Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 23, 1981)
MrMlf-riiifliinnTTni The Battalion Viewpoint October 23,1981 By Slouch By Jim Earle Like to know how many hours are left until graduation?’ Former presidents seek power roles By DAVID S. BRODER WASHINGTON — Richard M. Nixon was 61 when left the White House. Gerald R. Fod was 63; Jimmy Carter, 56. They had been given unique educations, at pub lic expense, in domestic and foreign affairs. They were far from being washed up men tally or physically. But the American sys tem provided no automatic or natural roles for them to play. They were, in theory, the titular leaders of their parties. But Nixon was disbarred by his Watergate disgrace and the other two were diminished in influence by their de feats. Besides, in the shapeless cloak of opposition party politics, the “titular lead er” is not much more than an empty sleeve. So they have busied themselves with memoir-writing, lecturing, library-and- museum-building, kibitzing gratuitously and intervening awkwardly on political and governmental matters. And, like a lot of other retirees, they have time to attend funerals. Nixon and Ford came out of retirement to join Carter at Hubert Humphrey’s funer al in 1978. Nixon, Ford and Carter joined hands to represent Ronald Reagan and the country at the funeral of Anwar Sadat. The latest disinterment of these prema turely buried treasures produced more than a historic photograph — apparently unique in our history — of four Presidents at the White House. It produced real news, as Carter and Ford conducted a joint inter view en route home from Cairo that sug gested an American diplomatic initiative to break the deadlock on the Palestinian issue by opening direct talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Since both presidents had renounced while in office the very course of action they now found desirable, their views had an understandable shock effect. While Reagan immediately reaffirmed what had been — until the Air force One interview — the Ford-Carter policy, there is a clear sense that options are now open which were pre viously closed. Later in the week. Carter and Ford made common cause again in support of Reagan’s embattled proposal for sale of AWACS ae rial-surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. That made it seem all the more plausible that they were running interference for the successor they had both, at various times, contested for office. Given all the dramatics of the past week’s alumni activities, it is not suprising that some now see a useful role emerging for former Presidents; It is to utter dangerous truths, to say those things the country or the world needs to hear, but which people in power — or actively seeking power — find it impolitic to say. You can imagine some well-meaning foundation leaping forward to propose an annual “Presidents’ convocation” where all the former occupants of the Oval office would gather for a weekend, pool their wis dom on current topics and then issue their pronouncements. That is a notion that ought to be embraced with great wariness — if not actually strangled at birth. It is not that the former Presidents, indi vidually and collectively, are lacking in wis dom. Far from it. But it needs to be remem bered that they were removed from office for what the public thought good reason. Oracles they may be, but the Oracle at Delphi had never lost an election or been run out of town one step ahead of an im peachment jury. But the more compelling reason for keeping their interventions in current poli cy rather rare is that former Presidents are not quite the disinterested observers they seem. The one sentiment that tends to un ite them more than their past service in the White House is their hunger to be back there again. But the amiable and admirable Jerry Ford spent a lot of hours between 1976 and 1980 denying his possible candidacy, only to throw himself back into the presidential picture in March and the vice-presidential picture in July — a ploy no one had even imagined he would consider. Now Jimmy Carter has come through town, denying with Ford-like sincerity that he has any “ambition” for another turn in the presidency and proclaiming that life in Plains is even more richly rewarding than he remembered. But my colleague, Haynes Johnson, was there when the three former Presidents came aboard Air Force One for the flight to Cairo. And he recorded the unmistakable glow of pleasure with which each of them surveyed what had once been his plane. They may be elder statesmen. But don’t doubt that the itch for power is there. It is there. Oh, is it there. Warped Student says statistics invalid Plans ;rvice stimatei roveme hursda} Editor: Sty Con The criticisms directed against Texas A&M University by Noe Gutierrez in his Reader’s Forum article of October 19 are extreme. Though Texas A&M certainly has room for improvement, it is hardly “a giant madhouse with its pervasive atmosphere of insanity governing it.” But at least Gutier rez has expressed his opinions as what they are — his opinions. Buzz Steiner, in his reply to Gutierrez’s vituperations, also states his personal opin ions. But he tries to support his opinions with statistics generated