Page 2/The Battalion/Friday, June 28, 1985 OPINION Hostages' lives before 'pounding' Frustrated conservatives upset by the Beirut hostage situa tion have demanded the resignation of Secretary of State George Schultz and retaliatory measures against terrorist strongholds. “We ought to be pounding terrorist camps inside Lebanon,” Paul M. Weyrich, a member of the New Right, a conservative co alition, said Wednesday. When Weyrich was asked if he wanted immediate action against terrorism, despite the more than 40 U.S. hostages whose lives hang in the balance, he replied, “Basi cally, yes.” Weyrich’s statement reflects the frustration most Americans are feeling concerning the hostage crisis. But, his words also show a lack of concern for the lives involved. Try to explain to the mothers, wives and children of those hostages that their loved ones may be killed to demonstrate our lack of tolerance for terrorism. Some people believe the hostages are doomed. Others feel their lives may have to be forfeited to save the lives of potential future victims of terrorism encouraged by the “success” of the Lebanese hostage taking. But retaliation, especially the “pounding of terrorist camps,” must be applied conservatively. As long as the hostages have a chance of survival, we must use our weapons sparingly. True, diplomatic and economic retaliation seem ineffective, but giving -Lebanon a good “pounding” is an action of vengeance, not an attempt to free the hostages. Our primary objective is to get our people out alive. If the hostages are killed by the terrorists in response to aggression on our part, then, really, the terrorists have won. Sure, it would be easy to go in leading with our fists, but when it comes to pride versus American lives, we need to exer cise extreme caution in our actions. The Battalion Editorial Board Mail Call 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. Chem controversy continues to boil EDITOR: Last semester I started a tutoring pro-? gram known as “Chembusters” because the freshman chemistry program has been changed in the last few years to “weed out” students. My 539 tutored students felt the tests were too long, the homework was irrele vant, test questions were poorly written and extremely difficult, and the book was not understandable. This summer the same problems ex ist. On test 1 in Chem. 102, my tutored students averaged 78 percent (including 6As, 7Bs) . . . non-tutored students aver aged 65 percent (1A, 6Bs.) On test 2, with about 50 percent of the students being tutored in the class, my students averaged 75 percent . . . non-tutored 48 percent (the average was “announced” — no grades were posted!) That’s 13 points on Test 1 and 27 points on Test 2! Let’s face facts and get honest — the tests are too hard, and the teachers (lecturers?) are not commu nicating on the students’ level. If there isn’t enough time to properly explain the material to their employers, THE STUDENTS, then be realistic and cover less material. They need to remember who they are really working for! With only six extra hours of tutoring a week, half of the students are “magi cally” converted to C instead of F av erages . . . perhaps the authors of the text can explain to the Texas A&M chemistry department why they cover less material and give out 20 percent to 27 percent As. Wake up! It’s time to renovate the old program. Let’s educate, not lecture; let’s evaluate fairly, not curve, i Michael Goad 9W OPBGCN!INsl