Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 6, 1980)
age 6 ( Slouch “Before we get started, are you absolutely sure that your ride doesn t leave early?” PINION ORC should keep canoes Intra-university bickering has hit a new high, or low as the case may be. The MSC Outdoor Recreation Committee has $10,000 worth of canoes and backpacking equipment which the In tramural Department wants. Intramurals wants the equipment because it feels it can distribute the goods to the students more efficiently. ORC thinks it is doing a good job of distribution right now. < ORC is open to rent the equipment at the Grove on | Todays and Fridays. The canoes and packs can be re- * burned on Mondays and Tuesdays. The committee seems to * ***6 a ghod set-up for the students and themselves. 8 But Intramurals insists it can do a better job. It wants to have the check-out open five days a week. This means paying a full-time checker. Also, it won’t have storage space until the G. Rollie White Coliseum expansion is completed. Dr. John J. Koldus, vice president for student services, will make the final decision on who gets the equipment. He says he will make no decision until Intramurals comes up with an organized plan for managing the equipment. Maybe the best way for Koldus to make his decision is to ask himself, “Why fix it if it isn’t broken?” the small society by Brickman Y&l) A X C^M'T Y&T. X XlJ^T ^>T c-CyG, Washington Star Syndicate. Inc. The Battalion U S P S 045 360 LETTERS POLICY its to thr editor should not exceed 300 mtrds and are t to heinc iut to that length or lew if longer The al staff ri \en ex the right to edit \u< h letterx and doex arantci to fiuhhxh any letter b.ai h letter muxf In shoti flu addn ss of the writer and li%t a telephone t for unfit atton rrvs < orrt sfnindent t to le tters to fht b.ditor. The tin Room 216. Reed Mt Donald Budding ( tdlege 7H41 Repri-M ntrd nationaJh h\ National Kdiuattonai \d\t*r isintf S«t\k* n Iim Neu York C it\. Chit ago and lao Vrutflrs The Battalion is published Mondas through Fndas from ptemU r through Mas rtcrpt during evam and hohdas rnuls and the summer when it is published on Tuevdas rough Thursdas Mail sul»MTiptKins . luRilsear $35 00prf i re«jHesf address $16 75 per semester VTI 25 p**r > per semester VJ.J per ill! sear Adsertismg rales furnished The Battalion R«»»m 216 Reed It I>maid Building < ollege StatM»n Tetas 77M-3 I'nited Press InfernatmnaJ is entitled eulusisels to the sc for reprodm tion of all news dtspatthes t redited to it ghts of r«'prodiKtN»n of all «»ther matter hf*rein rrsrrsed -tond ( lass postage paid at ( »»ll«*ge Station T\ * ■ S4d MEMBER Texas Press Asstieiation Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Roy Bragg Associate Editor Keith Taylor News Editor Rusty Cawley Asst. News Editor ...... Karen Cornelison Copy Editor Dillard Stone Sports Editor Mike Burrichter Focus Editor Rhonda Watters City Editor Louie Arthur Campus Editor Diane Blake Staff Writers Nancy Andersen, Tricia Brunhart.Angelique Copeland, Laura Cortez, Meril Edwards, Carol Hancock, Kathleen McElroy, Debbie Nelson, Richard Oliver, Tim Sager, Steve Sisney, Becky Swanson, Andy Williams Chief Photographer Lynn Blanco Photographers Lee Roy Leschper, Steve Clark, Ed Cunnius, Viewpoint by Jim Earle Opinions expressed in The Battalion are j those of the editor or of the writer of the article and are not necessarily those of the I'niversity administration or thr Board of Regents 1 he Battalion is a non-profit. self- supporting enterprise operated by students as a university and community newspaper Editorial policy is determined by the editor. The Battalion Texas A&M University Thursday March 6, 1980 Reader s Forum Critiques based on inaccurate views By JAY STANISH I would like to respond to the comments made by Mr. Springer and Ms. King in the March 3rd “Reader’s Forum” concerning the film series, “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” I believe that the major ity of their critique was based on inaccurate observations and mere personal taste. To wit: — The “monotonous repetition of irrele vant symbolism was to my mind an effec tive way of emphasizing the point. The judgement of monotony and irrelevance is a matter of pure personal opinion. I’m sorry they didn’t like it; I and many others did. — The rain on the table sequence lasted perhaps 30 seconds. Big deal. Symbolism again is a matter of personal opinion. — I thought the movie was not only an adequate visual aid; it was excellent. Again, personal opinion. — Black slavery was paralleled to infanti cide and abortion because in both cases the Supreme Court labeled those affected by the practices as non-human, sanctioning horrifying abuses. — The Nazi extermination of not only Jews but all those considered to be sub human or an economic drag on society was paralleled to euthanasia because of the in creasingly vocal advocacy of using euthana sia as a means of ridding society of un wanted or burdensome members. The point is that similar views of man are lead ing to similar practices. — To say that the film was without documentation is to be categorically mis taken. I heard plenty of documentation. I challenge undocumented. It was “prop aganda,” in the strictest sense of the word, but that does not mean “no facts. Look it up. Dr. Koop should have been more clear in his definition of euthanasia, but there is little argument that the concept is applied in the main to the elderly. — The critique of the statue shows a basic misunderstanding of the thrust of the film. The point is that a changed view of man has provided us with a morally schi zophrenic and disoriented society which can on the one hand hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in dam contruction to save the snail darter and on the other hand calmly flush six million unborn children down the drain. The counter example of the