, if successful, will eventually lead to the destruction of Native America. This is not the kind of country we should be.

Please speak to Senator Daniel K. Inouye about the state of Native America. You can also get the Native American viewpoint from the National Congress of American Indians. And Vine Deloria Jr., author and scholar,is another highly knowledgeable resource person. I think that Native Americans should have the opportunity to speak for themselves ion addition to any others. My second point is that the racism Native Americans face is somewhat different from what is popularly known. There are groups which want to abolish reservations and which hide white supremacy and anti-Indian agendas under fine-sounding words such as "equality". In addition, though, Indians also face "regular" racism in schools, by the justice system, at public establishments.

Roma Stewart of Chicago, Illinois writes:

The program on race would have been much enhanced by the inclusion of academics who study race relations, and by civil rights lawyers, investigators or activists who work every day on these issues. Journalists with no specific education or training in race relations tended to fall back on personal stories, with the result than most of the critical issues in race relations were not discussed.

Samuel D. McFadden of San Francisco, CA writes:

Unfortunately the message re the SF school and rationing of places by race was incomplete. The basic problem is there are too many very good students who can do the work in the one truly academic public High School. The city needs to provide for all students who are capable and they don't. Not only are the oriental students being short changed but students of all races or ethnic origins are loosing out. SF can readily use at least one more academic school, perhaps two but the problem is to staff it adequately with faculty and to allow those teachers more leeway to challenge the students who can do the work. SF has a substantial number of private high schools Why? If there were not it would be a total disaster for the entire public education system. So, it should not be a matter of who can be let in. Every child should have the opportunity to be as "good as he or she can be". Rationing of education is to cheat all. The tragedy is also that the community cannot see what is happening.

Craig Sayre of Vancouver, WA writes:

Kay James has it right.

I was impressed by what Kay James said about racism being a heart problem, or a problem of sin. I believe that she is right in her assessment. I was disappointed that her view was quickly glossed over by the other speakers on the panel. Now, how to address the problem from that angle? All the affirmative action, busing, integration in the world will not fix the heart. I applaud President Clinton for opening this dialogue. I hope we as an American people can begin talking together. Maybe that will affect the heart.

Aaron Gaudio of Corvallis, OR writes:

In the past (and present), we have attempted to solve race problems through programs such as Affirmative Action, which try to solve the problem by consciously "equalizing" workplaces and public institutions. Now ideas like this are increasingly under attack for being "reverse-discrimination."

On the other hand, there are some small movements to "natural" segregation; for example, ending busing programs for schools. The idea is presumably to focus resources on other issues rather than integration.

It is my contention that as long as the primary focus of discussions and debates continues to be race, then racism will never go away. If we continue to talk about groups of people as distinct races, how can we expect them not to think of themselves as such?

Race is a psychosomatic phenomenon.

With these opinions in mind, isn't the majority of today's discussion actually off track? Is there a way to deal with the "racial" problems we, as a society, have, without accepting race as a factual concept?

Michael L. Presant of Grand Rapids MI writes:

I recently participated in a Healing Racism program through our local Chamber of Commerce. Very heavy dialogue between black and white business leaders... and very helpful to breaking down emotional barriers. However, we were a self-selected group who "get it" that racism persists. How do we help others, specifically in the workplace, to recognize that it's in business' self-interest to integrate employees and aggressively seek out minority customers, suppliers, etc.?

Hugh Blanchard of Yorktown, VA writes:

When black people, Native American Indian people, or other ethnic groups gather to celebrate their racial and cultural heritage, it is "officially" approved as an expression of ethnic and cultural pride.

But when white people gather together to celebrate the same thing, that is, their culture and ethnic heritage, they run the very strong risk of being condemned as racists or so-called "white supremacists."

Why should white people be judged more harshly or by different standards than other ethnic groups? If it is a good and healthy thing for other ethnic and cultural groups to take pride in their ethnic group's history and cultural achievements, why is the same thing not healthy and good when practiced by white people?

