To the Editors of The Crimson:

Joshua H. Henkin's editorial of October 30, constitutes the beginning of an articulate rebuttal to Washington columnist Richard Cohen's assault on the individual rights of Blacks. At issue is the "ethical dilemma" faced by a Washington, D.C. jewelry store owner who wonders whether to admit a young Black man at the front-door buzzer. Henkin defends the rights of the individual not to be judged by his color, but he misses the preeminent point to be made here.

It is true that Black males commit a disproportionately large number of petty thefts in downtown and inner-city neighborhoods, especially against the often seedy jewelry stores that dot these areas. But what is more important and seldom cited is that the overwhelming majority of Blacks are neither thieves nor robbers nor members of economic groups which depend upon crime.

Though Henkin does say that the individual rights of Blacks should be protected, he implies that Blacks as a group are victims of discrimination because they have not "made it" in white middle-class society. This assertion, I believe, is untrue. I propose that the majority of Blacks in this country are not members of the underclass. Not only are most Black people not poor, but most poor people are not Black.

Unfortunately, poor Blacks are extremely visible because they often live in neighborhoods adjacent to business districts. Other Blacks tend to live in dispersed pockets in more affluent parts of cities and suburbs, but because Blacks make up a small part of the population anyway, their numbers in these areas aren't noticed.

Anyone who questions this fact should try looking at the often forgotten part of the nation that lies beyond the northeastern metropolis. There is a social reality beyond the Park Avenue/Harlem or even Beacon Hill/Roxbury dichotomy. Contrary to popular belief, and certainly contrary to Henkin's perception, most Blacks have done a pretty good job of pulling themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps in the little time they have had. And many achieved their gains before the end of legally sanctioned racism.

The scenario on the cover of a recent issue of The New Republic might be better understood if someone asked the following question: what if the young Black man at the door of the jewelry store was not a thief? Well, then he, like most Blacks who would have been in such a situation, probably was somebody with the means to make purchases at a jewelry store and not likely to be a food stamps-carrying member of the urban underclass.

Suppose further, in an example that is probably familiar to some members of our immediate community, that a Black, female Harvard student buying a dress in Bonwit Teller is not a credit card forger. Then she probably has the means to spend that kind of money on clothes. What effect do the preceeding Black characters have on proprietors or store clerks or real estate agents who are not Black? These nonstereotypical Blacks are bothersome to whites and others.

The reason that Blacks become "suspects" whenever they enter retail establishments is that such a transformation protects others--WASPs, white ethnics, Jews, Asians, whomever--from having to reevaluate their images of Black people. If a sales clerk or undercover security guard has a mental picture of all Blacks as disreputable ghetto dwellers, then the presence of a petty bourgeois, upper-middle class, or top drawer Black person threatens his world view and, in a fashion, his own sense of security.

"What does it mean," thinks a Boston policeman stopping a Black teenager speeding in a Saab turbo, "when Blacks can routinely live as good or better lives than I?" The policeman rebels against the thought, deciding that a kid having fun in a graduation present must be a felon, and so instead of receiving a moving violation, someone's child is dragged down to the station though he has registration in hand.

Similarly, though a white condo owner's voice of rationality may tell him that the purchase of a unit down the hall by a Black professional is not about to lower the property values in a mid-town building, he resists accepting his new neighbor. How does he reconcile his preconceptions about Blacks to this situation when the only Black person he knows personally is his cleaning lady? He may even know other Blacks professionally, but he still clings to his ability to distance himself socially.

In short, the jewelry store scenario hardly deserves to be graced with the term "ethical dilemma." Yet the issues raised encompass more than the individual rights of minority groups. The racism inherent in Cohen's words involves something much more fundamental than class differences or fear of crime. It is a racism that strikes every Black person regardless of class, status, education or integrity. Camille Caesar '87