In a recent column, I noted the irony that President Clinton’s panel on race and diversity in America seemed to refuse to recognize diversity of ideas, only listening to those who favor affirmative action. Many in the news media, both commentators and people interviewed by the press raised the same point, that diversity of ideas is important in examining America’s racial problems. After criticizing the panel for its lack of diversity of ideas, it is only fair that I point out that President Clinton has heard the critics and has quickly invited several with differing views to become part the "dialogue on race."

Ward Connerly, the regent of the University of California who led the charge to rid racial preferences in university admissions in California, along with Linda Chavez, another prominent conservative critic of affirmative action, met with President Clinton and his diversity panel and came away feeling assured that diverse views would be sought.

The panel convened recently in Fairfax County, Virginia, to discuss the problem of differences in education outcomes across racial lines. The panel included, among others, the noted conservative William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education.

While racial differences in education was the point to be addressed, the panel quickly began to address ways to make public schools better, apparently agreeing that many of our inner-city public schools are not doing the job to prepare children for either higher education or for the world of work. Ideas to improve our schools were discussed, openly and freely. Ideas ranged from returning to more integrated schools through busing to better teacher preparation to smaller schools to greater school-level autonomy to school charters to school vouchers. This was a panel to listen to.

You have to give Clinton credit for opening the panel up to diverse views. Clinton may have bowed to pressure, or he may have recognized that his appointed panel didn’t "get it." Why he opened the panel up does not really matter—he did it! Most importantly, he gave the panel its credibility back, and for such an important issue, it needs credibility.

But he probably had little choice. With freedom of the press and freedom of speech written into the stone of our very clever constitution, diversity of ideas was inevitable. Diverse opinions are already being discussed in America. The dialogue has been taking place, not just by academics on college campuses and in academic writings, but in cafes, bars, schools and workplaces across America.

More publicly, the dialogue has been taking place on the electronic media, not only on programs such as "Rush Limbaugh," but on programs, such as "This Week," "Meet the Press," "Firing Line" and "Crossfire." The dialogue has been taking place in the printed press, in columns not only from the likes of George Will and William Raspberry, but all across America, in columns, such as the one Felicia Harry has in the Daily Comet. With such programs and columns comes the reactions of listeners on call-in programs and those of readers in letters to the editor.

In a free economic system, where free enterprise is allowed to flourish, better value products, diverse products for diverse people, will be developed. In a free society, one where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not only core values, but enforced freedoms, diverse ideas will be discussed, opposing views cannot be ignored. Competition is a compelling force.