Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 14, 1979)
Slouch by Jim Earle CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK CLASSES OF 1979, 1978, & 1977 Opinion Understand A&M A&M thinks it has a problem. The news about Texas A&M has not been entirely favor able lately, and that upsets some of the administrators. For instance, at a recent luncheon for student leaders. President Jarvis Miller said the institution’s major problem is its image. People just don’t understand, he said, and the elite students around the table nodded in agreement. To help solve that problem, A&M hired a public relations firm earlier this semester to boost its image. Miller reported the results have been good. Several posi tive articles have appeared in the media — articles that tell good things about the University. Hiring a PR firm is fine; it’$ one way to let people know the complete A&M story. Another way of letting prople know the complete story is exploring the institution’s problems, particularly those accompanying its transition from an all male cow college to the things that President Miller and others want it to be recognized for now. The recent coverage that upsets the administration has concerned parts of the story they would prefer to keep on campus. The stories have explored the problems at A&M, espe cially relating to women. They show the institution in transi tion, and that’s what Texas A&M is. They show the institu tion dealing with its problems. No one argues that A&M’s accomplishments should be hidden. That part of the truth is OK for exposure, even possible overexposure if it will attract more money and better students and faculty. It’s the other part of the truth — the part about problems — that administrators want hidden until “solved. ” But that cheats the public. President Miller wants people to understand Texas A&M. So do we. We think understanding includes both the bad and the good. the small society by Brickman I'/lA LA^T YEAfZ, - Washington Star Syndicate. Inc- /2-/+ The Battalion U S P S 045 360 LETTERS POLICY Lett its to the editor should not exceed 3(H) words and are subject to being cut to that length or less if longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit such lettiTs and does not guarantee to publish any letter. Each letter must be signed, show the address of the writer and list a telephone number /or verification. Address correspondence to letters to the Editin'. The Battalion, Room 216, Reed McDonald Building. College Station, Texas 77643. Represented nationally by National Educational Adver tising Services, Inc.. New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday from September through May except during exam and holiday x*riods and the summer, when it is published on Tuesday hrough Thursday. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester; $33.25 per school year; $35.(X) per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Address: The Battalion. Room 216, Reed McDonald Building, College Station, Texas 77843. United Press International is entitled exclusively to the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. Second-Class postage paid at College Station. TX 77843. MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Liz Nevvlin Managing Editor Andy Williams Asst. Managing Editor Dillard Stone News Editors Karen Cornelison and Michelle Burrowes Sports Editor Sean Petty City Editor Roy Bragg Campus Editor Keith Taylor Focus Editor Beth Calhoun Staff Writers Meril Edwards, Nancy Andersen, Louie Arthur, Richard Oliver, Mark Patterson, Carolyn Blosser, Kurt Allen, Debbie Nelson, Rhonda Watters Photo Editor Lee Roy Leschper Jr. Photographers Lynn Blanco, Sam Stroder, Ken Herrera Cartoonist Doug Graham Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or of the writer of the article and are not necessarily those of the University administration or the Board of Regents. The Battalion is a non-profit, self- supporting enterprise operated by students as a university and community newspaper. Editorial policy is determined by the editor. Viewpoint cat Thf. Battalion Texas A&M University Friday December 14, 1979 By D Broder Over-reaching, not underachieving have caused failures in presidency ■ College ■proved a Anthill bulances Ight- | A stokesi ■edical Set By DAVID S. BRODER CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — The only good thing to be said about the continuing agony in Tehran is that is has put a quietus on the prsidential campaigning here in the United States. And in that enforced si lence, it is possible to think — perhaps for the last time — about the top office to be filled in the first election of the new decade. That was the objective which drew two dozen people to an early 19th century house, surrounded by a park, in a quiet