Civil Rights...

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your editorial "Civil Wrongs" (January 27, 1984) describes the old United States Commission on Civil Rights as being "characterized by fierce independence," the new one as "a mouthpiece for Reagan." It attacks the Commission votes against quotas and busing, and for the continuation of a study of the effect of affirmative action on Americans of Eastern and Southern European descent. And asserts (acting as a mouthpiece for the current minority of the Commission?) that all this was done without "long deliberations." The editorial ignores the reality that there has been a split in the supporters of civil rights on issues such as quotas and busing since the early 1970's. It is outrageous in suggesting that Morris Abram and John Bunzel are not independent, are "mouthpieces" for Reagan (or anyone), and are not supporters of civil rights. The Jewish civil rights groups, many other ethnic-group defense organizations, and many supporters of civil rights in universities and colleges oppose quotas What else was the Bakke fight about? Are all these now to be denied their history and role as a defender of rights because they disagree--on principled grounds--with many of the leaders of Black civil rights groups? What "long deliberations" or "independent research" was necessary over issues that have been studied for 15 years, and by people who have been deeply involved in these issues as lawyers, college presidents, Scholars? Nor was it the new members of the Civil Rights Commission who initiated the study of the impact of affirmative action of Eastern and Southern Europeans. This was mandated by Congress some time ago; and one thing we can be sure of is that the new members of the Civil Rights Commission will oppose the spread of quotas to these groups, something which as a matter of self-defense tempts some of their advocates. Nathan Glazer,   Professor of Education and Social Structure