* Your July 19 editorial, "UC Regents' Many Faces," mischaracterizing UC Regent Ward Connerly's efforts to end discrimination and special privileges at our university system was outrageous.
It is Connerly who proposes ending special admissions for the children of the rich and powerful. It is Connerly who proposed giving gays and lesbians the same health benefits all other university employees have. It is Connerly who questions ethnic studies--why shouldn't all university students learn of the outstanding achievements of blacks and Latinos? And for those of us who dream of a colorblind California, what is wrong with Connerly questioning separate black and Latino graduation ceremonies?
* While ending affirmative action on one hand, it appears the regents will be keeping affirmative action for the rich and powerful. Although it is not called affirmative action. They use names such as "flexibility" in admissions "so campus chancellors can do what's in the best interest of their institutions." Why can't they use some of that flexibility when it comes to minorities? Are they saying minorities are not in the "best interest of their institutions"?