Battalion/Page 2
April 6,1982
Johnson’s remarks spark election controven
:^y, >J§
“ aj
.V
Whoever wins election
needs student support
Outgoing Student Body President
Ken Johnson disapproves of both candi
dates in today’s election for student body
president.
So what?
Two candidates, Mike Lawshe and Pat
Pearson, are competing in the run-off.
Ken Johnson says he’s disappointed in
the student body, that “they don’t know
what they’ve gotten themselves into.”
Why didn’t he say so before the elec
tion?
If Lawshe and Pearson are so horrible,
why didn’t Johnson speak out and save us
from the disaster he seems to feel is so
inevitable?
Surely, Johnson was not hindered by
election regulations from speaking be
fore or during the elections about the
consequences of electing the candidates.
And if he was, what loophole in the reg
ulations allows him to speak before the
run-off, but not before the main elec-
Unfortunately for Johnson, his com
ments seem to be sour grapes and do not
help the student body.
Comments such as “none of these peo
ple have the tried-and-true record that
you can feel confident about... ” only add
to general apathy about student elec
tions.
colette
hutchings
and daniel
puckett
Johnson is logical
one to comment
What kind of constructive action
should the student body take now? Re
fuse to vote?
Johnson took great pains to criticize
not only the candidates, but also the peo
ple he feels are their supporters. Charges
of guilt by association were despicable
when Sen. Joseph McCarthy used them
to ruin lives back in the ’50s; they are no
less despicable now.
tion?
As student body president, he obvious
ly thought the candidates were bad picks
from the start, so why weren’t we, the
victims, warned?
Again, comments of this sort only in
crease the doubts a number of students
have about the effectiveness and necessi
ty of a student government at Texas
A&M.
Cynical comments of the sort Johnson
engaged in are nothing new; they
abounded at the University of Texas in
the mid-1970s when student politicians
seemed more concerned with the
triumph of their own factions than with
helping the student body.
It was precisely that political self-
seeking that led the UT student body to
abolish student government in 1978;
whether Johnson desires that goal for
Texas A&M is irrelevant — the attitude
he displayed in Monday’s Battalion can
only lead to the same end for our Student
Government.
The students voted last week; they had
the facts before them, they had access to
meetings and speeches throughout the
year. They were able to evaluate Student
Government’s actions. To call their
choice “uninformed” is to condemn the
entire election process.
For better or worse, the students made
their choice last week; they are making
another choice today and whoever wins
deserves the support of the entire stu
dent body.
Candidate evaluations premature
People are always complaining about
the lack of honesty in politicians, but
when someone decides to be honest —
brutally honest — there is a flood of cri
ticism.
Ken Johnson yesterday put his opin
ions and reputation on the line in a frank
assessment of the capabilities of the stu
dent body presidential candidates.
Whether you agree or disagree with
the sentiments he expressed, you have to
admit he is the logical person to make this
type of critical analysis. Because of his
office, his opinion is newsworthy.
Political opinions from former of fice
holders, whether critical or priasewor-
thy, is nothing new. In the April 4 edition
of “Parade” magazine former President
Gerald Ford gave his reflections, and cri
ticisms, of President Reagan’s policies.
Nobody calls that sour grapes.
Because Johnson is leaving office and
will not be involved in Student Govern
ment next semester, he is in a position to
make an objective assessment of the can
didates and their platforms. And he did
just that.
It took guts, damnit.
Johnson’s timing has been criticized,
and with some justification. If he saw in
consistencies in the candidates platforms,
he should have said something. But as
student body president, he felt he should
remain neutral if possible.
His comments were not meant to strip
the candidates of all their credibility and
angelique
copeland
m
HP"*, <■*
belittle the organization he has-
sented the past year. They werem«
challenge the voters to look
airy campaign slogans and helpj
make a tough decision thatuil
nificant consequences. It wasachij
that should not have been necessail
His comments also were intendi
challenge the candidates. Mike
or Pat Pearson will be student bodl
idem. For the first time, bothcanai
have come under close public!
and have been held accountablelor|
statements. Welcome to the reahvorU
politics.
It has been charged that his comm
imp
SR#
■HI
will make an apathetic voting public^ ro(
more so. That by presenting oiM|; (r i 1 t hut i
negative, students will lose faith,„P ’
election process and Student Gottw
ment.
But look at the reaction hiscomr
have generated so far. People aretl
ing. People are reacting. Apathyishas
the word that describes these result!
