Opinion
Page 2AThe Battalion/Tuesday, August 7, 1984
GSS recognition
a step forward
After seven years of litigation, Gay
Student Services has won the right to
be a University-recognized student or
ganization. On Friday the Fifth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ordered
Texas A&M University to recognize
GSS as a student organization.
Paranoia and astonishment proba
bly will run rampant on campus.
What? Homosexuals at Texas A&M?
Never. Allow a homosexual group to
meet on campus? Never.
But times have changed. The GSS
— an organization of Texas A&M stu
dents who happen to be homosexual
— should be recognized by the Uni
versity. The University should have
recognized the group years ago.
The Court of Appeals ruled Friday
that: “At (the) heart of the First
Amendment is the freedom to choose,
even if such choice does not accord
with the state’s view.”
The Battalion Editorial Board ap
plauds that decision.
If Texas A&M is ever to grow be
yond narrow-minded views and be
come free intellectually, organizations
of all types must be recognized.
The University’s argument that the
GSS is more social oriented, not serv
ice oriented, has never held up under
scrutiny. Every organization is inher
ently service-oriented because it pro
vides services — social, educational
and professional — to its members.
Charges already have been made
that the group is a “dating service.”
Other people argue that by recogniz
ing the GSS, Texas A&M is supporting
homosexuality.
Hogwash.
University recognition will simply
allow the organization to hold meet
ings on campus and to post flyers an
nouncing meetings. The GSS also will
be able to apply for funds set aside for
organizations, out organizations aren’t
guaranteed funds. So screams that the
organization will be funded by the
University are premature.
Texas A&M probably will appeal
the decision, if only to save face. The
case could go on indefinitely, eating
up time and money. It’s time for
Texas A&M to face the inevitability of
change and acknowledge the group’s
potential to benefit a segment of the
University.
— The Battalion Editorial Board
THEN A BIS SCARV RUSSIAN BEAR CAME OUrOF Mnm
ARMEP WITH SWOOlONG-mee NUCCEAR WARHEAPS
Computers becoming port of American life
By BONNIE LANGFORD
You’ve seen the television ad. It
opens with Junior’s parents sending
him on a train bound for college. The
next scene shows the sad scholar re
turning home, a washout at college, all
because he didn’t know how to use a
computer.
Another ad in magazines proclaims
in loud letters: “Johnny can’t pro
gram.” It would be scary if the teenage
Johnny couldn’t do math or read En
glish, but once again, it’s traumatic be
cause he doesn’t know how to use a
computer. You get the idea. Com
puter companies are proclaiming that
the future is computers, and you had
better get programming now.
Joining in the proclamations are the
media. Besides the nightly news re
porting about the wonderful com
puter innovations, more than 350
computer publications exist to tout the
tales of technology. InfoWorld, a mag
azine for micro users, gleefully reports
that 75 percent of the American work
force will be using computers by 1990,
despite the fact that only 20 percent
used computers between 1970 and
1980.
All of these proclamations are excit
ing people about computers. Part of
the excitement can be seen in the
number of people who are running
out to buy computers, for Junior and
for themselves. They are frightened of
being left behind with this new tech
nology.
People are stepping up and plunk
ing down their money, and supporting
three times as many computer firms as
they did in the last decade — 1,566
companies existed in 1982. Word is
out about the computer promised
land, and everyone wants to be able to
store menus, learn to read music, keep
track of credit card numbers and teach
ther children basic math skills.
The promise list goes on and on,
like a child’s Christmas list. And those
buying the sparkling new improved
technology are like children, expect
ing it to end all their problems. It’s
going to be exciting, fun and educatio
nal.
But like innocent youngsters, too
many are suckered into buying some
thing they just don’t need. Fifty per
cent of the people who buy personal
computers worth less than $300 don’t
use them, reports Link Resources, a
marketing-research firm. Overall, 25
percent of people buying personal
computers at any price aon’t use them.
