Bill Lann Lee

Re “Key Senator Opposes Civil Rights Nominee,” Nov. 5: Orrin G. Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, lauds Bill Lann Lee, who has been nominated as head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, as a person with a “compelling personal history” of working hard to rise above “the scourge of bigotry” to become a successful lawyer. But Hatch opposes Lee for the position of the country’s civil rights enforcer.

Why? Is Lee too dedicated to the task of combating discrimination? And will he, therefore, be too aggressive in prosecuting discrimination? Hatch, I imagine, would be much more comfortable with Ward Connerly.

ROBERT M. ROCCO

Los Angeles

* * The Supreme Court rules that gender- and race-based considerations in government employment and contracting are unfair and unnecessary. Yet, Lani Guinier and Kimba Wood, two females, were smeared by a conservative tide in Congress, and had no reasonable hope of Clinton administration appointments. Lee, a Chinese American born to first-generation immigrants who has earned impeccable accomplishments as a legal scholar, is on the ropes for appointment because he is an “activist” in his pursuit of justice.

At the same time, U.S. businesses recognize the need for racial, ethnic and gender diversity in the workplace in order to compete in the new global marketplace. I always thought that it was government that had the ability and courage to advocate on behalf of disenfranchised segments of society, while business only catered to the white majority at the expense of exploited minority labor. I guess I’ve had it all wrong.

MARK M. NAKAGAWA

West Los Angeles

* * Your Nov. 6 editorial unfairly described my opposition to the nomination of Lee as a “callous performance” calculated to score a political point against President Clinton. You were wrong. I have supported no fewer than 455 of President Clinton’s nominees to Justice Department positions and the federal courts. Lee is the first nonjudicial nomination by this president that I have opposed.

My opposition also has nothing to do with Lee’s integrity or his qualification as a lawyer. It has to do with my concern that Lee does not possess a proper understanding of the Constitution and his role as chief enforcer of the nation’s civil rights laws. For example, at his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in written responses to the committee’s questions, Lee misconstrued Supreme Court holdings strictly limiting governments’ ability to engage in presumptively unconstitutional race-based decision-making.

Lee’s record and his Judiciary Committee testimony reflect a nominee who is reluctant to enforce the laws and the Constitution as intended. You suggest that opposition on this basis is inappropriate. In 1985, however, a Times editorial counseled the Judiciary Committee to reject a Reagan Justice Department nominee based on “his willingness to base federal civil rights enforcement on his own misinterpretations rather than respecting principles established by Congress and upheld by the courts” (June 21, 1985). It’s interesting that you appear to have set aside that principle for a nominee whose views are apparently more to your liking.

ORRIN G. HATCH, Chairman

Senate Judiciary Committee

R-Utah