Page 2AThe Battalion/Friday, September 19, 1986
Missing children ‘crisis’
reflects parental fear
My milk carton
shows the picture
of two kids. One is
William Charles
Cordes and the
other is Rima Dan-
ette Traxler. The
boy is now 18, the
girl 10, both miss
ing for more than
a year — as is the
missing children Richard Cohen
crisis that put their
pictures on the container in the first
place.
No matter. The crisis was never really
about missing children. It was about all
children and how we raise them. It is
parents who are having the crisis.
Since the missing children crisis, we
have proceeded to others: child abuse,
teen-age pregnancy and, more recently,
drugs. To each and every crisis, poli
ticians react with rhetoric and, occasion
ally, programs, but their task is hope
less. Their enemy, after all, is anxiety
and guilt over the way we raise children.
The anxiety cannot be exaggerated; the
“crisis” almost always is.
Take missing children. At the height
of that panic, their number was said to
be about 1.5 million. Television dramas
were aired on the subject and the faces
of the missing kids showed up on milk
cartons. The presumption was that most
of the 1.5 million were kidnapped by
strangers, some of them almost certainly
sexually abused and then killed. Yet for
1984, the FBI reported only 68 kidnap
pings by strangers. The rest were either
“abducted” by a divorced or separated
parent or were runaways — kids who
had taken off on their own accord. The
vast majority of them come home.
Statistics are less firm when it comes
to drugs, but once again it seems the ex
tent of the problem has been exagger
ated. The same stories that did so much
to create the media (as opposed to the
real) drug crisis, often stated almost in
passing that cocaine usage has leveled
off. That fact, relevant though it was,
hardly seemed to matter. “Crack” was
yet another threat to our children — a
real one, for sure — and we seemed to
be in no mood for qualifiers.
No qualifiers were welcome, either,
when it came to that other recent crisis
— the sexual abuse of children by
strangers. The real abusers are usually
parents, yet toddlers were instructed
how to defend themselves against
strangers. The fear of stranger-abuse
was hyped to the point that experts wor
ried whether the cure was not worse
than the disease. But the fear, if not the
crisis, was genuine, and everyone got
caught up in it. We’re worried sick
about our kids.
To a parent, the world seems to grow
more and more menacing. Once, of
course, the dangers to kids were both
real and common: disease, famine and,
always, war. Still earlier, we feared the
forbidding forest at the edge of the vil
lage, a shadowy place of wild animals
and mad hermits.
Paradoxically, the more we shrink the
real forest, the more it stays with us.
The fear remains what it always was —
loss of control and the guilt that accom
panies it. A mother who works cannot
be with her kids. (What really goes on in
that day-care center?) A father who
commutes downtown hardly knows his
own neighborhood. Grandparents live
in another state. Parents are divorced.
Siblings attend different schools with
every whimsical boundary change and
experts have supplanted parents at par
enting itself. Where are our children?
Who’s enticing them and with what?
Some of us would prefer the forest.
You can see the present-day forest in
the controversy over busing, values in
the school, school prayer, abortion, sex
education, drugs, kidnappings, child
molestation, day care, pornography and
smutty rock lyrics. They all concern chil
dren and embody a yearning for those
agents of control we call neighborhood,
community and, especially, family.
Political parties or movements that
fail to recognize this truth pay a penalty.
The organized women’s movement,
perceived to be inhospitable to the con
cerns of mothers and indifferent to the
demands of family, has suffered. The
Democratic Party, perceived to be hos
tile to commmunity and neighborhood,
has likewise suffered.
Drugs — portable, mysterious, deadly
— are the emblem of our times. They
represent all that’s frightening about
our way of life and, when it comes to
government, its refusal to deal, other
than with nostrums from yesteryear,
with a radically changed society.
To a parent — to most of us — drugs
are scary and we fear them for good
reason. We are scared of what they do.
But we would fear them less if we did
not fear something more: the people
we’ve become.