The sparkling new improved tech
nology discourages people because
they don’t understand it. They want
the wonderful future that computers
offer, but they don’t have the right
software for their needs, or they
haven’t decided what they want the
computer for.
People want the great promises of
computer futures even more for their
children. They want the public schools
to teach Junior. And better still, teach
him how to program; 70 percent of
Americans polled by Associated Press
said that commputer literacy should
become part of the high school re
quirements. It’s so complicated, Junior
better get an early start.
Yes, one day Junior will have to use
a computer. The ability to use a com
puter will become another office skill,
like using a typewriter. But how many
people know how to put together a
typewriter that works? Computers are
going to become like typewriters —
easy for anybody to use.
One mother of two college students,
whom she had pushed to get a com
puter background, found out what the
real story was — from computen |
She was touring a museum« I
when she decided her feet hadiol
a rest. Several comfortable loo
chairs were available — in frot
some compouter terminals. Thei
puters were creative guides to
school children to art. Each ten
had bright flashing lights thatra
better of the mother. Soon she
happily immersed, creating
shapes, sizes and colors. Shedi
have the computer literaq she
pushed her children toget. Sheti
know FORTRAN from a comj
but she was working away. When
children found her, one exclain
“Mom, you’re using a compute;,'
“Gee,” she said, surprised. “Its
so hard after all.”
(Bonnie Langford is a senior)
i ml ism major and an assistant m'
itor for The Battalion.)
Debra
nates t
Man
By
A Texa
stopped t
early Mon
down Te^
his unden
lasses and
an allege
according
partment <
Taxpayers shouldn't fund sexual groups
If one group of this type is afforded the sanction of a state’s educa
tional institution, then all such organizations should receive the
same privilege. The point is that none of them should be recognized
by any university, especially not one that doesn’t even recognize fra
ternities and sororities.
Gay Student
Services won its
case against Texas
A&M and is now
applying to be
come a recognized
student organiza
tion of the Univer
sity as per the de
cision of the court
(see story, page 1).
And the gays
deserve praise for
using a more constructive method of
stating their case than the laughable
“Gay Supporters Wear Blue-jeans”
day.
However.
No sexually-based organization
should be allowed recognition by any
university or college. Individual or
group rights are not restricted by re
fusing state support to any group who
wants a public relations base for its
particular sexual preference.
It doesn’t matter what kind of sex
ual methodology it happens to be; het-
ero, homo or otherwise. It doesn’t
matter if other universities (like U.T.)
already have a gay organization, that
doesn’t make it right; let them jump
off the bridge alone.
Gay rights have nothing to do with
it. Homosexuality is a method of hav
ing sex, or, abstractly, is an attitude
about who one wishes to have sex with.
This is a private affair, as contrasted
with something indubitably public like
your sex or the color of your skin. If
gays are discriminated against, they
should have legal protection.
But protecting them legally and
providing them a state-sanctioned fo
rum for PR (including the use of facili
ties and funds derived from tax dol
lars) are, quite obviously, two different
things.
I’m sure there are other atypically-
sexual factions (the word “atypical” is
used by Webster’s dictionary in de
scribing homosexuality) or other sex
ually-oriented groups who would like
the recognition of a university or other
state support in presenting their case
before the public.
For instance, those who favor sex
outside of marriage may feel op
pressed by religious groups and legis
lation. Possibly a solution would be to
form a club at Texas A&M: The Aggie
League of Fornicators.
Or maybe people who are inter
ested in animals sense a negative reac
tion from their friends and colleagues.
They could merge with the GSS and
form the Texas A&M Sodomy Society;
or they could remain autonomous
with the Order of Progressive Bestial
ity Beneficence.
These may sound improbable, but
they illustrate the basis of the issue: a
group of people who feel their ideas of
sexuality are not well accepted and
therefore wish to be recognized as a
University organization so they can
educate the public about their positive
attributes.
Included in this, I’m sure, are some
ideas about being supportive of mem
ber students who have difficulty ad
justing to society, or possibly other ad
justment problems. But the fact that
their sexuality reflects on their societal
interaction does not justify university
recognition as a method of integrating
them with their peers.
