Viewpoint The Battalion Tuesday Texas A&M University October 24, 1978 Constitution needs rehashing, facelift By DOROTHY DUBOIS It’s back again: the ghost of constitutions passed. Year after year, a “new” constitu tion comes before the student body to be voted on. This is a misnomer. Each year, we are not presented a true “new” con stitution, a constitution with progressive new ideas and substantive changes. We consider a rehashed, warmed over version of the old constitutions. I say it’s time for a change. Instead of considering the old constitution with a few changes year after year after year, we Headers’ Forum should carefully consider our constitution and decide if it’s really what we want. By “we,” I don’t mean just those involved in Student Government, but the entire stu dent body. The constitution to be voted on was dis cussed at the Oct. 19 Senate meeting. At that meeting, the point was made that Student Government has been doing a pretty good job under the present con stitution, and that the old order should not be changed. Before we get too carried away with pat ting ourselves on the back, let me state my opinion that this is pure, unadulterated bull. If a random survey were taken, I se riously question the assumption that the result would find even a small minority of students at Texas A&M who think that Student Government is even approaching doing a “pretty good” job. The feet is that the Senate has spent a majority of its time arguing over internal issues, rather than trying to provide direct services to the student body. A recent case in point is the Student Government budget, in that two meetings were de voted to this issue alone. Granted, it was an important issue, however, it did not affect a direct service to the students. The Student Senate at Texas A&M has become preoccupied with itself, almost to the exclusion of its true function: to serve and represent the stu dent body. Is the answer to totally abolish Student Government? I think not. Student Gov ernment has a definite purpose, as stated in the first paragraph of our constitution, a purpose I feel is unique to Student Gov ernment as an institution. We should not depose Student Government, but restruc ture it. We should create a structure aimed at efficient representation of and service to the student body of Texas A&M University. First, serious research and time should be put before a “new” constitution. We should find out what types of student governments other schools have, and what degree of effectiveness they realize. We should spend substantial amounts of time considering all the various alternatives open to us before we finally present one to the student body to be voted on. Second, Student Government has got to get back in touch with the student body. Advertised public hearings should be held to solicit the input of the entire student body, not just a selected few Student Gov ernment politicos. With the same people giving input every year, we will get the same ideas. We need new thought in jected into the process, so that we won’t be served warmed over constitution every year. This is your Student Government. It doesn’t belong to the aspiring politicos, and it doesn’t belong to the administra tion. It belongs to you, the students. So if you don’t like the way Student Government is operating, change it! On Thursday, Oct. 26, vote against the pro posed constitution and tell Student Gov ernment that you’re tired of seeing the same “new” constitution year after year! Dorothy Dubois is a junior political sci ence major, and an off-campus under graduate senator in Student Government. Kennedy, By DAVID S. BRODER BLOOMINGTON, MINN. — It was one of those Irish throwaway lines, a joke that may have been what the youths of my tifne called “kidding on the square.” f‘T remember when Fritz (Mondale)' came to the Senate,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told a Democratic fund-raiser here the other night. “Hubert said to me, ‘He’s a nice, bright young fel low. Give him a hand.’ So I helped him along, and suddenly there he is” — and Kennedy pointed skyward — “high up on the ladder of success, looking down at me.” It got the laugh Kennedy expected from the vice president’s homestate friends, and he immediately took the edge off the line by adding that “President Carter showed his good judgment in selecting Fritz as his running mate.” But it was not altogether fitting. For in a way that both these able, ambitious young men recognize, they are not only admirers of each other, but potential rivals. Ken nedy’s friends are divided in their guesses about whether he might, under some cir cumstances, challenge Jimmy Carter in 1980. But few of them think he would give Letters to the Editor Mondale size up possible rivalry up without a fight and let Mondale take over the presidential nomination (and a possible eight-year lease on the White House) in 1984. Kennedy is 46 now — four years Mondale’s junior. But no one who knows him expects him to defer his presidential ambitions until he is 60 — which is what he would be at the end of two Mondale terms. The immediate beneficiary of this dis tant and well-disciplined rivalry is the C ommentary Democratic party, whose candidates this year are getting good campaign service from both Mondale and Kennedy. Both men are pros. Both good drawing cards. And both are much in demand. Mondale has been on the road for weeks, but Kennedy is in gear now that congress has finished — and is not at all loath to point up his availability. “I’m delighted to be in Minnesota,” he told the banquet crowd the other night. “And not just because you’ve got 10 elec toral votes.” “When they were looking for a speaker for this dinner (a fund-raiser for Sen. Wendell Anderson’s reelection campaign), “the Democratic National Committee said, ‘you can have President Carter for $1,000 a person. You can get old Fritz for $500. But why don’t you take Kennedy? He’ll only cost you $100.’ “So,” he told the laughing guests, “I’ve already saved you a lot of money. ” Mondale and Kennedy are the most ef fective advocates of traditional Democratic liberalism abroad in the land. Both of them are at their best in the union halls, the blue-collar cities and with the ethnic and minority voters who made up the old Roosevelt Coalition. And both of them — in this year of Pro position 13 — defend the legitimacy of the Democratic heritage. Mondale quotes John F. Kennedy more than he does Jimmy Carter. Kennedy quotes Hubert H. Humphrey more than he does anyone else. There are, of course, subtle differences in their speeches, dictated by their differ ing political responsibilities. Kennedy plugs the local candidate — and also his pet programs, particularly national health insurance. Mondale also advertises the virtues of the candidate he is visiting, but he never forgets his other client, President Carter. Mondale says that Carter has faced and mastered the toughest problems any pres ident has tackled in his first two years in office. Kennedy is careful not to criticize Carter publicly, but he measures his praise by the teaspoon. “The one thing that Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt understood — and that we hope Jimmy Carter understands,” Kennedy said here, “is that you cannot meet the needs of the nation without a strong economy.” That was a subtle qualifier he slipped in, but it did not escape notice. Kennedy and Mondale are the two strongest instruments in the Democratic band this year. The senator’s trombone blasts shake the walls — even of a chilly hockey rink in the Minnesota Iron Range. The vice president’s high-pitched clarinet runs can rouse even carpenters to cheer. Some time hence, they may try to drown each other out. But for now, they are pumping life into a lethargic mid-term campaign. 1978, The Washington Post Company BellarcTs concern for athletes questioned Editor: I address this letter to our athletic direc tor and head football coach, Emory Bel- lard: Mr. Bellard, I write this letter, not to question your coaching abilities, but rather to question your apparent lack of concern for the physical well-being of your athletes. Specifically, I point to Saturday afternoon’s game with Baylor and Curtis Dickey. I wondered how many times Curtis would have to be helped from the field before you stopped sending him back into the game. Apparently, any thing short of a trip to the hospital was insufficient grounds for sitting out the remainder of the game. All Aggies recognize Curtis’ value to the team. However, to unnecessarily risk the remainder of his season, and possibly the remainder of his college career, is inexcus able. Have you no regard for his future or is he, as are so many athletes, just a com modity to be used and tossed aside? In the future, I hope that your foresight will extend beyond Tuesday and the weekly wire service ratings. — Paul Laywell, ’80 Wishbone’s a loser Editor: Referring to the Aggies’ 33-0 demise at the hands (or paws) of the cruel Houston “Pumas” let me paraphrase Gertrude Stein’s “A rose is a rose is a rose.” Then go one step further and para phrase Emory Bellard’s “a wishbone is a wishbone is a wishbone.” To put it another way, a wishbone by whatever name is still a wishbone, be the name “I,” “Veer,” “Single Wing” or other. Somewhere I have read that a good (and winning) team puts the football in the air a minimum of 20 times. Against the “Pumas” we put it in the air nine times for five completions and one interception. To quote Mr. Bellard, “when you put the ball in the air, three things can happen and two of them are bad. ” Let me say that the ground can be equally dangerous, especially when you option off to backs who aren’t there and the enemy graciously accepts the ball. I’ll take my chances in the air especially when trailing 41-3 (Michigan) and 33-0 at the half (Houston)!! Oh well, Mr. B. is the coach and I am an “Aggie Amigo” who doesn’t understand the science of football, like running the fullback “up the middle” for three yards when the game is out of sight (41-3 and 33-0). Just a few random thoughts on my good old Aggies. Let me close with one admoni tion: The “Ags” need to get tierce like those “Pumas” and pronto, or other cruel teams the likes of Cows, Hogs, etc. will belt them around on successive Saturdays; and this I hate to see. — George M. French Jr 121 Ave.307, San Antonio (Father of an Aggie, ’69) Langford’s lesson Editor: Regarding the commments concerning the Langford Architecture Center in the Thursday, Oct. 19 Battalion. My first impression of the picture (front page) was that it was a low-security federal model prison. Sorry, but it is about as es- thetically appealing to me as a cold plate of day old oatmeal. The designer must have really been hard up for ideas. And Lord forbid but can you imagine what the others that were turned down must have looked like? Seriously, in