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