corner of Mr. Jefferson’s university, for two days two weeks ago. The conversation at the White Burkett Miller Center of Public Affairs of the Uni versity of Virginia was informal and off-the- record, designed mainly to forward the work of a committee of the National Academy of Public Administration, which will be making a report on the presidency next year. But for those who were included in the group because they will be covering the 1980 presidential campaign, the perspec tives of the assembled scholars challenged a good deal of the conventional wisdom ab out what needs to be done to restore the office to its proper place in the political and governmental spheres. The conventional wisdom, it seems fair to say, is that we need a bigger person than Jimmy Carter to fill the presidency. What was suggested here was that we may need, even more urgently, a smaller and more flexible notion of what a president is and what he can do. This was, let me hasten to say, hardly a Carter rally. Far more cri tical things were said of his term as presi dent than were said in praise of his steward ship. But the comments heard here raised a substantial question, at least in this listen er’s mind, about whether the “cure” for what ails the presidency lies in a frsh appli- catin of activism by one of the Carter chal lengers keen to breathe new vigor into the White House by a transfusion of his own excess energy. Most of those who gathered here were, in one sense or another, “President’s men. They were scholars of the presidency, stu dents of public attitudes toward the pres idency, holders of high-level jobs in the Carter administration or its predecessors. Yet, the notion that kept bobbing back to the top of the discussion was the somewhat heretical thought that the presidency is in trouble, not because recent occupants of the Oval Office have been of insufficient stature, but because their concept — and ours — of the office has been inflated out of proportion. The idea of the presidency, it was argued, has been bent out of shape by all of the demands that have been placed on the office. People campaign too hard and too long to get there, make too many promises to too many people about what they will accomplish, and then work too frantically on too many fronts to keep from “failing” by the exaggerated standards which they — and we — have set. As a result, the presidency has lost the flexibility, the coiled-spring power, which is vital to the nation, and probably to the wo Id, when a challenge of truly presidential dimension comes along. It was a fascinating experience to listen to people, who for two decades, in some cases, have been advising presidents on how to accumulate and exercise power, now say the clearest requirement for a suc cessful presidency is to limit its objectives and resist extraneous or secondary de mands. If it was not exactly a suggestion to g think small, it was certainly a command to “be realistic about what a President can do. ” fte^' Statior Make fewer promises. GiveContfee ambulai more restricted menu of lepilup gray art ’j “musts. Stick to the big issuesilul‘tion, and budget. Share more of the glory,Bevices m ahinpf TlikkiliBThe ordii blame — with the Cabinet. This is* The to survival in the presidency thah<Mtuations, i gested here. Hnbulance Some of those present said that fc* el implied by this prescriptionwastT Dwight D. Eisenhower, a thouflifcgfj) bothered most of the Democrats t room. Others said it sounded likeisj noting speech for Jerry Brown, bothered those Democrats even J Gi If it was not that, it was certainlyu ing against the muscular orl™ „ j approach to the presidency, emhjM ' B the speeches of John Connally asiBj n an ar ti Kennedy. It was also probablyaiM rc .gistrat Jimmy Carter not to overinflatehisaK^ a ppc of his own capacity, if like HarrylnB ue 0 f the he should beat the odds and getaiM^ts were chance. '31 let. The failures that have weaken™The artu presidency, they seemed to be sayiim^ents w have resulted from over-reack;B, urse worl underachieving. It is a point wortli», S( , l H) t fail in mind. M e Univer (c) 1979, The Washington Post ConJy, dropped lid thev w tjnless they (id pay a i Howeve ■sistant dc ■ge, said t Rents app' — Bat I arurr Letters Ai?M Corps may be discriminatory, but suing is wrong way to find out Editor: 1 would like to make a reply to your editorial of Dec. 12. It tas apparent to me that you did not know both sides of the story of the alleged sex discrimination in the Corps. I would like to attempt to en lighten you on the subject. As is universally true, Man resists change. The Corps is no different. The best medicine for this is to institute change gra dually and relatively painlessly. The Corps was doing this. The first year, the women cadets had no uniforms nor