Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, September 17, 1984
Opinion
Olympics leaves
surplus not debts
The Summer Olympics are only memories now. Mary
Lou Retton’s 10 on the vault. Mary Decker’s fall in the
10,000 meter.
In most recent Olympic Games another memory lin
gered long after the athletic performances became statis
tics. This memory — a huge Olympic debt — left a bad af
tertaste in the mouths of the host countries. But the hosts
of the 1984 Summer Olympics have no suqh taste in their
mouths.
The Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee an
nounced a surplus of $150 million. The surplus was about
10 times more than originally projected by the organizing
committee. Before the games opened the $15 million sur
plus seemed more a pipe dream than a possible achieve
ment.
Soviet bloc countries criticized the LA games as being
a commercial exploitation of Olympic ideals. But the Ca
nadian government — which lost more than $1 billion at
the 1976 Summer Games — surely would have benefltted
from some of this crass commercialism.
Crass commercialism served the Olympics well.
The games were the first that were privately financed.
The Olympics were staged — except for the security bud
get — without the use of government aid. Amateur ath
letes across the United States will benefit from this sur
plus; the money being split between the U.S. Olympic
Committee and the Amateur Athletic Foundation. Some
money may even make its way to the Third World nations
that participated in the games.
With the $150 million surplus on the books, the mem
bers of the Los Angeles Olympic Committee can hold
their heads high and say to the world: “Capitalism works.”
— The Battalion Editorial Board
Let the '84 debates
be truly debatable
DAVID BRODER
Washington Post Columnist
WASHINGTON —Journalists have
no business trying to stage-manage any
aspect of the campaign we are covering.
That’s obvious. But it is also well-under
stood that rules are meant to be broken,
and this is one I want to break.
I plead indulgence to make the case
to those now negotiating the terms and
conditions of the 1984 presidential de
bates that they be real debates — and
not modified joint press conferences.
Specifically, I urge that, rather than
have journalists question the candidates,
the candidates question each other.
This is a case where the architectural
doctrine of “less is more” surely applies.
The voters are interested in seeing Ron
ald Reagan face off against Walter F.
Mondale and George Bush against Ger
aldine A. Ferraro. Anything — or any
body — that distracts from this natural
focus of attention, who clutters up the
stage, ought to be removed.
There is a function for a moderator
who introduces the candidates, explains
the ground rules and enforces them by
calling time on an overly lengthy an
swer, for example.
But beyond that, there is nothing to
be done that cannot be done by the can
didates themselves. All four of these in
dividuals are experienced public ser
vants, familiar with the issues and well
aware of their differences with their op
ponents.
There is no basis at all for believing
that they cannot put their own cases,
and challenge their opponents’ conten
tions, as well as anyone in the world.
Tin terms of drama and viewer inter
est, the experience of the Democratic
primary debates argues powerfully for
eliminating the interlocutors of the
press. The best moments — the ones
that crackled — in those debates came
when the candidates questioned each
other and responded directly to each
other.
In most' of those debates, there was
but a single moderator on-stage, and in
the critical exchanges, that person
played no part. John Glenn and Mon
dale talked directly to each other in New
Hampshire; Mondale challenged Gary
Hart almost nose-to-nose in Atlanta;
Jesse Jackson lectured both his rivals on
their behavior in New York, all without
a word or a gesture from the modera
tor.
I can think of only two possible objec
tions to carrying over this healthy habit
into the autumn debates. Some might
contend that it is beneath the dignity of
these worthies to engage in this direct
sort of verbal confrontation. I can imag
ine some Republican strategist saying
that “nice guy” Reagan should not be
put in the position of asking Mondale to
justify his public support of the Carter
grain embargo while he privately
thought it foolish. Even more easily, I
can imagine some Republican saying
that Bush should not be placed in the
position of “attacking a lady,” by being
forced to question Ferraro himself.
On the other side, I can imagine some
Democrat worrying that Mondale might
appear disrespectful of the office of
President if he questioned Reagan too
vigorously, or that Ferraro might look
strident and “un-ladylike” if she pressed
Bush on his “voodoo economics” re
mark.
None of these protocol arguments
carries weight. This in not a Washington
dinner party we are discussing; it is a de
bate. And, as the old saying goes, if you
can’t take the heat, get out of the studio.
Nor is there much merit in the argu
ment that the candidates will not raise
all the issues that journalists might ask.
During the Democratic debates, we
learned that the question asked — or
omitted — tells you as much about the
questioner and his motives as the answer
given — or evaded — tells you about his
rival.
As a voter, I am intrigued to guess
what issues Reagan would raise with
Mondale, and vice-versa, knowing thfit
only a few topics can be covered and
that millions of voters are watching and
making up their minds. That would tell
us much more than we could possibly
learn by watching them struggle with
the question on Afghanistan from the
New York Times or on comparable pay
from the Sacramento Bee.
And now that I have mentioned, hy
pothetically, some of my colleagues, let
me confess my final reason for hoping
that the candidates will debate — really
debate — this year. I think those stages
and studios are bad places for us as jour
nalists to be. There is no professional
criticism intended of those reporters
who have served on these panels. Their
questions have been good, their attitude
and demeanor thoroughly impartial.