light of all the complaints, the passing of the proverbial buck, and the ringside show that must accompany the building of a structure like Langford, it appears that we would all learn an impor tant lesson. Don’t leave it up to the other guy! A&M needs a qualified university representative to watchdog contractors. We also need an up-to-date comprehensive building code that can be uniformly applied to future projects. This is the only way to guarantee our satisfaction. After all, we have to live with these grotesque and questionably designed and constructed atrocities. Anything less than this is a “cop out.” — Steve Tennyson, ’81 P.S. If you consider it relevant, I have about five years experience in the con struction industry. The latest project I worked on was an addition on the locker room at Rice University. Rice officials overlook very little. Possibly this is a bit harsh, but I have never known of or been on a job where the “OWNERS’’ did not profusely go to lengths to protect their interests. Why shouldn’t A&M protect its own? Deep Aggie pride Editor: Well it looks like my time to write a letter to the Battalion has come. I have been going to A&M for five years and am on my second degree. I have seen some drastic changes. I would like to clear up one misconception that seems apparent from reading letters to the editor from years passed. There is a lot more to being an Aggie than attending Texas A&M University. It takes pride, consideration for fellow stu dents, and a feeling deep inside which can not be be described and is not found any where else. This might not be the best university in the world but it sure is better than any I can think of. The thing that has always impressed me about A&M is the many fine students here once an Ag has helped me out wherever I have gone. There is nothing like Aggie once an Ag has helped me out whereever I have gone. There is nothing like Aggie Muster in the world either. If a student at Texas A&M can go to Midnight Yell Practice and see the thousands of students yelling until they’re hoarse, or stand in Bryan and hear the 12th Man yelling its hearts out, or get choked up at Silver Taps, and not feel a deep pride, then he or she is just a student at Texas A&M and not an Aggie. So come on Aggies let’s stick together. Let’s show respect for our school and our fellow Ags, whether a C.T. or non-reg. What is this destruction of the au ditorium and such? Good bull is one thing but outright destruction is not good bull! I am a non-reg and disagree with some things about the C.T.s, but I respect any one who graduates from A&M and goes through four years of Corps, especially the band. The corps is a lot of work, but it is not for everyone. I’ve been there. In fact, I have respect for everyone who graduates from T.A.M.U. So hang in there Ags. In closing I must comment on Nancy Robin’s letter (Oct. 9). The Corps is NOT the only backbone of Aggieland. There is a hell of a lot of non- regs who have as much and more than some C.T.s and support A&M as much. — Donald Slater, ’76 Readers’ Guest viewpoints, in addi tion to Letters to the Editor, are welcome. All pieces sub mitted to Readers’ forum should be: F orum • Typed triple space • Limited to 60 characters per line • Limited to 100 lines Top of the News -Vo CAMPUS Silver Taps to be held for Prachyl Silver Taps will be held today at 10:30 p.m. for Mark Alan Prachyl, a 21-year-old agronomy major from Dallas. Prachyl died about 9:30 p.m. Friday while in the Sports Club, a College Station disco. An inquest is being held to determine the cause of death. Prachyl was the second Texas A&M University student to die this fall; the other was Vikki Sue Owen, an animal science graduate student from LaMarque, who was killed in a truck accident Sept. 10 in Bastrop. I No 1 Lucers Ibis arrL Iwriter £= mg' STATE Award offered for rights study Awards for study and research in civil liberties and human rights are offered by the Samuel E. Ziegler Educational Fund. The awards, established in 1968, total $2,000. The sponsoring group says there is no geographical limitation as to who might receive the award, but preference will be given to students in universities and colleges in Texas. For more information contact the Samuel E. Ziegler Educa tional Fund, 1900 Southland Center, Dallas, Texas 75201. plea^ of » Geor_^ A&M • B ight tc= die scie= Proct - round The N= 4ount« irophetz -erse tfc tassin^ robot w— matom^. The \— ton’ to inalog ion M= Candidates support nuclear power United States legislative candidates from South Texas generally support nuclear power as a future energy source, a recent survey shows. Fifteen of the 16 survey respondents favored expanding elec tricity production by nuclear means. All candidates agreed on only two questions. None said total reliance on the use of coal for energy production is wise, althouigh coal is abundant. All responded "yes” to the survey question that reprocessing nuclear fuel is an effective way to use uranium and minimize nuclear waste in both light water and, if successfully demonstrated, breeder reactors. The survey was con ducted by the South Texas Section of the American Nuclear Society, including the ANS student section at Texas A&M University. Rep. Bob Ecldiart, D-Houston, reflected the general theme of comments: “Commercial production of energy from all sources should stand the test of free market competition. ” fo- Total — loast isL= icane ransporfc 'eras A