F ' ■
t
t
s
l !l
I '
I
I
f
I
3=
ra—.
1=
5
Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, November 28, 1983
opinion
Will White House
security go too far?
by Steve Gerstel
United Press International '
WASHINGTON — A security shroud
envelopes the nation’s Capitol, turning
that magnificent edifice into a besieged
garrison.
Dogs sniff for bombs, police check for
indentification, machines probe for met
al, entrances are sealed to visitors, corri
dors are off limits.
The state of siege, so grim, seems in
evitable in a time when the setting of ex
plosives in public and corporate build
ings has become commonplace.
Security in the Capitol, once almost
non-existent, was tightened noticeably
after a middle-of-the night bomb in 1971
demolished a shroon and barber shop on
the first floor.
But that was only a pale forerunner of
the stringent security measures which
were imposed the day after another ex
plosion two weeks ago.
That explosion, set off within steps of
the Senate chamber, inflicted minor
structural damage and damaged price
less paintings. Fortunately, the blast came
late at night, when the Capitol was vir
tually empty.
That same explosion, as little as four
hours later when the Senate was still in
session, would very likely have claimed
some wounded, perhaps some dead.
The force of the explosion, set off in a
heavily-traveled corridor on the second
floor, sent shrapnel-type missiles rocket
ing into the Republican cloakroom, an
off-floor retreat for GOP senators.
The new security measures were quick
to go into effect but they were not actually
a response to the bombing.
The desire for new safeguards were
prompted by reports, never substanti
ated, that Lybian hit squads had infil
trated the country. It was in response to
that danger that security officials first
made their plans.
The security measures now in effect
are, by and large, little more than a nui
sance although they take away from vis-
tors the privilige of roaming the second-
floor corridors.
The measures will be tightened even
more when Congress returns Jan. 23 by
further restricting the access of outsiders
to the Capitol and requiring badges for
staff and media.
Although the feeling of greater safety
may be reassuring to the lawmakers,
many are bothered by the neccessity of
the unprecedented precautions.
House Democratic leader Jim Wright
said, the day after the bombing, that he
was “earnestly concerned” about restrict
ing the Capitol to the point it would inter
fere with visitors.
“A free society such as ours owes a
degree of access to its citizens,” he said.
“It is not our building. This building be
longs to the people of the United States.”
Hopefully, Wright’s concept of the
Capitol is widespread and strong enough
to head off the tunnel-vision security
types who would not be adverse to turn
ing the building into an off-limits for
tress.
These types have suggested putting a
fence around the lush Capitol grounds,
which also belong to the people, and en
casing the House and Senate chambers
with a form of plexiglass bubble top.
Almost absolute security can be pro
vided for the Capitol.
But the price in terms of access for the
thousands of Americans who come to see
the one building uniquely theirs is far too
high.
Verbal sexual abuse
often a judgment call
by Art Buchwald
There seems to be more talk and law
suits concerning sexual harassment in the
office. A recent survey indicated that
while few women complained of being
physically harassed by males, many main
tained they were verbally abused by their
male co-workers.
Unfortunately, verbal sexual harass
ment is still a much cloudier area than
anyone wants to admit.
When I go to lunch by myself I have
the bad habit of listening to conversations
at the next table. When two or three girls
are lunching together the conversation
seems to concern the various men in their
office. “Tommy is a teddy bear, but Har
ry is a dirty old man.”
Wanting to know where a man should
draw the line when it comes to harass
ment in the office, I turned to three
female office workers sitting next to me
at Scholl’s Cafeteria the other day and
said, “I beg your pardon, I’m doing a
story on sexual harassment and I was
wondering if you ladies could help me
define the difference between verbal
harassment and old-fashioned flirting in
the office.”
One of the girls replied, “If you like the
guy and think he’s cute, he’s flirting with
you. If you don’t like him, he’s harassing
you.”
A second girl said, “If Arnie, whom
you’ve had your eye on, asks to have din
ner with you, tell all the girls in the office.
Slouch
“Frisbees! After all this time,
you ’ve been carrying around no
thing but frisbees! I thought you
were carrying books!’’
If Charley, whom you can’t stand, invites
you, tell your boss.”
“Then what you’re saying is that verbal
harassment in the office is really a judg
ment call. It isn’t what’s being said but
who says it?”
The third lady in the party said,
“There’s a lot more to it than that. Lilly
was dating a fellow from our office, and
he stayed over at her apartment once or
twice a week. Then he dumped her and
wouldn’t talk to her. His silence was far
more harassing than anything he had
ever said to her.”
“Correct me if I’m wrong,” I con
tinued, “but it seems to me in the old
office mating game, many men and
women who are now married admit they
didn’t even like each other at the begin
ning, but eventually fell in love. If office
harassment had been as big an issue then
as it is now, maybe the couple would have
never gotten together, and the guy, in
stead of cutting the lawn for the girl of his
dreams, could be doing five years in the
county workhouse.”