There must be more to a candidati
a major student office than his
painting ability. Ken Johnson tool
time to point that out.
Editor:
We realize that opinions are news, but
it is unfortunate that the opinions re
ndered by Ken Johnson, student body
president, in his interview yesterday are
likely to be assumed authoritative opin
ions of student leadership on campus.
should not be discouraged from voting in
the runoff election or from keeping their
responsibilty to vote for the best candi
date.
Johnson was known by many to have
supported both candidates who lost in
the general elections last week for stu
dent body president. We realize that
Johnson must, be disappointed in the
election results, but his interview is not
the proper way to respond to a personal
disappointment.
However, any personal statement
should be looked at as the subjective
opinion that it is, not a statement of fact.
Johnson’s opinion is not held by a major
ity of student leaders — including the
writers of this letter. We are in just as
good a position to judge the runoff can
didates for president and make state
ments about their personal character.
Pat Pearson and Mike Lawshe are
qualified candidates; they are both hard
working and will serve our student body
well. We think that it will be a genuine
shame and an unfortunate disservice to
the students of Texas A&M University, if
Johnson’s personal opinion is given grea
ter deference than is due. Students
Paul Bettencourt, OCA President
Lance Wright, Judicial Board Chairman
Fred Seals, Graduate Council President
Rhonda Rhea, Vice President Rules and
Regulations
Wally Brewster, Student Senator
Dale Collins, Student Senator
Not student leader opinion
Editor:
I’m afraid that our current Student
Body President, Ken Johnson, has over
stepped the bounds of his rationality in
his premature evaluation of our present
campaign and its candidates. It is surpris
ing that one in a responsible position,
such as Ken, would make comments
potenially detrimental to the future of
our student body. Ken has effectively
downgraded both viable candidates at a
particularly vulnerable time in the cam
paign and his actions deserve attention.
If there is indeed a lack of enthusiasm
on the part of the student body towards
student government (and there is) then
Ken’s actions have seriously reinforced
the problem. To advertise thought in
adequacies of the candidates presents a
hopeless attitude toward the forthcom
ing school/legislative year and thus im
pairs student involvement. The simple
fact is that ef fective campaign tactics and
yes even student support have allowed
these candidates their runoff opportun
ity. To criticize their platforms and abili
ties is a mistake. Ken’s actions have
proven to be completely inappropriate
and more importantly, inconsiderate of
the student body.
As well, one would expect the student
body president to refrain from justifica
tion of candidate’s platform accusations
of the presiding student goverment... at
least until after the elections.
I urge all potential voters to reevaluate
this election and its importance and
understand the value of your vote. Ex
amine the platforms and vote according
ly because as has been said, pressing
issues important to both students and the
University are at stake. Understand that
regardless of Ken’s depressing com
ments, both are in the runoff for a reason
and deserve voter attention. Vote one
way or the other, just make sure you vote!
Miles Ouren
Schuhmacher
Slouch
Jim EarlJ
by Lori V
Battalion R
ding a bicyc
an be a frustrati
bm getting to
■ele through c
t worse.
fey 1983, howe'
Pege Station j
lete a system ofee
antes, lanes and p
); protect riders
lanqui
o horn
ig lead
I by John P. ]
Battalion Rej
Texas Commissii
fflure Reagan
bk at a banquet
Big the efforts oi
aders in Brazos c
•Brown is expect
ie importance of I
farm productioi
amy.
Four outstandin
I VnO.
‘Pardon me. I thought you were carrying books.
ders from Braz<
Standing farme
[rancher, agric
unity leader and
youth groups —
ftored at the bar
The event spon
yan-College Stati
commerce will si
100 Heldenfels.
|o.
Letters: More non-regs need to vote in elections
Editor:
Texas A&M is a fine upstanding uni
versity. It has a foundation which is awe
some in every respect. The traditions
which are unique to this University unite
us as one. We have had an excellent year,
one with many changes. These changes
should allow us to become even better.
Candidate missing the point
and student input. Lawshe should realize
these facts and offer constructive sugges
tions rather than distructive condemna
tion.
lieve, is clear we will have either a slow,
democratic, multi-issue body or as Law
she desires a body that remains intact all
year, does little and addresses notliif
Fred Si-
Graduate Council Presidi
Editor:
At one time, the entire student body of
Texas A&M was composed of cadets. In
recent years, our University has experi
enced tremendous growth, and today 90
percent of the students at Texas A&M
are non-regs. We need to continue to be
fine University that we are, but because
of this growth, much of the student body
has become apathetic. It is up to the stu
dents, especially non-regs, to do some
thing about this. We certainly do not
want to evolve into a psuedo t.u. It is up to
us, the students, not the Board of Re
gents or other administratiors, to do this.
