IN NAME ONLY

In “Playing the Name Game” (Aug. 18), Scott Collins writes that the Federal Communications Commission “requires each station to fill out a form describing its efforts to recruit minorities and women. Management must hire a proportion of each minority equal to at least half of the proportion of that minority in the regional work force. . . . If a station is found to violate the rules, the FCC can impose a fine. In extreme cases, the agency can also refuse to renew the station’s license.”

Collins also writes that, according to FCC General Counsel William Kennard, pre-employment questions about ethnic background “are lawful as long as the information is not used as a basis for hiring decisions.”

So the FCC imposes ethnic hiring quotas but forbids employers to ask applicants about their ethnicity for purposes of meeting those quotas? Are we to believe that employers do not use answers to pre-employment questions about ethnic background in their hiring decisions when these employers face fines and loss of licenses for failing to meet the ethnic quotas?

ALLAN J. FAVISH

Tarzana

*

Let’s face it, the majority of television newscasts are simply entertainment shows made out to be news broadcasts. News pieces are presented only if there is a great sound bite, video clip or a plot with scandal and controversy.

Would anyone question the naming of a character playing an ethnic role in a sitcom, play or movie? Why then should people be outraged at the naming of characters in newscasts for ratings? Maybe it is because of the affirmative action numbers game that this is commonplace. The FCC gets their numbers, the actors get great reporter positions and the viewers hear an accented surname at the end of each clip. Everybody is happy.

DANIEL P. DILLON

Downey

*

Your article reminds me of another situation that demonstrates the unfairness and illogical application of affirmative action.

When the Los Angeles Unified School District had to initiate ethnic balance within the faculties of its schools, many non-Hispanic women who had Hispanic surnames as a result of marriage remained on the “acceptable list” solely on the basis of their last name, seniority or not, while “other whites,” as they were referred to by the LAUSD, with Anglo names were subject to transfer.

Any type of priority or preference given to anyone on the basis of sex or ethnicity is unjust. Colorblind and genderblind laws are the only answer. Ability should be the main criterion for consideration of hiring.

NORMAN A. NERO

Granada Hills