As two fully-conscious individuals who have survived the barrage of incomplete and unrealistic ideas presented by Joe Clark, we wish to question his logic. We'll begin with his attack on affirmative action.

Clark seems to believe that racism is an individual problem. Drawing from the writings of M. Marable and our own life experiences, we can only point out that discrimination is institutionalized in American society and can't be addressed solely on an individual level.

To merely say, "I'm not racist, therefore, I'm doing my part," is false because through everyday living we support institutions that are racist and sexist (ie. white, male corporate world).

Joe Clark's belief that affirmative action only ignites hatred ignores the prior existence of racism. Clark's solution is to restructure the entire educational system or, to be clearer, to restructure society.

How realistic is this? Affirmative action is the only possible way to address discrimination by encouraging institutions to open their doors to the traditionally oppressed. This decision is a choice; no one is forced to hire or admit on the basis of color, sex or age.

We question his statement, "You can call me what you want . . . Sambo, nigger . . , but the true power lies in economics." We recognize the power of economic clout, but respond that the stereotypes that are perpetuated by this name-calling deny blacks the opportunity to achieve economic power because these images serve to keep blacks "in their place" (ie. lower socioeconomic class).

Clark seemed to have his values confused. On one hand he said, "Don't try to please any individual," while allowing, for instance, Southerners, whom he neatly packaged into a stereotype, to call him "boy" -- a term associated with the Sambo. His support of Reagan is questionable considering the economic decline of Black America under the Reagan administration.

Before closing, we'd like to address the issue of sexism and Joe Clark. First, let us quote some ideas, "(Gary Hart) had the nerve, the boldness, the temerity to tell me, you and the American public he spent the whole night with 36-24-36, and nothing happened! He has no voice."

With this statement, we assume that, because of her physical endowments, this woman was capable of only one action in close quarters with a male. He further condoned the sexist activities of men of high public stature simply because of their fame.

Clark's speech seemed to be a purely personal glorification extolling his success and virtues as a "poor black welfare boy from Newark who made the cover of Time."

Who cares how much money Warner Studios paid you. Next time, spare us the status of your checking balance.