by Texas A&M’s corps of public relations flaks, information that is simply not true. First, we are informed that Texas A&M’s colleges of agriculture and engineering “have been internationally recognized for decades.” What does this mean? Are you internationally recognized if someone in Borneo or Trinidad-Tobago has heard of you? A better indication of the standing of the College of Engineering would be last year’s ranking of U.S. engineering schools by the Chronicle of Higher Education: Texas A&M was tied for 49th through 50th places with Oklahoma State and Drexel. Second, we are told that “Texas A&M draws more National Merit Scholars than any other state-supported school in the Southwest.” This should not be surprising; we are the second largest school in the Southwest. What is surprising, and there fore not mentioned, is that miniscule Rice Reader’s Forum riolic letters on this issue but who don’t® Mayc to research. I provide free, gratis, andfekjrd wel nothing the following statistics on sevenilback-up. internationally recognized universities! The v has more National Merit Scholars than Texas A&M. And third, we are notified that Texas A&M’s average SAT score is “higher than the average score at any other state- supported school in the Southwest.” This is true only if you exclude You-Know-Who from your list; yes, the pernicious little Teasips have an average composite SAT of 1,080, 51 points higher than Texas A&M’s “average” of 1,029. Rice, SMU, and the University of Texas at Dallas also have high er test scores than Texas A&M. Texas A&M’s scores would be even lower if this “average” were computed properly, that is by averaging the scores of all Texas A&M students. Instead, the scores of athletes and special admissions are not used. Special admissions are students who do not score 800 or above on the SAT, but they are still students at Texas A&M. Why aren’t their scores averaged in? Do I have to tell you everything? As an aid for those who will doubtless write The Battalion’s beleagured editor vit- The numbers following each school’s nam are: first, the percentage of the body that scored over 600 on the SAT vei. bal; second, the percentage of the stuck: body that scored higher than 600 on tic SAT mathematical. Case Western, cent, 74 percent; Cornell, 50 percent percent; MIT, 71 percent, 96 percent;Rt nesselear Polytechnic, 26 percent, lOOpei cent; Cal Tech, 78 percent, 100 percent Texas A&M University, 10 percent, 28p« cent; and Prairie View A&M, 0 percent,! percent. As you can see, what was formerl known as the Normal School for Colorel Teachers gives the Aggies a big lift in tk numbers game. For those who think I have beenbia and only compared the University with tic world’s best schools and one of the worst,! must now concede that Texas A&M c® nth soi loesn’t h ners, he “We opacity ■ [he add: pares very favorably in its SAT scoreswti Tuskegee Institute (20 percent and 5 pet by night cent) and the University of Puget Soum percent and 23 percent). Aggie spirit and traditions are one but don’t imagine the school to be than it is: a competent business and ted nical school with a slightly better than aver age student body. tb Tim Sager Class of# Pf a >eek sys It’s your turn Post-game yell practice a problem Editor: Saturday I had the opportunity to go to Waco to see the fighting Texas Aggie foot ball team play. I was pleased with the per formance of the team, even though we were outscored. We all know that after being outscored, we hold yell practice in the stands. It should also occur to most of us that a winning team’s band, in this case the Baylor band, will play for a few minutes after the game is over. This is when a conflict occurred. The yell leaders, realizing that the Baylor band was going to play for a few minutes after the game, decided to wait on the practice until the band had finished. This would have been the most logical and courteous thing to do. It would have been pretty stupid to try to out-yell the band, and it also would have been rude. With all this in mind, there were still people who knew better. I’m talking about the people who stood and yelled at the yell leaders to forget the band and commence yell practice. They called the yell leaders names, and some even suggested holding yell leader elec tions right there. If it had been just a hand ful, I could have ignored them. I realize there was a lot of tension, fatigue and possi ble even anger, but how could a few mi nutes of waiting possible inconvenience someone to the point of anger and childish remarks? If all of these people would have waited a few minutes, they would have found that the band was going to leave. But, instead, they showed their ignorance. They embar rassed me and my friends. Next time, let’s just sit tight and wait our turn. We are some of the finest people found anywhere, but other schools deserve an opportunity to give their ovation. Let’s not try to steal their thunder with our im patience. After all, wouldn’t we want the same? ment, we were so impressed we felt re sponse was necessary. We seek not to argue but to address. The covenant explains further: 1) As the foundation of national security, nuclear weapons are idolatrous. As a method of de fense, they are suicidal. To believe that nuclear weapons can solve international problems is the greatest illusion and the height of naivete. 