“The difference is that in the past,”
one of the girls said, ” a girl had no choice
of who harassed her. Now the law says it’s
our decision.”
One of the other ladies added, “It’s
also a question of who holds the power. If
your superior implies your position with
the firm depends of how nice you are to
him, that’s harassment of the worst kind.”
“But if you like him, would that still be
harassment?”
“If he’s married, that’s one thing. If
he’s fun and single, it could be a different
story.”
“Are there cases in your office,” I
asked, “where women harass men they
are attracted to?”
They all laughed. “We’re not made of
stone. Why are you writing an article on
this?”
“Because if women can go to court
over verbal harassment in an office en
vironment, men may become too fright
ened to say anything to you girls. It could
take all the romance out of your jobs, and
no one would look forward to coming to
work anymore.”
“Do you have a solution?” one of the
women asked me.
“Yes, I do. I think when you first apply
for a job you should be asked on your
personnel questionnaire if you want to be
verbally harassed or not. If you say yes,
then you must describe the type of guy
you want to be harassed by and the type
you wouldn’t be caught dead with. Your
superior could then notify all the males in
the office accordingly, and everybody
would be spared the consequences.”
The girls thought this over. Then one
of them said, “It will never work. We
might not want to be harassed by George
on Monday, but when the weekend rolls
around, and we don’t have anything to
do, we should have the right to change
our minds”
Reagan confident of policies
on nukes after The Day Afte
by Helen Thomas
United Press International
WASHINGTON — The president and
White House aides are breathing a sigh of
relief. They do not believe that “The Day
After,” a television drama showing the
horrors of nuclear war, had any major
negative fallout as far as administration’s
nuclear arms policies are concerned.
Home free is the way the aides have
been reacting. They feel it did not lay a
glove on the White House, politically
speaking, although it was considered a
“national happening.”
They concede they feared the worse,
particularly with some reports before
ABC-TV aired the film Nov. 20 that
there might be mass hysteria.
“The best thing about ‘The Day After’
was that the country was mature enough
to deal with it,” said one top official. He
recalled that a similar film had been ban
ned in Britain in 1965 out of concern that
it would scare the public.
“There was nothing like that,” he said
following the showing of “The Day Af
ter,” adding, “There’s been a healthy de
bate. I thought it was good for the
country.”
Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger
are keeping up the counterattack charg
ing that while the United States has re
duced its nuclear arsenal, the Soviet Un
ion has built up its stocks, believing that it
can win a nuclear war.
“I only wish the Soviet leaders would
allow their citizens to see a film like ‘The
Day After,”’ Weinberger said.
Weinberger has not spent enough time
in Moscow, if any, or he would know that
war has been on the Soviet minds since
World War II. No one can visit the Soviet
Union without hearing of the 25 million
casualties suffered in that devastating
V
He said that Reagan thought the movie
was “depressing” and repeated the public
White House statement that his policies
are designed to prevent a holocaust.
Meanwhile, Cabinet officials such as
Official visitors, and tourists alike are
taken to the Leningrad memorial to com
memorate the untold suffering of mil
lions when their city was blockaded on
three sides for three years.
Soviet citizens may not be told what
their leaders are up to. But they are told
about the horrors of nuclear war.
The White House received some 600
calls that they labeled preponderantly
pro-Reagan about his policies. Aides
admit the number was a drop in the buck
et considering that tens of thousands
watched the movie, and stayed glued to
the television for the pro and con debate
afterward by administration officials and
former government chieftains.
Americans are not in a protest mood.
To White House aides, there is a general
United
acceptance of where the nationisha
and a belief that Reagan is doin; orv s at
utmost to reach a nuclear arms redt; ets an(
agreement with the Soviets. ngtwo
To other observers, there is asee amagir
resignation and passivity to what pc ur othei
feel they cannot do anything about \
The administration’s solutionisp
through strength. Only matchine:: F l f 0
perior arms, Reagans advisers be jj. r
will hold the Soviets in line.
As for the political repercussiontl
official said, “There’s no reasontob
it will become an issue in thecampaii
With Pershing-2 and cruise ratj
being deployed in Europe, the d
powers appear to be approachinij
point of no return. The need fo]
agreement on on arms reductionbel
es more urgent. |es,sai<
So far the Soviets have not raadti Ce iQO i
major conciliatory gestures. Sovietletd supp
Yuri Andropov has not been publicb fyears,
ble, indicating that he is not well era iO job;
to be asserting leadership. K crea ^
In his farewell statement befwlQQQ
went on his six-day Asian swing, Rea
said “We live in a dangerous world' an ^ [U(
That appeared apt. |r ee to S(
He also told a Jewish group privalfi But the
few weeks ago that it appeared "we*as been
going down the road to Armageddrosince i
With doomsday possibilities allaro
us, no attempt is being made fora;
logue to get started between U.S|f Cd
Soviet officials.