I bear no guilt for what happened before I was alive on this planet. And my family never owned slaves. Why should I therefore not be able to celebrate my family's great achievements, past and present?

Lester of Troy, NY writes:

I am the grandson and son of Jewish immigrants from Hungary who came here to escape persecution and certain death. As a result of this history I have always been deeply concerned about human rights and the way people treat each other The accomplishments of the courageous patriots who fought and suffered for the noble cause of human freedom during the civil rights struggle have always made me proud to be an American. I hope their selfless sacrifice will not be forgotten by an America that reverts back to polarization and the ugly face of hate. I know the world expressed in John Lennon's "Imagine" may be simplistic and unattainable, but the dream must never die. I also feel that President Clinton deserves support for this undertaking to bridge gaps and help unite people. His sincere efforts to utilize the power of the presidency for racial healing seems to have been met with far less support than it deserves. I believe history will judge his initiative to be of far more value than the current conventional wisdom.

Ben Mansheim of Passaic, NJ writes:

I am a Master candidate in Social Work and am grateful for having tuned in at just the right time. I think that the dialogue was fascinating and echoed many of the thoughts that have been voiced in my courses. I thought there was a large focus on integration which I applaud. I think that, besides dealing with how that integration will happen and "at what cost," we need also to talk about why many groups will find it necessary not to integrate at some level. For instance, it was brought up in a class that with desegregation came a fleeing of successful blacks from the poorer communities leaving other blacks looking for good role models. Some amount of segregation is positive because it promotes pride and unity to allow people to gain an identity in this barrel of difference which is the United States. Also, in my community, the Jewish community, our freedom in this country has led to disruption from assimilation which is tearing our community apart. So, besides the issue of where do we draw the line between quotas and merit, there is also the question of the line between pros of unity on a macro vs. a micro level.

Hal Edwards of Northbrook, IL writes:

Tonight's DIALOGUE ON RACE was so very helpful! Clinton listened, gave clean feedback which reflected his capacity to integrate the collective wisdom of the group. I've ordered a copy of the tape-- it is a great catalyst for further and deeper thoughtfulness in our local StudentQuest program which focuses on community-building and acts of compassion.

A. D. Powell of Madison, WI writes:

Why are "Hispanics" treated as a "race" or as "any race" for affirmative action purposes? This means that Hispanics can claim to be "white" for social purposes and "minorities" for jobs, university admissions, scholarships, etc.

I know that MOST Hispanics are mixed-race to various extents, but they claimed to be "white" in the census before the affirmative action benefits started. It is unfair for a Hispanic to be able to "skip out" on the "race" question when mixed-race Anglos and Louisiana Creoles aren't allowed to be both "white" and "minority" at the same time.

Since the proponents of affirmative action have always said that the big difference between "minorities" and "whites" is color (the latter can assimilate while the former are visible), may I suggest that anyone who looks "white" be EXCLUDED from affirmative action and that nonwhite Hispanics be forced to declare a "race" within the extremely limited census categories just like everyone else.

Ken Diamond of Santa Cruz, CA writes:

After observing the contrast between President Clinton's appointed race panel and last week's News Hour dialogue on race with the President, I have to wonder if simply dismissing the work of the appointed panel is not appropriate. I think its apparent that a year of opportunity to have an actual meaningful dialogue on race has been squandered. Shouldn't the President offer a mea culpa for selecting a panel unrepresentative of public and intellectual opinion?

Katherine Rotherham of San Diego CA writes:

Here in California the issue is not a Black and White issue but rather a multicultural/diversity issue. I was very glad to see Latinos, Asians and Native Americans on the discussion panel. African Americans and Whites (I prefer the term European American.) both share in the east to west history of the U.S.

However, here in California and in the Southwest both groups are relative latecomers. Historically this area was settled by Hispanics and Mexicans. The present Latino migration into the area is, in many ways, a logical extension of this original settlement of the area. You people on the east coast seem to forget this.

