Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 28, 1985)
Page 2/The BattalionT'hursday, March 28,1985 OPINION ? ■ : Bright bummed out about new regents A part of Texas A&M is gone. A legend has packed up his six-shooters and gone home to his Cowboys. No-longer-head-regent H.R. “Bum” Bright resigned from the Board of Regents Tuesday after being replaced as chairman. The board unanimously replaced Bright with Houston busi nessman David Eller. Houston lawyer Joe Reynolds — a “non- Aggie” and the lawyer representing A&M’s fight against allow ing women in the band — was elected vice chairman. Bright ob jected to Reynolds’ nomination, saying a vice chairman who did not graduate from A&M “would be a detriment to the A&M sys tem.” Bright also charged that Gov. Mark White insisted on Bright’s support if White runs for re-election in exchange for the chairmanship. Bright said he “would not make that deal.” Mr. Pressure himself objecting to being pressured. Funny how these things come back to haunt you. This “new era at A&M” may be the best thing to happen to the University since women were allowed to enter. Maybe now A&M will accept the obvious fact that women must be allowed to join the fightin’ Texas Aggie band. Maybe now A&M will accept that controversial groups, such as the GSSO, must be recognized. Maybe now A&M will win more football games. (Maybe now the Cowboys will win more football games.) Maybe now the regents will at least pretend to care about the interests of the students and faculty. Maybe... Nah, that’s probably too much to ask for. But we can always hope. The Battalion Editorial Board Electronics training necessary for future Last year’s high technology is of ten this year’s way of life. Electronic cians, skilled workers and professionals in engineering and related sciences. gadgetry, only re- R eac ler’s Forum cently limited to R eac [ er ’ s Forum space exploration Read e r ’ s Forum or research labs, has made its way into everyday life in equipment such as coffee pots, telephones and traffic signals. As the world increasingly depends upon electronics, so also will we become more dependent upon specialists who understand how electronic equipment works and how to repair it. The major new employment opportunities in the last decade, in fact, have been in electro nic industries such as computers, tele communications, semiconductors, aero space and bioengineering. Now the tenth largest industry in the world, the electronics industry, is expected to be second only to energy by the year 2000. To help meet the demand for electro nics specialists, pre-employment train ing as well as on-the-job training is nec essary. The demand for electronics specialists, certain to grow in the coming years, will require training programs in digital electronics, industrial motor con trol, industrial soldering techniques, os cilloscope measurements, microproces sor machine language, transistor circuits and applications, electronic circuits troubleshooting and special courses such as marine electronics. The Texas Engineering Extension Service, an agency of The Texas A&M University System, offers training in many of the needed areas of the future. It also provides technical services to in dustries to help with new product devel opment, installation of specialized man- ufacturing of test equipment, maintenance of various kinds of auto mated equipment and start-up of new operations. The demand for electronics special ists brought on by the adoption of new technology presents a tremendous chal lenge to all educational institutions. It also requires cooperative efforts by in dustry and educational institutions to produce appropriately trained techni- Appropriately trained electronics specialists to build, install and service to day’s electronics applications will assure a smoother transition into the electron ics world of tomorrow. James R. Bradley is the director of the Texas Engineering Extension Service. LETTERS: President’s rebuff of senators defended EDITOR: In Monday’s editorial opinion, the members of the Battalion Editorial Board chose to assail President Reagan for his rebuff of several GOP senators threatening to oppose funding for the MX missile. The Editorial Board’s statement charged Mr. Reagan with blackmail and even suggested he was in violation of the law for threatening not to support the reelection campaigns of the senators in question. As president, Mr. Reagan is the leader of the Republican Party. It is his responsibility to maintain unity and dis cipline within its ranks. These senators were all elected or reelected on Reagan’s coattails and under the conservative banner. It’s time they begin providing effective conservative leadership, along with ideas to promote good national policy, and not kneejerk reactions to a current crisis. If the members of the Board would have researched the subject in more de tail, the reasoning behind the presi dent’s rebuff would have been appar ent. The senators in question are primarily from the Farm Belt states, and