Social justice advocates and media pundits have taken great pains to paint Ashcroft as a racist and rabid opponent of women's and gays' rights. Ashcroft supporters have responded that he is a person of high integrity, without a racist bone in his body.

While these claims and counter-claims are relevant because individuals' values drive their behaviors, the central issue is this: If Ashcroft is confirmed, could he and would he fairly enforce all the laws of our great country?

The evidence suggests that since our current laws and Ashcroft's public policy stances - based on his past record - are in deep conflict, this may be an impossible charge. We must exhort our U.S. senators to recognize that a man who has devoted his political life to opposing gun control, reproductive choice and civil rights is not the best choice for enforcing and defending the laws of this land.

Much has been written about Ashcroft's ruthless attack on the nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White, a black Democratic judge, who was labeled by Ashcroft as ``pro-criminal.'' Ashcroft's vicious campaign against White in October 1999 ended in a first-time Republican rejection of a Clinton judicial nominee. This suggested that Ashcroft had real influence in the Republican party.

There's no doubt that Ashcroft engaged in dirty politics to sabotage the federal nomination of White, who is a staunch right-to-choose advocate. The record is clear that many of the charges hurled at Justice White were simply false. It may just be a coincidence that Justice White was the first (and only) black on the Missouri Supreme Court ... or maybe not. At best, the situation indicates that Ashcroft was not particularly prudent and thorough before he publicly attacked Justice White for being soft on crime.

Even more important is Ashcroft's public policy track record:

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights reports that Ashcroft voted anti-civil rights 90 percent of the time.

The NAACP ranks him as opposed to minority rights 80 percent of the time.

The National Education Association reports that he opposes education programs 80 percent of the time.

We must maintain focus on Ashcroft's political deeds. We cannot afford to be distracted by quibbling about whether the man is a racist, sexist or a man of high integrity. What's at stake is whether Ashcroft can do the job of U.S. attorney general fairly and objectively.

Too often we are lured into focusing on someone's personality and personal lives, while ignoring their public policy records. In examining his record, aside from the rhetoric, it's predictable that Ashcroft will continue his agenda of hostility toward racial justice and African-Americans.

We are still reeling from the massive voter disenfranchisement of the African-American community caused by the Florida debacle. On top of that, affirmative action protections are being challenged, racial profiling is making it dangerous to ``drive while black,'' and African-Americans and other minorities are being isolated in decaying U.S. cities and schools.

At a time like this, we cannot afford an attorney general who turns a blind eye to racial inequities. If these concerns are not fairly addressed prior to confirming Ashcroft, it may signal that the country is still not serious about its commitment to racial justice.

Not because of the nature of Ashcroft's bones, but because the nature of his actions.

Powell is the executive director of the Institute on Race & Poverty and holds the Marvin J. Sonosky Chair in Law and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota Law School. He can be reached at irp@umn.edu.

All content © 2001 ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS and may not be republished without permission.