Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 21, 1981)
The Battalion Viewpoint July 21,1981 Slouch By Jim Earle Actions hurt University’s imagt “Why isn’t it discriminatory? If I make a D just because I’m not a hard worker, it’s discriminatory! Britain may serve as warning for US By DAVID S. BRODER United Press International WASHINGTON — When I left London ten days ago, the wave of riots that swept across the cities of Great Britain was just beginning. But a junior member of Mara- garet Thatcher’s Conservative Party major ity in Parliament made the obeservation, “This is what happens when you separate economic theory from social policy and pur sue the one at the expense of the other.” An American journalist, returning to his own country at the beginning of the long, hot summer, cannot help but wonder what warnings there may be for us in the calami ties visitng Britain. And then it said that “recently, three powerful ingredients have begun to cataly ze the mixture.” Those ingredients were “frustrated hopes, the legitimation of vio lence and a sense of political powerless- The Reagan administration says there are none. Secretary of Treasury Donald T. Regan told questioners on CBS’ “Face the Nation” not to “push the parallel,” adding that, “You can have civil disturbances in any kind of economy. ” He is right. The last round of serious urban riots in the United States occured just as the Great Society, that last full flow ering of welfare-state liberalism, was com ing into bloom. Obviously, there is no di rect relationship between the growth rate in the federal budget and the tranquillity or hostility of the city streets. But it would be naive to think that in times of social and economic stress, such as ours, perceptions about the attitudes of the rulers do not influence the behavior of the most miserable of the ruled. Ronald Reagan is a far more affable per sonality that Thatcher; his economic theories are not as one-dimensional; the American ecomomy is far healthier than Britain’s; and our unemployment is one- third lower. Yet the public opinion polls measure a growing belief that Reagan’s econimic poli cies are harmful to the elderly, harmful to the poor, harmful to minorities. And that suspicion is sharpest among those who are living on the margins of the economy, out of work or working for subsistence wages. Look back at the report of the Kerner Commission, which conducted a massive study of the causes of our 1963-67 urban unrest. In the chapter on the “basic causes,” the commission described the fac tors of migration, discrimination and segre gation which led to the existence of the black ghettos — conditions which have not changed that markedly in the 13 years since the report appeared. Can we honestly say that those factors have diminished today? ,T ' In the intervening years, blacks have come to power in many major cities, from Atlanta to Los Angeles. Millions of black youths have achieved the dream of higher education and are making their way into the middle class. The “violence” of which the Kerner Commission spoke — white police attacks of black civil-rights demonstrators — has been ended. But the violence of crime is an ever present factor in the ghetto. Hopelessness still dogs the 10 to 30 percent of big-city minority youths who cannot find their first jobs. And throughout the black commuin- ity, at all levels, there is a sense of exclusion from the decision-making of this govern ment greater than I have known in 20 years — a real sense of being the impotent out siders. A reader in Minnesota recently sent me an editorial from the Princeton, Minn., Un ion-Eagle, a weekly newspaper published by Elmer L. Andersen, the former Repub lican governor of that state. “Can we say there is an even-handed application of a new fiscal policy to reduce government spending?” it asked, an appraising the Reagan record so far. “No, there is not. What is clear is an enormous shift in government spending from social services to military spending, and no indi cation that the result will be a balanced budget for many years to come ... Furth ermore, there is a harshness about actions and attitudes in the social-services area that is not evident toward excesses in military spending. We are going after school-lunch programs, food-stamp distribution, aid to families with dependent children, grants- in-aid for the arts and humanities, with cru sading vigor.” If that is the way it looks to Elmer Andersen, a good Republican, in Prince ton, Minn., how can it possibly look to Joe Jones on the South Side of Chicago? Britain is offering us a grim reminder that poeple are not laboratory animals, available for economic experimentation. When they reach the breaking point of frus tration, they rebel. I pray we do not have to re-learn the lesson here. Warped Texas A&M University has come to be known nationwide as a first-rate university. But that fine reputation, which has taken more than 100 years to establish, has been seriously injured in only a few short weeks. This University, the fastest growing in stitution of higher learning in the United States, is being governed by a group of people who are attempting to place them selves above the law. might file suit against the Univaj invasion of privacy if the informatM Staff Notebook By Bemie Fette University officials have been directed on two separate occasions to release the names of those persons being considered to fill the vacant University presidency. And the officials have on both occasions neg lected to carry out their legal obligation. The dispute began in February when the Bryan-College Station Eagle requested the list of candidates from University officials. The officials refused to release the informa tion, claiming the list was covered by an exception to the Texas Open Records Act. Attorney General Mark White was asked to make a ruling. Up to that point, everything seemed to be in order. In June, White deemed the list a public record. At that point, the University ceased to play by the rules. It would seem to follow that if a gov ernmental body such as Texas A&M re quested a ruling from the state attorney general, they would follow the ruling made by that official. The University didn’t. Instead, University officials requested a “clarification” because, they say, they “didn’t understand what it meant.” The ruling stated that the list of some 500 initial considerations and nominations for the post was a public record. The list of 34 finalists forwarded to the Board of Regents was to be included in the entire list but did not have to be placed in a separate category. The attorney general’s opinion commit tee didn’t bite and directed the University to release the names again. Again, the Uni versity refused. White’s ruling seems to be clear. The University’s clarification request appears to be nothing more than a tactic for stalling. And so far, it is working. Reinforcing the guess that the University is stalling are the reasons being given for not releasing the information. Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs James B. Bond said that there are no legal prece dents to draw from in cases such as this one. But the fact remains that the University requested the attorney general to make a ruling through his interpretation of the law. Now University officials are refusing to follow the ruling that they themselves re quested. Secondly, the officials said they feared the possibility that some of those on the list released. The possibility of such legal acta very slim, if it exists at all court found in favor of the Univerj names would never be released. H invasion of privacy. If the court found in favor of tk! Bond himself said he felt the l* would be "fairly well insulated” fr privacy action if the Universiti ordered by the courts to release tk mation. Again, no invasion of privt. There must be another reason. Board of Regents and other Univetr; cials doing everything possible to^. list confidential. If the list is never released, tkit] will have never had the chance toi|; own judgement on how well the Regents did its job in choosing a lies: dent. The public has a right to male® judgement on the efficiency of itsil officials and the same should folio*; persons appointed to influential^ by elected officials. The Eagle has the legal upperk; this dispute, but the University sas-l appeal the decision if the court findi:? of the Eagle. It may be some time before theiil of the candidates are known, butitsi be only a matter of time until thel| the winner of this part of the disp; The Board of Regents and otkf, University officials should realized are not only making themselves lo B I The ■ exas ( t in W to Tex; for mo structi- I Mei regula author but they are making the Univerar feeed \ whole look bad. J™ 11 P 1 ■ion fc forest: The Answer Man answers back All, Dt By ARNOLD SAWISLAK United Press International WASHINGTON — The Washington Answer Man, dressed in jodphurs and car rying a rfding crop, is here today to bring us_ , up to speed on doings at the White House. Question: Sir, the president appears to be coming under a lot of criticism from special interest groups these days. Is he weathering the storm with his usual good humor? Answer Man: Absolutely. The president is secure in his knowledge that the people are behind him. As he has said, those who claim to represent groups that are sup posedly suffering as a result of his policies actually are more concerned about losing their own livelihoods. Question: But sir, I believe he was speak ing there about people who are protesting his cutbacks of welfare programs. I was re ferring to the people who are protesting his Supreme Court appointment. Answer Man: Oh. Those people just don’t understand the situation. After all, there are things that the president knows that we don’t. You didn’t believe that when Mr. Nixon was in office, but as became abundantly clear, it was perfectly true. Question: Well sir, that well may be true in national security matters, but how does it apply to an appointment to the Supreme Court? Answer Man: As the attorney general so eloquently said in another context, “It’s a simple question but I don’t think it is appropriate to respond.” Let’s move on. Question: All right. Perhaps you could tell us how the president feels about the secretary of state’s reported cricitism of the United Nations ambassador’s conduct of her assignment. Answer Man: Oh, yes. The president thinks the ambassador is doing a fine job. He also thinks the secretary of state is doing a fine job. He has, in fact, sent both bags of jelly beans. Question: Social Security? Answer Man: Got a lot of zingers today, haven’t you sonny? The president is in favor of Social Security. As for the proposals of the secretary of health and human services to reduce benefits, well, that was his own dumb idea. Question: How about the MX missile? If Nevada and Utah don’t want it, where will the administration put it? Answer Man: Would you believe Mas sachusetts? Question: Speaking of Massachusetts, how are the president and the speaker get ting on now? We understood the president was quite upset about the speaker’s sugges tion that Mr. Reagan didn’t know what it was like to be poor. Answer: Swimmingly. The president is well aware that the speaker’s demagogic smear attack, filled as it was with base canards, sneaky innuendoes and outright falsifications, was simply politics as usual. Didn’t faze him in the least. He is sending the speaker a bag of jelly beans. | Question: A somewhat persona! {fQ, tion, sir. Does the plan to move tklji out of the White House while tie: o e room is being renovated connot ' have < change in the president’s feelings', ^spons, the media? Th, until Answer Man: Glad you askedthat has been no change in the presides: s t a q 0] ing about the media. Why woulc . well, fixing up a nice new press room ftlfl a spec like the media? And contrary to*k; P 11 ^' 1 may have heard, the press will defirT back in the White House beforetl, dent leaves office. In fact, that is eve- ble if he doesn’t seek a second tern Th of sta festiv Bo By Scott McCul/ar The Battalion I SPS 045 560 MEMBER LETTERS POLICY Texas Press Association Southwest journalism Confess ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Editor Angelique Copeland length, and are subject to being cut if they are loif City Editor Jane Brust editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters forf Photo Editor Greg Gammon length, but will make every effort to maintain the^ Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy intent. Each letter must also be signed, showtl^ Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff and P hone number of the writer. News Editors Marilyn Faulkenberry, Columns and guest editorials are also welcon]^• |, Greg Gammon no ^ su bject to the same length constraints Staff Writers Bemie Fette, Kathy O Connell, Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Denise Richter, Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M « l( Cartoonist Scott McCullar College Station, TX 77843. EDITORIAL POLICY The Battalion is published Tuesday, Wedarf The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper Thursday during Texas A&M s summer seme# operated as a community service to Texas A&M University subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 p* 1 , and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Bat- year and $35 per hill year. Advertising rates fu# talion are those of the editor or the author, and do not request. necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M Universi- Our address; The Battalion, 216 Reed McDotf ty administrators or faculty members, or of the Board of * n 8> Texas A&M University, College Station, Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for . J students in reporting, editing and photography classes United Press International is entitled exclusi'^ within the Department of Communications. use for reproduction of all news dispatches ere ^ Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter Rights of reproduction of all other matter erel, C should be directed to the editor. Second class postage paid at College Station,