boat people and Cambodian refugees only serves to further illustrate the dicho tomy. — The churches in Germany were not directly responsible for the atrocities com mitted, and that was not the film’s point. They do bear part of the blame for not speaking out, in accordance with Ezekiel 33:1-6. The government of the Third Reich was indeed military, but that does not mean that it was not afraid of the people. When I visited Dachau last summer * first concentration camp, it was brought hat the Nazis went to extraordi lengths to prevent the German citi from discovering the real purposes nf camps. It should also be pointed out. the inclusion of Jews in the camns almost an afterthought; they were origin ly for those deemed politically trouki some for those who were expedient.nl rid of. — Finally, Dr. Thaxton was not a mentator; he was simply there to answr questions, which he did a fairly good job'; No matter what the criticisms mayfcj the issues are significant ones and mnVt dealt with Thank you for the opportuiit to respond. (Jay Stanish is a senior EDCI majrjr from Houston. He is the chaplain of tb Aggie Band and student president of tb Campus Crusade for Christ.) Pro-life films stand on their own merit By BILL ROBERSON I would like to express an alternative view to the one submitted by David Sprin ger and Celia King concerning the film series recently presented in the Rudder auditorium: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” The series deals intellec tually, emotionally, and artistically with the questions and answers surrounding the conroversial issues of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Mr. Springer and Miss King, both personal friends of mine, have critiqued the series in a harsh, negative light and it is to this analysis that I would like to address my refutations. The critique dealt with two aspects of the film; quality and content. The critics men tioned instances of “irrelevant symbolism” and “scenes devoid of meaning.” These opinions call for attention. First, any art form is an attempt on the part of its creator to communicate specific concepts (o the beholder. Personally, I did not find the symbolism “irrelevant” nor the scenes, “devoid of meaning. ” The scene described by the critics as “devoid of meaning” which showed rain pouring down upon a deserted banquet table was probably meant to be meaningful, but effectual. It was not. Secondly, the director, Franky Schaeffer V, demanded creative and artistic excell ence in all phases of the film making pro cess, using a large range of cinematic tech niques to dramatize and illustrate its points. The critics alleged that “the films were without documentation,” With this I must make issue. Dr. C. Everett Koop is one of the world’s most prominent surgeons. As surgeon-in-chief at Philadelphia’s Chil dren’s Hospital, he is in a competent posi tion to voice the medical perspective on these issues. The film series was simply not intended to be a black and white, mono toned documentary, sedating us with techincal data and statistics. The film found it sufficient to note that since the legaliza tion of abortion in 1973, over 6 million babies have been aborted in this country, surpassing the number of Jews murdered in the holocaust. This brings me to my second point. It was stated in the Springer and King essay that the film paralleled black slavery to in fanticide and Nazi extermination of the Jews to euthanasia. Had they attended the entire film series, Mr. Springer and Miss King would not have so greatly misunder stood Dr. Schaeffer’s statements. The films did not claim that infanticide is a parallel to black slavery, but that each generation labels some group of humans as “non- human” for social and economic conveni ence. During the pre-civil war era it was the black slave. In Nazi Germany it was the Jew. In our generation, in a 1973 Supreme Court decision (Roe vs. Wade), the unborn child was arbitrarily classified as “non human” with no civil rights. Schaeffer pointed out that the Dred Scott case de monstrated that the Supreme Court is not above makeing significant mistakes. Secondly, the films never drew a parallel between Nazi extermination of the Jews and euthanasia. The films point to early Nazi German history, when Hitler first ex terminated the socially and economically inconvenient — the handicapped, the mentally ill, and the elderly — before tie focused his attention on the Jew. Dr Schaeffer maintained that the legalizatior. of abortion has opened the door to further violation of human rights: infanticide ani euthanasia. Finally, though I agree with our film critics that the commentator, Dr. Charles Thaxton, did not handle the position as well as he might have, I question the validity of their pointed criticism of his “competen cy. ” Were they offering constructive crit- ism? Did Dr. Thaxton’s “incompetency”as a commentator weaken the message of the film series? I think not. The films stand on their own merit as do their arguments. I take off my hat to the critic, Springer and King, in agreement with their fun damental position that “the film was prop aganda. Daniel Webster illuminates their statement in his definition of propaganda “ideas, facts or allegations spread deliber ately to further one’s cause or to damagean opposing cause.” (Bill Roberson is a senior English major from Amarillo) Cop Folk the mm HORRORS! YOU sm SHAH 'YOU? PIPTH1SID' tv 1 fwwz % '>y The li an to y tv. Dr ry Cot I rec Jidelin lopme be up »tt, vi Fairs at The ci >a ma: Visitin 'miner escort irchase le qual: ie exist Theac THOTZ By Doug Graham (ua t«- CLTKJIUS. YOOvJE GOT A TEST TUBE OF I, Tj's-TRl h ETHYLBENZEn^V 1C 'T SAIL YOU’UE GOT A TtST TUBE Ort v L3,5'TRlMETHYL?£N2Eh!L' M VnuR> - T ^ YOU VE got a test ■ — TUBS OF JRlMBTHYLr B&JZEVG IN Ye« EAR. Yo^ DoDDSftVb ou> Xocr/ r cakj'T hear you i UAME A TEST TUBE OF C* 3 J I Nj MY CH-.