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,