Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 21, 1981)
Viewpoint \’s85 The Battalion Texas A&M University Wednesday January 21, 1980 Slouch By Jim Earle ‘T may look like a fool now, but you won't think so when my instructor lets me off early for Easter because I’m so cute and lovable. ” Coordinating office vital in administration By DAVID S. BRODER WASHINGTON — Asa rule, advice from an I outgoing administration to an incoming admi nistration of the opposite party is as welcome and useful as a Doberman in a dinghy. Especial ly is that true when the topic is the structure of the White House staff and the advice is coming from one President’s aides to those serving a | very different individual. Notwithstanding all those cautions, there is I one message the departing Jimmy Carter aides have been trying to wigwag to the incoming Ronald Reagan officials that may be worth their considering. It is a plea to continue the Carter innovation that links Cabinet coordination and intergovernmental relations in a single White House office. That sounds dry as dust, but it can have powerful governmental and political implica tions. Where an office is in the White House hierarchy determines its leverage and the de gree of influence its constituents enjoy. Carter’s decision elevated the access and influence of governors and mayors, and Reagan’s battle plan drops them back to a pre-1976 stance. As outlined last weekend, the Reagan White House plan separates intergovernmental rela tions from the Cabinet secretariate about as far as possible in the same building. Intergovern mental relations is one of seven staff functions reporting to chief of staff James A. Baker, III. The person handling the job of dealing with state and local officials (so far unnamed) will have the same status — no more or less—as the person dealing with the interest groups, out-of- town editors and broadcasters, and the White House press corps. Cabinet coordination will be done separately by a staff responsible to Baker’s opposite number, counselor to the president Edwin Meese, HI. Reagan officials with whom I discussed this question said they thought Carter had make intergovernmental relations an additional re sponsibility for the secretary of the Cabinet in order to give his own transition chief, Jack H. Watson, Jr., a bit more to do than shuffle papers from the departments to the Oval Office. But Watson tells a very different story of the origins of the decision. He says Carter, like Reagan, was a former governor who was often frustrated in his efforts to pull together at the state level programs that were based in several different Cabinet agen cies. By linking intergovernmental relations and Cabinet coordination at the senior White House staff level, he intended, Watson says, to do two things. One was to give governors and local officials a Warped The foundations of hypocrisy Of all the lofty rhetoric in the United States Constitution, one sentence stands out above all as fundamental to the ideals of American demo cracy. Sidebars single spot where they could get answers to their questions in Washington. The second was to give their man in the White House enough clout with the Cabinet that the departments and agencies would have to consider the views of state and local official. Unlike a lot of other things Jimmy Carter attempted, this one seems to have worked. Watson was in the dual job for three years before succeeding Hamilton Jordan as chief of staff. He and his deputy and successor, Eugen Eidenberg, and Eidenberg’s deputy, former Iowa legislator Tom Higgins, built a unique set of personal and political networks across the federal government and into state capitols, county courthouses and city halls. “By linking and intergovernmental relations office to the Cabinet secretariate,” Eidenberg says, “we gave the local and state officials more access to decision-making than they had ever had before. ” Higgins adds that the other side of that coin was that “state and local officials felt for the first time they were as important a poli tical constituency for the White House as Con gress was.” Proof of the political utility of the arrange ment was the way that governors and mayors rallied to Carter’s support, in the face of Ted Kennedy’s challenge to his renomination when most Democratic members of Congress gave Carter lip service or the back of their hands, hands. Although they are partisan Democrats, Wat son, Eidenberg and Higgins all share Reagan’s belief that the web of federal regulations has become an oppressive burden — impeding the ability of state and local elected officials to target government resources effectively on the needs of their own constituencies. “In our second term,” Eidenberg says, “we hoped to bring Congress along, to see that its interest lies in giving more flexibility to the states and localities — to hold them account able for the delivery of services but to let them figure out the best way to deliver them.” The political turnover in Congress makes that goal more attainable by Reagan than it would have been by Carter. But to do it well, his White House and administration will have to be sensitively attuned to what the state and local officials are saying. “That’s quite a talent pool out there,” Eiden berg says. “Whatever their structure here (at the White House), I hope they bring them in even more than we did, and test the Washing ton attitudes against the wisdom of the people who are running states and cities and who are ultimately accountable for delivering the ser vices people want. I hope they bring them in.” ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Unique in language and intent at the time it was drafted, the First Amendment is still a formidable guarantee against most governmen tal, and some private, intrusion into freedoms. What no document could guarantee howev er, is the right of the people to be free from harassment and even violence as a result of their exercise of First Amendment rights. And, by extension, no document can guaran tee freedom from fear — the faceless fear that anyone who voices an unpopular opinion often endures. Those brave enough to voice their opinions, however Unpopular, are sometimes the “con science of the people.” It’s their idealism and courage which provide the chance for those in control to hear an alternative viewpoint. Some times, the dissenters are the ones who speak for a “silent majority. ” More often, though, their words represent a minority view. One that’s not in tune with what most people want to hear. The results? Sometimes indifference. Some times outrage. Most of the time, both are coupled with a respect for the other guy’s point of view. At other times, reprisals — economic, verbal, violent, social — face the dissenters. Aggies for the most part are a tolerant group. Whether it’s because of downright indifference or courteous deference, minority opinions are given a good deal of leeway on the Texas A&M campus. Sure, letters to the editor draw occasional hostile replies. Editorials are sometimes met with confusion and outrage. But that’s the same By Dillard Stone type of exchange of ideas which indicates a healthy democracy. Speakers are hardly ever hissed or booed here, let alone chased from the stage by an angry crowd. But a fear of reprisal persists on this campus. That fear stifles the free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints. And that stifles the edu cational process. For what is education if not the continuing qustioning of established facts? For an institution which purports to be a nationally renowned center of higher educa tion, Texas A&M faces a dangerous predica ment: Fear keeps many intelligent, knowledge able people from expressing their views. It’s a multi-faceted fear; it takes many forms, and serves the interests of a loosely defined “establishment.” People are afraid of harassment; they’re afraid of being fired by their employer — the University; they’re afraid of what their super iors might think; they’re afraid of what their peers might think. It’s not that they don’t have the guts to be idealistic. It’s that they have the common sense to realize that their business and social relation ships while at this University will go a long way toward determing their success in the future. In their view, boat-rocking yields no benefits. It’s not their fault that they’re playing by the “sys tem’s” unwritten rules. Two examples from last semester might serve to illustrate my point. One illustrates a fear to illustrate my point. One illustrates a fear of retribution from a superior; the other represents the fear of peer pressure. A University Police officer dropped by The Battalion offices. Making his rounds, he stop ped in for a chat, and to see how things going. During the course of the conversal he said students who criticize the Univei Police officers do so in ignorance of the bun that the police, individually and as a de] ment, undergo. A staffer reminded him that he, as a had every right to submit a letter to the to respond to charges of police misconduct, chuckled wryly. “No, ma’am,” he said. "Colonel P; (University director of traffic and security Ti Parsons) and (University Police) Chief (Bi McDonald wouldn’t stand for it.” On another occasion, a member of an national student group submitted a letter wanted published. Nothing too controvei about the letter, but it was signed with organization’s name. I told the student we wouldn’t publish letter because it was not signed by an in! vidual. Opinions signed with an organizati(i| name may not necessarily reflect the opinions! every member of that organization. Having explained this to the man, lask| erected in him why he hesitated to sign his own namt 1 He said that last year he had had a left t* a published in The Battalion, and had reCem ( 1^ I\ many harassing phone calls afterwards. Thea'A i- ’ lers threatened the man with injury for express _ ing his view — which was then and would! ^ now considered controversial. j 11 1 Whether or not the fears are justified, Id j say. I would hope they’re not. I hope thosev g]?LIN want to but don’t express their views ares , Batta) discouraged by possible hostile reactions! The Environr what they believe. 