In the height of affirmative action, any person could get a job or accepted to college without regard to qualifications if they were black, had a Mexican sir name, and wore a skirt. There was nothing equitable or fair when white family members in blue-collar towns were fired to make room for the new hires. It was a law that favored color and gender rather than experience, knowledge, or longevity.

It’s no wonder Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court got to where she did just because of her gray matter. She benefited because she met two out of the three affirmation action criteria. It’s hard for me to believe there weren’t many more male or female non-Latinos who were not equally or better qualified when she was accepted at Yale.

Never-the- less, she was a beneficiary of the times believing affirmative action was legal for some, not for all. She learned then and now believes that an inequitable application of the law based on color and gender could be justified. Whites would not receive equal protection. The New England police officers case of reverse discrimination is now in the limelight.

I had family members approached by their supervisor on the production line only to be told they were fired in order to make room for affirmative action. The affirmative action people who took their jobs were not educated, capable, or accountable.

I investigated a production plant that burned down because the workers could not read “Fire Hose.” People with a sixth grade education were made supervisors. Government contractors could not administer written employment tests. They had to be oral because the applicants could not read their own names even on their own time cards.

I expect Judge Sotomayor’s application of the law will be inequitable based on race, color, creed, political differences, social class, and possibly economic well-being. After all, she benefited from inequitable rulings, why not others.

Now, many years after the initiation of affirmative action, many inequities have been addressed and resolved. Every race, creed, and gender has equal opportunities. However, as my personal experiences have shown, there is a cost for inequitable laws. Many lives, limbs, facilities, and equipment have paid the price.

We don’t need a Supreme Court Justice that has indicated she still believes in inequitable laws that will not protect everyone.

Bob Style, Kirkland