But there is no escaping that every
time we do that job, we inject ourselves
in the campaign — into the central
event of the campaign — and become
players, not observers. Whether the
question impales a candidate or offers
him escape from the tight corner of the
previous exchange, we are affecting his
tory, not just writing its first draft.
To my fellow journalists, I would say:
Let’s play on our own ground, and insist
that all these candidates, including the
President, have frequent news confer
ences during the campaign.
But let the debates be debates.
Great News
COMRAPES...
WE’VE SEEN
CHERNENKO
TOPAy.,.He
LOOKS (500PANP
HE'S JUST RESDN6
LETTERS
More comment
on Goodrich death
EDITOR:
Up to this point I have refrained
from commenting formally on the
Bruce Goodrich incident because I
know it is fraught with controversy and
my input might only aggravate matters.
However, I feel several misrepresenta
tions of the facts by Mr. Swearingen
(Sept. 10 Battalion editorial page)
should be corrected.
I know that Bruce Goodrich’s death
has not been forgotten by any Aggie,
much less the officials in charge of the
Corps of Cadets. Several steps have al
ready been taken to ensure that such a
tragedy will never occur again.
First, the commanding officer of each
outfit is required to obtain a medical re
cord of every cadet in the outfit. Thus,
unforseen medical problems will be
avoided.
Secondly, all runs must be approved
by the outfit advisor who is a commis
sioned officer in the military. Thirdly,
the guard room will obtain the humidity
rating and temperature several times
daily and flags will be posted on the uni
form block indicating weather inappro
priate for exercise.
Also, the only disciplinary action al
lowed among cadets will be punitive
physical training with a limit of twenty-
five push-ups. Another new measure is
the appointment of a cadet to oversee
physical training. His sole responsibility
is to ensure that any special cases will
build physical stamina slowly and safely
on individualized programs. Finally, no
cadet will be encouraged to' run beyond
his capabilities. Whenever a cadet feels
fatigued he may simply drop out of the
run. I feel these new standards will
more than secure the safety of our ca
dets.
I would also like to caution any critics
of the Corps who make the mistake of
confusing an honorable institution and
time-honored traditions with a few
members’ mistakes.
Helen Miller
Underwoood Hall
This letter was accompanied by 53
other signatures.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The question is not
if new procedures will be adopted,
rather if all the rules will be enforced.
The ‘crap out’ that killed Cadet Bruce
Goodrich was against the Corps’ own
rules.
Individuals more
important than group
EDITOR:
I’tn sure that, since the death of
Bruce Goodrich, hazing has all but
stopped, but everyone knows that
hazing will never completely end at
A&M. It’s too much a part of the Corps
tradition to stop forever; so, for when it
returns, let me give you this advice:
The whole purpose of hazing is to
give you a sense of school spirit; that is,
a sense of identity with the Corps. That
school spirit, in itself, is fine; hazing is
just plain silly. What happened in the
case of Bruce Goodrich is that he al
lowed school spirit to become more im
portant than himself; that is, he let the
Corps push him beyond his physical
limits. When hazing returns to A&M,
DON'T let school spirit become more
important than your personal health.
Know you limits; and, when you reach
those limits, stop.
No matter what any upperclassman
tells you, the individual is always more
important than any group or institution.
Never let anyone convince you other
wise and act accordingly.
Stacy Powers
Class of ’86
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
In memoriam
Bill Robinson, 1962-1984, Editor
The Battalion Editorial Board
Stephanie Ross, Acting Editor
Patrice Koranek, Managing Editor
Shelley Hoekstra, City Editor
Brigid Brockman, News Editor
Donn Friedman, Editorial Page Editor
Kelley Smith, News Editor
Ed Cassavoy, Sports Editor
The Battalion Staff
Assistant City Editors
Melissa Adair, Michelle Powe
Assistant News Editors
Bonnie Langford, Kellie Dworaczyk, Lauri
Reese
Assistant Sports Editor .......
Travis Tingle
Entertainment Editor
Bill Hughes
Assistant Entertainment Editor
Angel Stokes
Senior Reporters
Robin Black
Staff Writers Tammy Bell, Shawn Behlen,
Cami Brown, Dena Brown, Dainah Bullard,
Leigh-EUen Clark, Tony Cornett,
Suzy Fisk, Patricia Flint
Kari Fluegel, Kathy Wiesepape,
Bob McGlohon, Karla Martin
Sarah Oates
Jan Perry, Lynn Rae Povec, James R. Walker
Make-up Editor J°h n Hallett
Copy Writer Karen Bloch,
Copy Editors Kathy Breard, Kaye Pahnieier
Photographers Frank Irwin, Peter Rocha,
John Ryan, Dean Saito
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper
operated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-
College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion arc those of the Edi- {
torial Board or the author, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the
Board of Regents. *
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for
students in reporting, editing and photography classes
within the Department of Communications.
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.
Letters Policy
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length.
The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style
and length hut will make every effort to maintain the au
thor’s intent. Each letter must be signed and must include
the address and telephone number of the writer.
Thd Battalion is published Monday through Friday dur
ing Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and
examination periods. Mail subscriptions are Si6.75 per se
mester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Adver
tising rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 2lb Reed McDonald Build
ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. Ed
itorial staff phone number: (409) 845-2630. Advertising:
(409)845-2611.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.