People should bother to find out
about toxic wastes near residence!
)as
Un
The
ath tc
unsts
ish ir
by Children’s Express
Children’s Express, a privately
funded news service, is real world journalism
reported entirely by children 13 years of age
or under whose tape-recorded interviews, dis
cussions, reports and commentary are edited
by teenagers and adults..
Canal is not an isolated incident. “Nor is it
a special case,” Gibbs added. “There are
15,000 uncontrolled waste sites very simi
lar to Love Canal.” And there are are
many dump sites around the country
which are unknown and dangerous.
Gibbs feels that people need to know
United Press International
NEW YORK — People like their
homes. They like their normal lives.
They just don’t listen. They don’t want to
hear that their homes are in danger, their
jobs and their children, their whole lives;
they don’t want to hear that kind of thing.
So they disregard it. They say, “It won’t
happen to me.” Some people are just
naive.
and they need some kind of guii
She founded the Citizen’s C
House two years ago to help
understand what’s happening anil
react and not just sit around inT-MO a
houses and wait for the thing tot®!*d in
8 Ne du
ekenc
lana
irities
he I
imate<
ople v
over.
But do you notice that your kids are
sick very often? Is this happening to a lot
of people that you know? Are there
women you know who have had miscar
riages? These may not be freak accidents.
It could be that there are toxic waste sites
around you, maybe even in your own
backyard.
“I never thought that the environment
was a problem,” Lois Gibbs told us. “I
always thought that the odors I smelled
were odors that made work and jobs and
money. Nobody told me that they were
dangerous.”
Gibbs is the founder of an organization
called the Citizen’s Clearing House for
Hazardous Wastes. One day she got
home and picked up the paper and she
was told that 20,000 tons of toxic waste
were dumped three blocks from her
house under the playground of the
school where her son went.
“My kids were so sick but it didn’t make
sense to me,” Gibbs went on. “I read in
the newspaper that these chemicals cre
ate diseases, which were also listed in the
newspaper. I could check off every one of
my kids’ problems. That’s when I became
aware. And I was very scared.”
The people of Love Canal panicked. It
was like why, why my town? But Love
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
Member ot
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
Editor Hope E. Paasch
City Editor Kelley Smith
Assistant City Editor. Karen Schrimsher
Entertainment Editor .... Rebeca Zimmermann
Assistant Entertainment Editor Shelley
Hoekstra
News Editors Brian Boyer, Kathy Breard,
Kevin Inda, Tracey Taylor,
Chris Thayer, Kathy Wiesepape
Photo Editor Eric Evan Lee
Staff Writers Robin Black,
Brigid Brockman, Bob Caster,
Ronnie Crocker, Elaine Engstrom,
Kari Fluegel, Tracie Holub,
Bonnie Langford, John Lopez,
Kay Denise Mallett,
Christine Mallon,
Michelle Powe, Stephanie Ross,
Angel Stokes, Steve Thomas,
John Wagner, Karen Wallace,
Wanda Winkler
Copy Editors Kathleen Hart,
Susan Talbot
Cartoonists Paul Dirmeyer,
Scott McCullar
Photographers Michael Davis,
John Makely, Dave Scott,
Dean Saito, Cindi Tackitt
77ie Battalion also serves as a laboratory
for students in reporting, editing and photograph! 6
scs within the Department of Communications
Questions or comments concerning any fA l l
matter should be directed to the editor.
Letters Policy
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300»oi
length, and are subject to being cut if they arelo 1
Idle editorial staff reserves the right to edit leue fi J
style and length, but will make every effort to nn®
the author’s intent. Each letter must also be sigttW’
show the address and telephone number of the" 11
Columns and guest editorials also areweltontt
are not subject to the same length constraintsadt’ 1
Address all inquiries and correspondence to:
The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas
versity, College Station , TX 77843, or phone
2611.
The Battalion is published Monday through fr' I
during Texas A&M regtdar semesters, exceptf ot B
day and examination periods. Mail subsci'tp 1 * 0 * |
$16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and” 1 'I
full year. Advertising rates furnished on request ■
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed Nf-' ;l
Building, Texas A&M University, College Stati 011
77843.
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news
paper operated as a community service to Texas AScM
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
Texas A&M University administrators or faculty mem
bers, or of the Board of Regents.
United Press International is entitled exdusi' f '’
the use for reproduction of all news dispatchese^ 1
to it. Rights of reproduction of all other mattet
reserved. ’
Second class postage paid at College Stat lon
77843.
T