This brings me to another topic. There was a lot of discussion on terminology. Here in California we are moving to cultural terms rather than racial: thus Latinos, Asian Americans, European Americans, African Americans. Richard Rodriguez pointed out that racial terms are inaccurate in that they focus on skin color rather that culture.

I also think that Clinton's focus on quality education for all children is very important. I am very disturbed that here in California we seem to be developing educational policy through the ballot. We need to support schools and teachers so that children can learn not matter what their economic, familial, or linguistic background.

Kip Walsh of Oakland CA writes:

I was delighted to discover the telecast of the president's "Dialogue on Race." I agree that much has changed since the days of Dr. King, but much still needs to be done. I'd like President Clinton to know that I support and applaud his efforts to keep the dialogue going. I particularly appreciate the inclusion of the more "conservative" point of view. It is such an emotional topic, I feel that I do not often hear, or for that matter, listen to other perspectives. While I still ardently support some kind of affirmative action, I agree that we should reassess our strategies to reflect today's realities. Thank you for sponsoring this very important discussion. It was engaging and thought-provoking.

Daniel Gunyan of Rohnert Park, CA writes:

With regard to the issue of determining the diversity of a school, why do we look only at race as a determining factor? What about talent, intelligence, experience and potential? These are factors that are more important than race.

For an elementary school, where students are forced to attend, basing the makeup of the school on race may make sense. However, care must be taken to assure that the racial quotas used are determined at a local level. It makes no sense to base the racial makeup of schools in Boise, Idaho on the racial makeup of the nation, for example.

However, colleges are a different story altogether. People choose to go to college; they are not forced. The makeup of a college should not depend on race, but rather on talent, intelligence, experience, and potential of each person considered. There should be no discussion at all about race. If it is found that the racial makeup of colleges are not comparable to the racial makeup of the pool that the college draws from, then affirmative action is NOT the solution. The solution is to find out WHY members of a certain race are not prepared for college and HOW to remedy that situation. Affirmative action for higher education is a Band-Aid, not a cure.

I could make a similar argument for business.

I would like to see this issue addressed. While viewing the "dialogue on race with President Clinton," I have not seen this point raised. The focus has been on Band-Aid solutions and not on solutions to root problems. I hope this point of view will be considered.

Michael Thurman of Portland, OR writes:

It is difficult for me to believe that relationships between the various races in America is something that can be actively shaped or directed by the government. Time heals all wounds and as time marches on we do become a more cohesive society. If one steps back to look at the progress that has been made over the last fifty years, the magnitude of change that has taken place is astounding. Granted, the changes that have occurred represent a lot of time and energy spent by true heroes, but I propose that the real effect of all of this effort was the impression that it made upon the young people of the country. The government can implement as many programs and hold as many town meetings as it wants, but they cannot affect real change in people's attitudes. Individual change can only come from individual experience with individuals of other races. No one can force a positive experience with someone of another race upon you. If the President feels like he has to do something to improve race relations, I say that he preach the message that racism is inherently ignorant and destructive and challenge every American. to share this message, but realize that the real reason for preaching this message is to insure that our children hear it and will take it to heart and will carry us towards a better America in the future.

Sandra Burgess of Upper Darby, PA writes:

What in all honesty can be accomplished by this discussion. As an African American. Woman, I face racism on some level, every single day. I seriously believe that will not change in my lifetime. Does any one on the panel really believe that it will happen. And, if affirmative action is abolished, what will happen then. Will things go back to the way they were, or get worse than they are?

George Robertson of Chestnut Drive writes:

I think affirmative action based on race should be ended in favor of assistance to the poor regardless of race. I am particularly distressed about our lack of assistance to the people of southern Appalachia.

Bill McHenry of Rock Hill, SC writes:

It would appear a significant number of race and gender initiatives demand equal outcome rather than equal opportunity. Assuming this is at least in part true, have we not removed personal responsibility from the equation to the detriment of achieving final equality?