Soviets not interested in deterrence LONDON — The (London) Times is celebrat ing its bicentennial by re-establishing its reputation as “the thunderer.” When Geoffrey Howe, the foreign secretary, recently delivered a long criticism of Presi- Russians neurotically concerned with se curity, so we should try to think like a neurotic and refrain from any policy that could seem, to a neurotic, provoca tive. George Will dent Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initia tive (Star Wars), the Times cleared its throat and called Howe’s speech “mealy- mouthed, muddled in conception, neg ative, Luddite, ill-informed.” Didn’t like it. Howe endorsed research into strate gic defense, but expressed both doubt that it could produce a feasible system and dismay that it might. Howe favors what Reagan abhors: the policy of de terrence purely through mutual vulner ability. And he is disconcerted by the thought of an SDI success that would re quire retiring the 1S72 treaty banning anti-ballistic missile systems. In his speech he called the ABM treaty a “keystone in the still shaky arch of secu rity we have constructed with the East.” Howe flatly asserted that deterrence “will continue to work.” His reasons for such faith were promptly subsided to withering analysis by Richard Perle, who serves Reagan as an assistant secre tary of defense and was here attending a conference Howe should have attended, a conference on realism about Soviet ob jectives. Perle noted that Howe’s 27-page speech contained not even a phrase about the enlarging pattern of Soviet vi olations of that 1972 “keystone” and other arms-control agreements. Howe conceded the incontestable, that the So viet buildup has exceeded “the reasona ble requirements necessary for the de fense of the Soviet Union.” But he rushed to say, in extenuation, that it is reasonable for the Soviets to be unrea sonable: “Historical experience has in clined them towards over-insurance.” That thought is suspiciously like the crackpot Kremlinology that a wit once called “preemptive empathetic par anoia.” That is, a hard history has made Howe’s “over-insurance” theory is, Perle said, an unpersuasive explanation of the addition of 8,000 Soviet warheads since the arms-control process began in 1969, 4,000 since SALT II was signed in 1979. For persons unenthralled by the mirage of arms control, the explanation is that the Soviets have sought and achieved strategic superiority for the in timidation that flows therefrom. Soviet violations of the ABM treaty have been combined with deployment of 13,000 surface-to-air launchers to de fend against U.S. bombers. How does Howe see in that a Soviet commitment to mutual vulnerability? Those and other defensive measures, combined with unprecedented expan sions of Soviet offensive-weapons supe rior in quantity and quality to U.S. weap ons, are designed to menace the U.S. retaliatory capacity, which is the U.S. deterrent. There is no reason for Howe’s serene belief that Soviet policy is benign acquiescence in mutual vulnera bility. The reasonable explanation of Soviet enthusiasm for the ABM treaty is, Perle said, cause for caution in today’s context of the SDI debate. In 1972 the United States began deploying an ABM system superior to the Soviet system. The Sovi ets agreed to ban deployments while permitting research (which at that time they admitted could not be limited be cause limits could not be verified). U.S. research slowed, Soviet research raced ahead, Soviet treaty violations became brazen. The Soviets have deployed twice as many phrased-array radars (on which an ABM systme might be based) as the United States had planned to deploy in 1972. the statement included the scientists running Soviet strategic-defense pro grams (which are larger than U.S. pro grams), the architect of the Moscow ABM system, the head of the military laser program and the designer of the most lethal Soviet missiles. Howe, his ears ringing from the Times’ thunder, should appreciate the civility of Perle, who did not ask, as the Times implicitly did: Why does the Iron Lady suddenly have a papier-mache foreign secretary? The Times darkly suspects that the lady has been beguiled by an idea and smitten by a person. Prime Minister Thatcher may be, the Times says, “distancing” Britain from the United States, the better to be an in dependent “bridge-builder” to the East That, says the Times, would be “one of the most ill-fated British decisions since the era of appeasement.” Well, she did say “I like Mr. Gorba chev,” but she rather more than likes Mr. Reagan. And although the Times has changed a lot since the days when it was a piercing voice of appeasement, dramatic change, especially in a left ward direction, does not seem to be in Thatcher’s repertoire. George Will is a columnist for the Washington Post. Today’s Soviet aim in Geneva is to in duce similar unilateral paralysis in U.S. strategic defense. Ten days after Rea gan’s March 1983 speech proposing SDI, the Soviets issued a statement de ploring the devotion of scientific re sources to military projects, and espe cially defensive systems. The signers of are still upset with Mr. Reagan for his veto of the recently passed farm relief bill. These senators are not philosoph ically opposed to the MX, rather they are seeking to gain revenge on Mr. Rea gan. \ Is A&M becoming ‘just another school?’ In retrospect the Editorial Board’s at tack on Mr. Reagan exhibited complete disregard for the journalistic integrity they claim to uphold. Roy Milum Class of ’86 EDITOR: The matter came to my attention that the residents of Davis-Gary are being criticized for their lack of “love” for fra ternities. I will admit that there are quite a few “red-ass DG Fighters” left and there is a strong feeling of unity amongst us. We are being criticized for being Aggies. The traditions of A&M never in cluded the need for fraternities. The Spirit of Aggieland is based on a unity of all TAMU students. If students feel they need to go outside of student activ ities and features, then the Spirit of Ag gieland is slowly falling. The reason TAMU is different from any other col lege or university is because of this Spirit. If fraternities become an integral part of the A&M system, we may as well call ourselves t.u. at College Staton. Where’s the feeling of togetherness there? Davis-Gary happens to be where the people make sure their underclassmen know of “The Spirit of Aggieland.” We do not have hypocritical drunk parties for fund-raisers but when someone comes through collecting for a good cause, they leave with a full container. We do not charge people money to be our friends. We do not make our resi dents go through “Hell Week” to find out if they really want to be an Aggie. We accept them as they are and try to get them as involved in the most fun university in the nation. I recently attended a Former Stu dents meeting and when I was asked what I was, I proudly replied “Class of ’88.” Now, I hear greek words when I ask that question even away from cam pus. The point is that “The Spirit of Ag gieland” should remain intact with the students, not with certain societies being at the same school. If it becomes this, TAMU becomes just another university. Mark A. McNeill, ’88 The Battalion (ISPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Brigid Brockman, Editor Shelley Hoekstra, Managing Editor Ed Cassavoy, City Editor Kellie Dworaczyk, News Editor Michelle Powe, Editorial Page Editor Travis Tingle, Sports Editor The Battalion Staff Assistant City Editors Kari Fluegel, Rhonda Snider Assistant News Editors Cami Brown, John Haliett, Kay Mallett Assistant Sports Editor Charean Williams Entertainment Editors Shawn Behlen, Leigh-Ellen Clark Staff Writers Rebecca Adair, Cathie Anderson, Marcy Basile, Tamara Bell, Brandon Berry, Jeff Brady, Dainah Bullard, Ann Cervenka, Michael Crawford, Mary Cox, Kirsten Dietz, Cindy Gay, Pete Herndon, Trent Leopold, Sarah Oates, Jerry Oslin, June Pang, Tricia Parker, Cathy Riely, Marybeth Rohsner, Walter Smith Copy Editors Jan Perry, Kelley Smith Make-up Editors Karen Bloch, Karla Martin Columnists Ed Cassavoy, Kevin Inda, Loren Steffy Editorial Cartoonist Mike Lane Sports Cartoonist Dale Smith Copy Writer Cathy Bennett Photo Editor Katherine Hurt Photographers Anthony Casper, Wayne Grabein, Bill Hughes, Frank Irwin, John Makely, Peter Rocha, 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 are those of the Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in rc/x)rting. editing and photography classes within the Department of Communications. 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 but will make every effort to maintain the author's intent. Each letter must be signed and must include the address and telephone number of the writer. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A8cM regular semesters, except for holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are f 16.75 per semester, f33.25 per school year and S35 per full year. Advertising rales furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. Editorial staff phone number: (409) 845-2630. Ad vertising: (409) 845-2611. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Banal- ion, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 By LES A Texas / tery? As unus what the cen the corner o and Luther S Hidden or and trees, vii road and wat horses in a goes un notice Don Simon Ad Educati KAMU, mak< ing the histoi area. Simons sa moved to the the site that Hall. Accord i | Sterling. C. 1 the cemetery the present University-ov Of the heai corded as A Riggs, a janit Station Buil head milkma ing the Har (1901-1905); long-time em The larges cemetery beh Comp logic, to be The Dea Social Sciet University discuss “Cot son, and H at4 p.m. in Dr. Micl specializes logic, will ai the logic b< the human Orenduf the argume not think causes pre programmi He also i bility of any by both co to solve pro Before i years ago, C sor and de] the philosi Southwest' in San Man £ Fc Sri; tra; Fre Gu adjt sine twil Foi 5m cris ten BB 100’ side