Copyright 1986, Washington Post Writers Group
Drug abusers solely to blame
for their 'despicable' conditio 5
In fiscal 1987,
the U.S. budget Alan
deficit will be Sembera
about $230 billion. Guest Columnist
Family farms are
going under at an astounding rate. De
fense budget requests cannot be met be
cause of spending cuts. Slumping oil
prices have led to a sharp increase in un
employment in the South. What is the
federal government doing? It’s busy
making plans to spend $2 billion to 3 bil
lion per year to save drug addicts from
their own depravity.
American taxpayers will be forced to
pay for the habits of drug users. Presi
dent Reagan wants us to spend our
money on people who obviously have no
respect for the values of ordinary citi
zens.
Drug abusers should receive no sym
pathy from those of us who have strong
American values. Although one must
feel some Christian compassion toward
those who have ruined their own lives,
we must be strong and realize that they
have made their own choice and are
solely responsible for their despicable
state.
Instead of spending our money on
the impossible task of trying to stop the
flow of drugs, we should use this money
for educating our young against the
dangers of drugs.
We also should increase funds for
drug treatment and make this treatment
available for addicts who want to clean
up their lives. Unfortunately, our mis
guided but well-meaning government
has cut off block grants to states for
drug education and treatment by 40
percent since 1982.
The effort to stop the flow of drugs,
besides being futile, causes many major
problems. By cracking down on smug
gling, the small-time crooks are put out
of business, and drug prices go up. This
means higher profits for the profes
sional operations, such as organized
crime. Also, by increasing penalties for
peddling dope, the government will
make it more appealing for pushers to
shoot it out with police rather than
spend their lives in prison without a fix.
By trying to stop the demand for
drugs, the government is encouraging
private companies to engage in expen
sive drug testing for their employees.
Besides driving up companies’ over
head, this will make managemem
more time looking for users while:
glecting the basic tenet of thecapri
economy: The harder you world
more you are rewarded.
If employers spend all their :
looking for drug use, the non-dnd
ers w ill think that it is safe to word
efficiently. If all drug users ared
ployed, they will Ire unable to find
their habits and resort to stealing
robbing from us.
In 1984. the American pop.'
gave the federal government a map
to get the government off out bade
to cut spending. To remind ourd
resentatives of their obligation,m
one should let them know thatwta
care what drug addicts dototheiristM
as long as we aren’t forced togivej
our standard of living.
The drug problem will takecareij
self because of its own self-desird
nature, and normal citizens, whotj
the advantage, w ill be able to live 1
lives knowing that they are driM
because of their own free will,
Alan Sembera is a junior jour it
major.
Texas’ future threatened by higher education cuts
A&M having to cut classes, losing faculty members to other higher-paying university
Frank E.
Vandiver
Guest Columnist
As a Texan, I
deplore my state
for mortgaging its
future by default
ing on its promise
— the promise to educate the people of
Texas.
The fundamental purpose of a uni
versity is to bring new knowledge into
the world and to disseminate that
knowledge for the good of humanity.
New knowledge is discovered by the fac
ulty of an institution of higher learning,
and the recipients of that knowledge are
students, business, industry and the
general public. The students benefit
from gaining educated minds. Our
economy benefits from the goods and
services created from the advances in
what we know.
All this is now' in jeopardy because the
state of Texas is facing a fiscal crisis un
like any since the Great Depression. Our
economy, which was largely based on oil
and gas, has declined markedly. As a re
sult, revenues have shrunk, and we are
facing an unacceptable deficit. So far,
the only response from some people is
to reduce the budget, with a major share
of the cut coming from higher educa
tion.
But what price will Texas pay for cut
ting higher education?
We did not get our previous burgeon
ing economy without the educated
minds of Texans. Geologists found the
oil and gas that paid our way, and these
men and women received their educa
tion at places like Texas A&M. The tea
chers who educated our youth in gram
mar schools and high schools received
their degrees at universities like A&M.
Many of our most successful leaders
were educated in Texas universities,
and their corporations provide jobs for
thousands of Texans either directly or
through related companies.