1 ency has issu , i intwithaposs A society can t grow and prosper in an a Texas vironment where fear silences any opinion,a iyton Firemen matter how different, controversial, or ere ure to take pn mundane. And a University which tolerates) iuse of an ele encourages an atmosphere conducive to if ntaining PCB stifling of free expression is nothing moretbff^ 11 monumental facade of hypocrisy. The new C Thomas Pa PCB is a card emally, said Al i of the field. Having PCB in mer poses no i ding said. “Y< mally — drin chemical to 1 However, ac imal feed was 'B eventually 1 option of the IftB waspopul use in the oil u transformers, f d manufactur flawed. Stirling < to away. It 'ding to EP.y Committee M*A*S*H*es moviegoers’ taste Editor: Alas and once again, the MSC Aggie Cinema Season is “Gone With the Wind.” Reading the roster of Spring ’81 movies brought no sur prises, but out of boredom and animosity I decided to take a talley. Of the 77 feature films brought to us by the “The Pit and the Pendu lum,” four are kiddy shows, twelve have appeared on television in the past year, 22 have appeared at local theaters in the past year and 20 are repeats, presented by Aggie Cinema within the last two semesters. It doesn’t take a “Sleuth” to figure out the student body is back on the “Airplane” to another “Big Red One.” In all seriousness, why, with the selection of available films we are each semester given the opportunity to choose from, do we consistently get such grade B films at Aggieland? I’m not going to suggest the possible solution to this dilemma. It’s obvious, however, that the films the student body chooses by vote are the old favorites, the ones that keep popping up every semester. Perhaps, in order to bring to Aggie land the sophisticated array of films we deserve as a University of higher learning we should revise in some manner the methods of decision making now practiced. Until then “Heaven Can Wait” as those “Rutabagas” meet in their “Cad- dyshacks” near “Xanadu” for some “Close En counters” while “The Earth Stands Still. Let’s all petition that “Cheech and Chocf Next Movie” will have the “Urban Cowlx)! meeting “The Hollywood Knights” of “Rod' Roll High School” to plan the unthinkatt throwing “101 Dalmations” into “The Blueb goon.” Now that really would be some “True G# / Jim Meatmen 7o: By Scott McCullar AH? great, the new msc MOVIE SCHEDULE, WHAT ARE THE7 GOING TO HAVE? let5 S ee,Wa^ T£p ^ ,NT( > TH£ * £al W "^ HIS INHOCENCe is MISTAKE// THE SHIHI/tG, SLEUTH" HERE'S A GOOD ONE... ... BEING-THERE , ABOUT A COMPLETE S/MPLETOA/ WHO, WHEN HE IS THROWN WEXPEC- FOR VJISPOM ANP PROFU/VPIT/ BV THE RICH ANP HflM, THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN INTERESTING, ESCAPE" FRO/V REAUTJ TYPE -COMEDY- VttO'5 IN IT? ^RONALD REAGAN^ The Battalion U $ P S 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association Questions or comments concerning any editorial nullci Southwest Journalism Congress should be directed to the editor. Editor Dillard Stone Managing Editor Angel Copeland Asst. Managing Editor Todd Woodard LETTERS POLICY City Editor Debbie Nelson . Asst City Editor Marcy Boyce Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in lenp> News Editors ...!!! ” !!! 1! 1!! Venita McCellon, and are subject to bemgeut if they are longer The Scot K Mever reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but o . , j make every effort to maintain the author's intent. Each letW P° , 1 ° r i'-’ C if r o L^rr must also be signed, show the address and phone numberofth 1 Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff water Asst. Focus Editor Susan Hopkins Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, and arei^ Stall Writers Jennifer Afflerbach, subject to the same length constraints as letters. Address^ Carolyn Barnes, Jane G. Brust, inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The Battalion, $ Terry Duran, Cindy Gee, Jon Heidtke, Heed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station, ft Belinda McCoy, Kathy O'Connell, 77843. Ritchie Priddy, Rick Stolle Cartoonist Scott McCullar The Battalion is published daily during Texas A&M’s fall a!* Photo Editor Greg Gammon s P r >ng semesters, except for holiday and examination period Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per sch«* year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on it quest. EDITORIAL POLICY Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald BuildW The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper op- Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. crated as a community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are United Press International is entitled exclusively to the m 1 those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily repre- for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. Rights 1 * sent the opinions of Texas A&M University administrators or reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. faculty members, or of the Board of Regents. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. Even th We mk n Mritio doctor’s Wh th, sugar j Souper Eqs Kemei Monday C