Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 1, 1983)
Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, June 1, 1983 opinion Playboy anniversary lauded by Maxwell Glen and Cody Shearer WASHINGTON — If an institution ever deserved to celebrate its 30th birth day without pang of guilt or self-doubt, it’s Playboy magazine. We state this claim as the Chicago- based entertainment empire prepares to throw itself a party-to-remember next January. All Americans should mark this historic moment with the respect due a company that has kept its bearing despite three decades of change. Such cheerleading might startle Americans who’ve long regarded Play boy as generic pornography, made more dangerous than its harder-core competi tors by a seductively soft focus. As angry students at the University of Maryland insisted last month, when photographer David Chan arrived to shoot the latest campus pictorial, 30 volumes of bare chests and dumb jokes aren’t summarily excused. Yet who, in their heart of hearts, can deny the magazine’s numerous accom plishments, particularly in the service of feminism? After Gloria Steinem, few can match Hugh Hefner’s record for state ments and actions in the tradition of Susan B. Anthony. Take, for example, Playboy’s decided ly progressive hiring practices. They’re illustrated by Hefner’s nationwide hunt for a “30th Anniversary Playmate.” A re cent ad in the Los Angeles Times said, “$30,000 And A Year You’ll Never Forget.” “Search headquarters” are slated to open soon in 30 U.S. cities. Now that’s affirmative action. Or consider Hefner’s up-to-date read ing of womankind. The pajama-clad mastermind has kept pace over the years, boldly abandoning his infantile crush on the girl next door for a woman who sometimes thinks for herself. Today’s model, we all know, frequently takes the initiative in love, is “turned off” by the arms race and red meat, and holds a high-powered, globe-trotting job. That she disrobes at the drop of a hat is im material: She is a role model for modern times, right? Being clairvoyant, however, Hefner has long realized that women alone can’t move the mountains of change. That’s why his magazine has actively coached its male readers to cultivate more mature views on dressing, drinking, thinking and behaving. So avant-garde is Play boy’s perspective that a recent column on men denounced several unspeakably mindless, women-hating societies, com plete-with quotes from Virginia Woolf, a novelist forever in vogue with Playboy readers. Wrote Playboy’s columnist: “It may not always come through clearly, but this column loves and honors women. Its au thor could not have survived without them.” Bravo, brave magazine! Not surprisingly, such editorial cour age extends to new frontiers, including the Playboy Channel, Hefner’s crusading video project. As its half-million subscri bers can attest, the adult entertainment system features the same kind of femin ists for which the magazine is famous. A shining example, according to the Chica go Tribune, is the channel’s “4PLAY” series, in which a middle-aged husband falls for a 19-year-old free spirit whose “feminism” comes straight from the pages of Cosmopolitan. But lest anyone dismiss these efforts as token gestures, Hefner puts his money where his mouth is. Over the years, his Playboy Foundation has donated thousands of dollars to supplicant women’s groups, including the National Organization for Women and the Na tional Women’s Political Caucus. Found ation Director Rebecca Sive- Tomashefsky told our reporter Michael Duffy that grants and aid to women’s groups last year exceeded one-quarter of the foundation’s half-million-dollar budget. That the financially-strapped groups have taken the money is surely Hefner’s most prized endorsement. Skeptics might question Hefner’s mo tives for supporting groups which ought to be his natural enemies. Some may even harbor private doubts about his cham pionship of women’s rights, given his penchant for flesh. But such sandbag ging is the price of leadership: Reconcil ing porn and feminism takes genius (and don’t forget, they laughed at Edison). So, as the birthday boy looks down the road to 40, we salute him. He has cast off the fantasies of a child for those of an adolescent. And, he has aged well: After three decades, his magazine reads more like 13 than 30. X FIGURE THA^T IF THVS TRENP CONTINUES... THERE’LL BE ONE 6RANP COMPREHENSIVE FINAL STUPT 0F FUNCTI0NAL ILLITERACY... BY THE YEAR -2033 WE NNILL SEE THE ULTIMATE RESULT... ... ANP N0B0PY WILL BE ABLE TO REAP IT... Chem professor’s critic challenged Editor: Just a note to react to the letter of Mr. Carlson W. Yost. He acknowledges that Dr. Rod O’Connor is an excellent lectur er. However, he objects to Dr. O’Con nor’s exams on the grounds that he spends too much time preparing stu dents to take them. Mr. Yost feels that this overemphasis carries the message to students “that chemistry itself is not worth learning unless you get a high grade” and that ” ... chemistry ought to be easy or it is not worth learning.” I would suggest that Dr. O’Connor, a distinguished member of our faculty, is the person best qualified to judge the appropriateness and effectiveness of his exams in terms of the organization and design of his course. Exams measure an indeterminate proportion of the total amount of learning done by students. Much learning is never captured in ex ams. Nevertheless, Dr. O’Connor is doing what most professors do to help students learn, and to try to test them in ways which will allow the students to ex press what they know on a given subject. The greatest challenge and satisfaction in teaching is to present a difficult topic in such a way that it will be ‘easy’ for the student to understand, for it requires the maturity to know the essentials of a prob lem and the intellectual integrity of sim plicity. The central question in this unfortun ate incident should be — has Dr. O’Con nor’s chemistry program produced well- trained students? Do they do well in more advanced classes? Do they know what they are supposed to know? Can they manage in the private sector? And if the answers to these question are affirmative, then common sense suggests a very care ful and well-thought-out answer to the question of what changes will improve the quality of the program. It is unfor tunate that Dr. O’Connor resigned be fore these questions could be settled. Ben Aguirre The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member ot Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Editor Hope E. Paasch City Editor Kelley Smith Sports Editor John Wagner News Editors Daran Bishop, Brian Boyer, Beverly Hamilton, Tammy Jones Staff Writers Scott Griffin, Robert McGlohon, Angel Stokes, Joe Tindel Copyeditors .... Kathleen Hart, Tracey Taylor Cartoonist Scott McCullar Photographers Brenda Davidson, Eric Lee, Barry Papke, Peter Rocha 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 a’ thor, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of i exas A&M University administrators or faculty mem bers, or of the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography clas ses within the Department of Communications. Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter should be directed to the editor. Letters Policy Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must also be signed and show the address and telephone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials also are 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 Uni versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phone (409) 845- 2611. The Battalion is published Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday during both Texas A&M regular summer sessions, 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 Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. United Press International is entitled exclusively to the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. Slouch By Jim Eai CONGRATULATE A3GlE<alRl3 1953 NATIONAL. SOFTBALL CHAM^IONlS Drunk acronyms more than FADD by Dick West WASHINGTON —Just about every one I know is against drunken driving. The trick is to vent your opposition in such a way that it doesn’t form an acronym. Which is not easy thing to do. Irate female parents were the first group to take up the cudgels. Their orga nization is called, predictably, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). From there the movement spread to high schools, whose organizations, equal ly predictably, are chapters of Students Against Driving Drunk (SADD). Male parents, logically, would be the next family members to recruit. But I wouldn’t recommend organizing Fathers Against Drunk Driving (FADD). That acronym sounds too capricious. However, fathers who party at home, rather than on the road, could provide the nucleus of Drunks Against Drunk Driving (DADD). Younger family members probably are better left unorganized, lest we have Children Against Drunk Driving (CADD). I can’t see any campaign being helped by that acronym, even if it stood for Cousins Against Drunk Driving. A better plan, I submit, is to go outside the home to enroll pre-schoolers, who could be called Tots Against Drunk Driv ing (TADD). Derelicts also occasionally aren| by intoxicated motorists, butasyi has been no effort to organize Against Drunk Driving (BADD). The acronym outbreak prob its origins in the New Deal’s" soup,” a melange of governraenti cies usually identified by theirinit dreamed up, of course, by FDR In their wartime flowering,acn sprang from such military innov the Women’s Army Corps (WACl today, the Pentagon remains a hoi abbreviation. Recent Defense Department tions greatly contribute to a conctj led MAD (Mutually Assured!) tion. Which is not to be confi MADD. Other good providers indudeilt tical Action Committees (PACs channel campaign contributions serving candidates and lobby fori rious legislation that otherwisemif guish. Now making its way through Co is a measure that would overhaul! tion’s immigration system. Does this mean there is suchast zation as the Serbians In Exilef Action Committee (SIX PAG)? If not, there soon will be. Reagan, MX take ove barroom conservation by Art Buchwald It used to be if you went into a bar you could always find an argument over the merits of a pro football team. But now, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s constant drumbeat concerning defense weapons, he’s got the whole country talking about whether we can win a nuclear war or not. I dropped by “Dumbarton’s Bar 8c Grill” the other afternoon for a beer. The man on the next stool said, “How do you think we’ll do against the Russians this year?” I couldn’t tell which side he was on so I played it cool. “It’s too early to tell. It depends if we can harden our Minuteman silos in time to put our MX missiles in place.” “Exactly what I was thinking,” he said. “Of course the commies could still crawl through our window of vulnerability.” “Yeh, but if we get the B-l bomber built, set up our Pershing and cruise mis siles in Europe, and develop a tricky ‘Star Wars’ defense, we can zap their land- based air attack before it gets off the ground,” I said. “You know where I think we’re mak ing our big mistake?” he said. “We’re trying to match the Soviets missile for missile. What we should do is go ahead with single-warhead Midgetmen that the Russians couldn’t hit because we’d spread them all over the country. There’s something to be said for not putting all your MXs in one dense pack.” Dumbarton, who was washing glasses said, “A guy was in here yesterday, and he heard from a friend at the Pi that the Soviets were violating thf II treaty when it came to underjf testing.” “I wouldn’t put it past them, while ordering another beer. “You know what we have tod guy on the next stool said. “Wei rethink MAD, the Mutual Assurf 1 truction strategy we’ve been using past 20 years. It’s not working an' I say we sit down with the Sovietsin 1 va, offer them a zero option, and; don’t take it, tell them to buzzed I said, “What really gets meson Congress is dragging its feet when es to spending money for a goodd' Reagan knows what the countr) better than anybody.” The guy on the next stool said better believe it. I saw him in ‘10 the Navy’ the other night on TV,a 1 man really has the guts to stand up Russians.” Dumbarton refilled our gl< think Reagan has what it takes, not too sure about ‘Cap’ Weinbei; “Why not?” “He’s too light. He could be kn over by one SS 19 intermediate missile. You want a big guy intltf tion who can take a lot of pun$ when he gets hit by an ICBM." A guy at the end of the bar said ] body hear the Baltimore Orioles Dumbarton said to him ^ “Watch your language, buddy.Till ladies in this bar, and if you want ; dirty you can go drink somewhere