So, Aggies, I encourage you to take a
stand and have a voice in your University.
The Corps is encouraged to vote by their
superiors and I would like to encourage
you to do the same. It is really a shame
that a body of less than 10 percent of the
University can be the controlling factor
in the elections. I therefore strongly en
courage you to have pride in our Univer
sity and voice your concern by voting in
today’s runoff elections.
I read with interest your Voters Guide
for Student Goverment elections. The
responses for the office of president were
of particular concern. With one excep
tion all the candidates for student body
president seemed to have a firm grasp of
the issues and the position Student Gov
ernment holds within the Texas A&M
System. From his personal statement it
seems to me, a'two-term senate member,
that Mike Lawshe has little or no under
standing of the functions or responsibili
ties of the Student Senate.
Lance Bryant ’83
Mike complains that 45 percent of the
membership of the senate has left this
year. He is right in suggesting this is a
high figure but wrong in condemning
the Student Government for the losses.
Our Student Government loses between
20 and 35 percent of its members yearly
due to many factors. Among them are
lack of interest, grades, change of in
terest and finding out that democratic
government is slow and time consuming.
Our Student Government is a slow, time-
consuming democratic body. Attrition
could be slowed but only at the expense
of democracy, quality research of issues
The most disturbing part of Mike’s
statement is his desire to leave off-
campus issues to OCA, dorm issues to
RHA and student programs to the MSC
Council. The Texas A&M Student Gov
ernment is designed to represent all stu
dents: Corps, non-regs, greeks, gradu
ates, men, women, on and off campus
with no exceptions. Mike does not seem
to understand this point and thus he fails
to grasp the need or purpose of Student
Government. If we divest Student Gov
ernment of all the areas Mike suggests I
feel we would find our Student Govern
ment dealing with only the Mickey
Mouse issues he wants to send back to
Hollywood.
In closing, I would like to say that
Mike has done a good job representing
his class this year, however, if his state
ment is indicative of the way he intends to
represent the Texas A&M student body I
have great reservations. My many years
in civic clubs, professional organizations
and student politics cause me to question
Mike’s true knowledge of Texas A&M, its
student government, the operations of
both and the relationships between the
two. I strongly encourage the students at
Texas A&M to consider what they want
of student government. The choice, I be-
The Battalion
USES 045 360
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
Texas A&M University administrators or Iscultf flf
bers, or of the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newsf
for students in reporting, editing and photograph)
ses within the Department of Communications.
Questions or comments concerning any editff'
matter should be directed to the editor.
Editor. Angelique Copeland
City Editor Denise Richter
Assistant City Editor Diana Sultenfuss
Sports Editor Frank L. Christlieb
Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff
Assistant Focus Editor Nancy Floeck
News Editors Gary Barker,
Phyllis Henderson, Mary Jo Rummel,
Nancy Weatherley
Staff Writers Jennifer Carr,
Cyndy Davis, Gaye Denley,
Sandra Gary, Colette Hutchings,
Johna Jo Maurer, Hope E. Paasch
Daniel Puckett, Bill Robinson,
Denise Sechelski, John Wagner,
Laura Williams, Rebeca Zimmermann
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Graphic Artist Richard DeLeon Jr.
Photographers Sumanesh Agrawal,
David Fisher, Eileen Manton,
Eric Mitchell, Peter Rocha,
John Ryan, Colin Valentine
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news
paper operated as a community service to Texas A&M
University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions ex
pressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or the
author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of
Letters Policy
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 wojw 1
length, and are subject to being cut if they arclonf
The editorial staff reserves the right to edit ieltetil'
style and length, but will make every effort tomainif
the author’s intent. Each letter must also be signed,^
the address and phone number of the writer,
Columns and guest editorials are also welcome,®-
are not subject to the same length constraints as lelte 1
Address all inquiries and correspondence to:
The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M L-
versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phone (713)
2611.
The Battalion is published daily during Texas Aik
fall and spring semesters, except for holiday and exaf-
nation periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 perse#
ter, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Ad' 1 '
tising rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDo#
Building, Texas A&M University, College Station,f
77843.
United Press International is entitled exclusively 1 '
the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credit
to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter lierf
reserved.
Second class postage paid at College Station, ^
77843.