Lani Guinier Nomination

A lifelong Democrat who cast his first presidential vote in 1948 for Harry S. Truman, I am appalled and angered at President Clinton’s caving in under pressure by withdrawing his nomination of Lani Guinier to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department.

Who can buy President Clinton’s explanation that he was not familiar with Guinier’s ideas, whether expressed in law journal articles, or verbally as they must have been at some point because of the admitted close friendship between Guinier and the Clintons? Who can accept Vice President Al Gore’s apologia that politics had nothing to do with his boss’ decision? And, after all, how did Guinier get to be nominated in the first place if her ideas were to become politically embarrassing?

Rep. Craig Washington (D-Tex.) on June 3 pointed out--before Clinton jettisoned his nominee--that the President would gain respect as a man of conviction if he gave Guinier the opportunity to clarify her viewpoints before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the public--even though she faced defeat. Clinton did not have the decency to do that. He surrendered once more to pressure.

Clinton’s actions lend credence to the perception that he is unfit to govern. This President is no profile in courage nor a man of honor.

STANLEY SLOME

Granada Hills

* The withdrawal of Guinier because he was not informed of her principles is a shame, but to not allow Guinier her day in court is a sham. Is this Clinton’s idea of an atmosphere of change? He is walking on shaky ground. The ramifications of this feeble decision produce deep disappointment for supporters of change.

ROGER CLAASSEN

Anaheim

* Clinton has been roundly criticized for his nomination and subsequent withdrawal of Guinier. But is it not better to admit a mistake and accept responsibility for it rather than to continue on a flawed course?

It is indicative of the current political environment that Bill Clinton is seen not as the President but as just another potential object of scorn and ridicule. It would seem that there are many in the public arena who would prefer a broken and failed Clinton Administration to a successful one if only so that they may voice a smug “I told you so.”

Yet, ultimately it is the country as a whole that stands to lose should many of Clinton’s long-range goals not be achieved. Health, education and welfare reform, economic growth and a balanced budget are issues which should not become victims to politics and self-interest.

In a nation where divergence might soon be the only thing we have in common, it may well be time to set aside the oft-heard criticism of misguided intention and style and rather strive to achieve things of lasting substance.

GILBERT PROWLER

Mission Hills

* It may be a mistake for Americans of European heritage (Anglos), particularly in Los Angeles, to rush to judgment on Guinier’s views concerning proportional representation and minority vetoes. These concepts may look pretty good to Anglos living in Los Angeles 20, 30 or 50 years from now.

WALTER S. FISHER

Palos Verdes Estates

* In response to Karen Grigsby Bates’ column, Commentary, June 6:

Imagine if someone had written the phrase “another articulate, unbent white man crisply responding to a bench of black women--and John Q. Jones, the white Illinois senator who, apparently, has decided to behave as if he is one of them. . . .” Bates would no doubt consider it a blatantly racist and sexist remark. It would be, and reversing the colors and sexes in the phrase she actually wrote makes it no less so. Until the garbage of stereotyping and bigotry is flushed from the minds of those pretending to fight it, we can get nowhere.

WILLIAM FORWARD

Los Angeles

* In reading the excerpts of articles by Guinier (“Minority Goal Must Be Equality in Fact,” Commentary, May 27), I was struck by the fact that her concept of proportionate-interest representation seems not too different, at least in theory, from the idea of the concurrent majority advanced by John C. Calhoun about 160 years ago. The irony is that Guinier wants to provide mechanisms that would offer the opportunity for the policy preferences of the black community and other minorities to be realized in practice, while Calhoun, who was the intellectual and legislative champion of the slave owners, sought to protect their position against the growing wealth and numbers of the industrializing North.

So the question remains: Is protecting minority interests by tampering with the mode of representation such a good idea?

ALLAN D. NANES

Thousand Oaks