did they live on the quad. The second year they' had this and by the third year there was a woman unit commander. I may point out that A&M had women in the Corps two years before the service acade mies, and they too are having their growing pains. Last year was the first year the Wag- gies shared ‘Guard Room’ duties. And most important, the general attitude of the males was one of acceptance. That is, until Ms. Zentgraf filed her suit. She obviously was not satisfied with the speed of the changes and wanted some pri vileges for herself that probably would have been given to the women in the near future anyway. Her selfishness has only served to hurt the women in the Corps. That opinion of RV’s that you mentioned is a direct result of Ms. Zentgraf s action. It has built up as much, if not more, animosity in the male cadets towards the women, than when they were first admitted. Another effect the publicity she has re ceived has been to effectively lower the number of women in the Corps. YV-1, which for the past three years has averaged about 40 freshmen, started this year with 10. I shall not judge whether the Corps is discriminatory; that is up to the judge. I’m just saying this is the wrong way to find out. — B. Tinker ‘79 tions to this most serious problem. Solution 1 — Shoot her. Solution 2— Have her teeth pulled out. Solution 3 — Inject her with PCP, chain her legs together, and place a sack over her head. Solution 4 — Forbid the making of any noise at basketball and football games. Please note that even a peaceful, tranquil hamster would tend to get a little excited at an Aggie event, as in fact do most Aggies. We will further welcom any helpful solu tions to this most grave predicament. We do apologize for any injuries incur red to this date, and will continue our efforts to reasonably restrain Reveille, yet still allow the school mascot to represent the spirit imbued in Texas A&M Universi ty. As a result of this last incident. Reveille will no longer be allowed to participate in any basketball bootlines. — John M. LaCrosse Editor’s note: This letter was accompa nied by 16 other signatures. Human decency something that happened on campus Tues day night, December 11th. A close friend of mine was riding her bicycle on the street on the way across campus to visit with some friends. A cat- struck her and knocked her over, and while, fortunately, she was not seriously injured, she was bruised pretty badly and shaken up quite a hit. What’s gotten me upset is the fact that the driver of the ear that hit her did not stop; he or she just kept going. There is no excuse for a driver of a car not stopping to see if a person he or she hit is alright or not. Anyone who would do such a thing must be one of the lowliest things on earth. Thank goodness most people would stop and help others out. Driver, stop and think about this: what if one of your friends (or you) had been on that bicycle? Maybe next time you start tearing across campus, you’ll think about that and slow down. And next time you hit somebody (hopefully, never again), have the decency to stop and see if they’re OK. — Julia Humphries, ’79 Graduate Student Editor: Before I begin, this letter has nothing to do with “good” or “bad Ags —just plain, human decency. I’m really upset about Representing ’83 Editor: This letter is written primarily for the Class of’S3 in response to the letter saying that the freshman class was not betel resented by its elected senators From our understanding, itisourdij freshman senators to represent thevii the Class of’S3. In voting on theSilverlj bill and on all other issues before the ate, we do our best to represent the(i man class. We voted for the passage of the Si Taps bill, and we both feel that well valid reasons for our votes. Admitted® the student survey taken theweekp™ the senate meeting, the freshman voted in opposition to the freshmen that we talked to shortly the senate meeting had reversed opinions. On the Wednesday of the mcetinj} talked with over one hundred fresh# and after learning the pros and cons, o«! small percentage were still in opposite the bill. Thus, from this sampling, wed chided that the overall opinion of the fe man class concerning the Silver Tapsid had changed. From this standpoint, were representing the Class of 83. If you would like to express youro? ions, please feel free to call us. Debbie Grove, fall — 845-7274, sp( — S45-3172. Tim Timmerman, fall — 84543 spring — S45-4565 — Debbie Grove, — Tim Timmerman Restraining Reveille Editor: Due to the increasing number of maimed or otherwise mutilated 250- pound basketball and football players around the nation, we, the seniors of Company E-2 (mascot company) — keepers of that crazed, demented, child-eating canine Re veille — are hereby proposing several solu-