Thousands of young people have
“gotten out of the cotton patch” thanks
to higher education.
All this is now at risk. At A&M we are
losing faculty — all too often the best
and the brightest. Why? Because other
states, other universities, are luring
them away with better salaries and of
fers of support. And on top of that, we
are having great trouble hiring replace
ments. Why? The budget cuts that we
already have taken and those that are
threatened. The result? We are having
to cancel classes. We are having to in
crease class size, and that means fewer
well-educated students.
Note, please, that I have not said what
will happen. I am telling you what is
happening.
Long-term effects are starting right
now at all of our colleges and universi
ties.
The freshman who is lucky enough to
get into college will be less well-educated
than the senior who is now job hunting.
Fifteen years down the road, when to
day’s freshman is being considered for a
middle-management position, will it go
to a Texan or to someone brought in
from out of state?
Last year, the state of Texas invested
$54 million to support research at
A&M. That investment brought $470
million directly into our economy.
That’s income for the citizens of the
state and tax dollars in return. And
some of that research may help Texas
build an economy not dominated by oil
prices dictated by foreign nations.
On top of that, we need desparately
to attract new industry to Texas — com
panies that will employ our citizens.
And just what will tip the scales to Texas
when a firm is trying to decide whether
to put a new plant here or in some other
state, say Massachusetts? The answer is
quite simple: educated minds, workers
who can work in the increasingly sophis
ticated plants with top-dollar payrolls
and able scientists and engineers in the
universities of our state.
Silicon Valley brought millions of dol
lars to California not because California
had the raw materials for computer
chips, but because California had the
educated minds produced by the money
that state spent on education. Massachu
setts reversed a creaking economy — at
tracted high-tech industry — because it
had an educational community that
brought industry to the state.
Educated minds are an investment
for our future, and they cost money, big
money. It costs tax dollars to employ a
faculty that can teach our young people
and discover new ways to produce. Do
we really want our youngsters to be un
der-educated in Texas or to have to go
to other states to learn? Do we want our
productive faculty to go to Massachu
setts or California? Do we want new in
dustry to pass us by?
Our public colleges and universities
already have cut their budgets to the
bone.
Even before Gov. Mark White called
for a return of 13 percent of our appro
priated funds, we had started paring
back. Now the House wants to cut an
other 13 percent from the budgets to
avoid a tax increase. If we want Texas to
be an underdeveloped state that exports
its raw materials — its oil andgasi
youth — that stagnates while4
states grow, then we should cut anil
and cut. The alternative is to raisel
already low taxes and invest in edufij
minds that will bring prospen?|
Texas.
I can understand why some oil
legislators are cranky, weary andm
Special sessions are no fun, espedall
an election year. Will a vote to incil
taxes start a voter rebellion?
Futures depend upon the answl
that question.
There is bipartisan supportbfl
incumbents and candidates foratasj
crease to fund higher education I
many are waiting to hear fromtkl
ers. Research and educated mindsl
an American on the moon. Re.«j
and educated minds made Amerifil
industrial giant. Research andedu(J
minds provided us an agriculture!
ond to none.
Do we want Texas to continiietoi
a vit al role in all that? As one Tee!
vote yes!
Frank E. Vandiver is presided
Texas AScM.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Cathie Anderson, Editor
Kirsten Dietz, Managing Editor
Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor
Frank Smith, City Editor
Sue Krenek, News Editor
Ken Sury, Sports Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newsp^“l
ated as a community service to Texas A&MandBryan-wl
tion.
Opinions expressed in I'he Battalion are those oftl^^
board or the author, and do not necessarily representiWl
of Texas A&M administrators, facultyor the Board of R#1
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper!
in reporting, editing and photography classes witniniltf^l
mem of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Fridi’ T
Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and tu''!
periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.4*4 per semester, $3*1.62
year and $36.44 per f ull year. Advertising rates furnii^ i
quest.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald
fexas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
Second class postage paid at College Station,TX7781? ||
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The
Reed McDonald, T exas A&M University, College
77843.
^1