That type of state support is found
elsewhere.
If one group of this type is afforded
the sanction of a state’s educational in
stitution, then all such organizations
should receive the same privilege. The
point is that none of them should be
recognized by any university, espe
cially not one that doesn’t even recog
nize fraternities and sororities.
Public relations for sex-based
groups should be funded by someone
besides the state (Joe Taxpayer). Sex
ual counseling for both hetero and ho
mosexuals (and any others) is available
through the university counseling
service.
And that is where the state money
for such things should be spent.
(Steve Thomas is a senior journa
lism major and a columnist for The
Battalion.)
Steve Thomas
The Battalion
GSRS 045 360
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Confcrenct
The Battalion Editorial Board
Rebeca Zirnmermann, Editor
Bill Robinson, Editorial Page Editor
Shelley Hoekstra, City Editor
Brigid Brockman, News Editor
Kathleen Hart, News Editor
Travis Tingle, Sports Editor
The Battalion Staff
Assistant City Editors..
Assistant News Editors
Staff Writers.
Copy Writers.
Robin Si:
Dena Bro»t
Bonnie LaiM
Ed AW
Kari Fluegel, BobMcGlolM
Sarah 0®
Karen
CyndyDi'i
Copy Editor Tradewj
Photographers Peter Rod*
Eric Evan hi
Editorial Policy
The liMtalion is a non-profit, sell-supporting wifW
operated as a community service to TexuAttMt^'^
College Sta lion.
Opinions expressed in The Ilattalion arethoscolit^B
torial Board or the author, and do not necosarih rtpwj
the opinions of Texas A&M administrators,
Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laltoratory nexsppjB
students in reporting, editing and photograph)
within the Department of Communications. J
United Press International is entitled euiusr>'i M
use for reproduction of all news dispatches crttHtd^m
Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reff™!
Letters Policy I
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words inlfFj
The editorial staff reserves the right to edit/fliers fr 1 *!
and length hut will make every effort to maintain lh ,, l
thor’s intent. Each letter must he signed and muslii® 8
the address and telephone number of the writer.
The Battalion is published Monday through Frida *
ing Texas A&M regular semesters, except tor holhb 111
examination periods. Mail subscriptions are fW.lSpd
rnester, S.d.'i. 25 per school year and $35 pet full year. 0
tising rates furnished on request.
Cur address: The Battalion, 2Hi Reed McDonald!*
ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 7:IK(
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 7/A 1
Letter: Speaking ability necessary
Editor:
Congratulations on the wise place
ment of Rebecca Dimeo’s column
(Aug.2) on Krishnamurty Muralidhar
in the editorial section of The Battal
ion. In the ninth paragraph of her col
umn she openly admits her bias and
thereby, we feel, the worthlessness of
the article elsewhere.
Ms. Dimeo is absolutely right re
garding the fact that Indians are well
educated in the use of English. Their
sentences can easily surpass the com
plexity of the language of an average
student. But, their ability to commu
nicate these well chosen words is se
riously lacking due to their accent.
Ms. Dimeo noted that Muralidhar
had to do exceedingly well in school
and on the Test of English as a For
eign Language, yet these only apply to
written English and do not reflect
speaking ability.
In Ms. Dimeo’s derisive use of the
student’s brash evaluation of Mr. Mu
ralidhar, she shows that she possesses
a bigotry against ineloquence — yet
that is, in a way, the posture Dimeo is
attacking.
To close the article, Dimeo quotes
Mr. Muralidhar. He says, “I definitely
think some students have reserYa» I |
about me. By the time they get onJ
hope I’ve changed their opinions j
is unfortunate that the spoken l*|
guage is used as a yardstick to meastf:
the teaching ability of foreigners, J
there is no alternative; lectures if
spoken. In our opinion, therefore.'!
university should put eloquence on!
equal footing with raw knowrtl
when hiring.
Kent it
Wesley YoutS'
Joe Pef