EDITORIAL : THE CASE FOR PROPOSITION 209.

THE Daily News Editorial Board recommends voting yes on Proposition 209 as a step toward building a new model of affirmative action that would be more credible and do more good than the existing one.

Opponents of Proposition 209 have raised fears that the initiative will prohibit any and all affirmative action programs. To believe that is to misread both the text of the measure and the sentiment of most Californians.

On the other side, backers of Proposition 209 did a disservice to the public by trying to use it as a ``wedge issue'' to gain political advantage. They were dead wrong if their intent was to deny society's helping hand to the disadvantaged on any basis; they can right the record by leading the effort to find ways of providing legitimate assistance to the disadvantaged after the election.

A majority of Californians, like most Americans, approves of the nation's civil rights progress during the last 30 years. And they don't want to turn back the clock to the days when segregation was legal and women and minorities were second-class citizens.

Yet even those who strongly support affirmative action ought to admit there are glaring problems with the way it has been implemented. For example, some people get special consideration based on their color or ethnicity, even if they grew up amid wealth and privilege, or only recently arrived in this country and experienced no historical oppression. Meanwhile, those from other disadvantaged segments of society - like dirt-poor whites from Appalachia - don't get equal consideration.

President Clinton says ``Mend, don't end'' affirmative action, but he and everyone else who cares about preserving such policies have had their chance to mend what is broken. They haven't. Can they now be trusted to fix the problems in the face of opposition from those who derive political strength and wealth from the present, dysfunctional system? Besides, many minorities believe set-asides and preferences are demeaning and damaging to the very groups they are supposed to help.

Proposition 209 bans preferences (and discrimination, too) based on gender, race or ethnicity, but it does not ban assistance if it is based on socioeconomic factors such as poverty and limited educational opportunity. The state still will be able to aggressively seek out and encourage minorities and women to help them prepare to compete for public employment, contracts and education.

Indeed, the state already has a clear blueprint for doing that, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1989 case of Richmond vs. J.A. Croson, the court ruled that preferential treatment on the basis of gender or race is legally acceptable only if it is ``narrowly tailored'' to address identifiable past discrimination. Proposition 209 won't prevent such constitutional efforts to redress the lingering effects of discrimination.

Opponents of the measure have no grounds to call it racist. Freedom and equality still are the heart of the American dream, and the overwhelming majority of Californians want to provide opportunities for people who are determined to work hard and overcome their past disadvantages.

It's a tragedy that Proposition 209 is needed, but affirmative action is overdue for a midcourse correction. If voters reject this measure, harsher corrections are sure to follow.

PROP. 209 AT A GLANCE

Here is a summary of Proposition 209 on Tuesday's general election ballot:

Prohibition against discrimination or preferential treatment:

Would prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education and contracting.

The Daily News recommends:

YES

CAPTION(S):

Box

Box: PROP. 209 AT A GLANCE (See Text)