2) The threatened nuclear annihilation of whole populations in the name of national security is an evil we can no longer accept. At stake is whether we trust in God or the bomb. We can no longer confess Jesus as Lord and depend on nuclear weapons to save us. Conversion in our day must in clude turning away from nuclear weapons as we turn to Jesus Christ. fenseless pedestrians. Have you ever plowed down by a biker while you wit walking across campus? I have had seven! close encounters and have seen m others. How many people have been already? If, one, that’s too many. 1 doesn’t seem to work; maybe action wil So the next time you are walking anJi biker buzzes by, tell him what c( pen if you kicked his front wheel out (roJ under him while he is riding at cruisinf speed. And if he doesn’t listen, kick it Sally Stol dri Class of Si h RI Gr By W Asurvi ollniver ities and o Resid lembers RHA Gree ad will alts to f ieir nexi Stacy internal i vere give as and lercent ( »rt. Throe eaders v Todav i le 296th How. The me lew phase The n ary, Mar The ev Those under the actress Sa Scan talk s were borr in 1845 ai On thii In 1915 won irk City Off campus cutting d *22 3) The building and threatened use of nuclear weapons is a sin — against God, God’s creatures, and God’s creation. There is no theology or doctrine in the traditions of the church that could ever justify nuclear war. Whether one begins with pacifism or with the just war doctrine, nuclear weapons are morally unacceptable. Let us join this covenant. Let us join the 250,000 people who gathered in Bonn, West Germany to call for a nuclear-free Europe, a disarmed NATO. Let us sanctify life, demanding an end to this folly and madness and waste. And let us pray for Editor: peace. Doug Wenzel ‘81 Jack Seifert ‘82 Bicyclists a problem Editor: This is an open letter to all off-campui, \ students. We need your help with Bonfire This year, we have had more interest anJ participation in organizing an off-campus cutting crew. Throughout September an! October, Off Campus Aggies sponsored Bonfire meetings in the various apartment complexes and on campus. The enthusiasm indicated that off-campus students hare LOTS of Aggie Spirit. Here’s your chance. This Saturday and Sunday are designated as Civilian Cuttin! Weekend. Cutting classes will be heldaal cards issued at the site. Interested women can either help with refreshments or join our women’s cutting crew. We represent the largest student group Be at Duncan Dining Hall at 8 a.m.on Saturday and Sunday. Let’s show the on- campus students and the Corps that we too have the burning desire to beat thehellont oft.u.m ' B 22 0COOJ Charles McBride Class of‘85 I resent the way bicyclists race around campus, weaving in and out among de- Bruce Martin Vice President Off Campus Aggies End to nukes wanted Editor: In the name of God, let us abolish nuclear weapons. This is a statement of the New Abolitionist Covenant. It means exactly what it says. After learning of this move- The Battalion USPS 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association By Scott McCullar Editor Angelique Copeland Managing Editor Marcy Boyce City Editor JaneG. Brust Asst. City Editor Kathy O’Connell Photo Editor DaveEinsel Sports Editor , Ritchie Priddy Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff Asst. Focus Editor Debbie Nelson News Editors Phyllis Henderson Bernie Fette, Belinda McCoy Diana Sultenfuss Staff Writers Gary Barker Frank L. Christlieb, Randy Clements Gaye Denley, Nancy Floeck, Colette Hutchings Denise Richter, Mary Jo Rummel, Rick Stolle Nancy Weatherley, Barbie Woelfel Cartoonist Scott McCullar Graphic Artist. ............. Richard DeLeon Jr. Photographers Brian Tate Colin Valentine The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newsj students in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Department of Communications. Questions or comments concerning any editorial matW should be directed to the editor. LETTERS POLICY Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words ii length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer, TV editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style 'si length, but will make every effort to maintain the authors intent. Each letter must also be signed, show the address and phone number.of the writer. Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, and are not subject to the same length constraints as letters. Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. EDITORIAL POLICY The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Bat talion are those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M Universi ty administrators or faculty members, or of the Board of Regents. The Battalion is published daily during Texas A&M’s and spring semesters, except for holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Build ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77813. United Press Internationa] is entitled exclusively to the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to # Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. 2 Wit Bea ne LA Dl, A! AI '623 . c nlp,