Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, November 24, 1986
Opinion
Ifs the little things that interfere with future plan$[
I hate it when I put myself
in the position where one
tiny thing — in this case a test
I took Friday — determines
my future. If I failed the test
I don’t graduate — what an
unpleasant thought.
For nine semesters I have
toiled at this world-class uni
versity in hopes of someday
reaching the stage to shake
President Frank Vandiver’s
hand and have my picture
taken by the graduation picture man.
For four of those semesters I was in the College
of Business — that dull, drab excuse for a career,
where all of the people act, look and dress alike. I
didn’t achieve academic success in my first choice
of majors, mainly because I couldn’t reach my aca
demic potential when crammed into a room with
about 300 other people.
I hate to admit it, but I am what you might call a
“looker,” and I found it extremely hard to pay at
tention to the professor’s lecture, especially when I
found it so painfully boring. So, come test time, I
would trudge up to the props office in an attempt
to gain some last-minute insight.
Of course my professors never recognized me
from class, but then how could I blame them. I
would tell them my name, rank and serial number,
and they would look at their class roster and realize
that I was one of their students.
Craig
Renfro
One semester, after I realized that the business
world was not for me, and the business college de
cided that I wasn’t for it, I decided to change my
major to journalism. I think the reason I chose
journalism was because I like to write, and I
wouldn’t have to take another business analysis, ac
counting or finance class ever again.
After one semester and a summer I worked my
way onto The Battalion staff. Of course, that isn’t
of any great social significance, but it does help pay
for some living expenses, and the people are nice.
Now, after three semesters on staff and a sum
mer internship, I am confronted with this unfortu
nate situation I now Find myself in.
Back in the spring when I pre-registered for the
final time, I signed up for 15 hours, thinking that
was all I needed to graduate. However, early this
semester, after the fateful degree check, I found
out that I needed an additional three hours before
the dean of admissions and records would give me
the seal of approval for graduation exercises.
Needless to say I was somewhat upset, but there
was nothing I could do about it. Fortunately, the
class could be an elective, so that meant I didn’t
really have to strain my mental faculties any more
than they already had been.
I thought about taking a psychology class, but I
remember how difficult the first one I took was
and decided to try something less demanding. Not
that I would be interested anyway, but that auto
matically ruled out any science, math, engineering
or medical class.
I then began looking at the philosophy depart
ment. I had never taken a philosophy class, and I
realized that I could be committing a drastic mis
take by not doing so.
As I thumbed through the undergraduate cata
log, I noticed a number of classes that seemed in
teresting — courses in comtemporary moral issues,
religion, political philosophy and a wide array of
others.
There was even a philosophy of the visual media
and professional ethics class. But as we all know,
journalists have no ethics or morals so why would I
try to learn any this late in the game?
What I wanted was something that would make
me think but not to the point of having to stay up
all night before the test doing so. What 1 wanted
was to explore the nature of reality, universals and
individuals, space and time and the existence of
God.
What I wanted was metaphysics. ,
So far the class has met all of my expectations.
We have discussed space and time and we have
talked about the existence of God. We have talked
about so many different things from so many dif
ferent points of view that at times it is difficult to
determine which is which.
Of course that confusing problem always sur
faces at test time. Somehow I manage to take a
seemingly straightforward question and turn it
into the most tangled answer a philosophy profes
sor ever tried to grade.
As a result, my grade in the class is suffering
the point of failure. Since I am supposed togral
uate, 1 don’t have any finals. So my last test inii
class was Friday.
I stayed up most of the night studying, hopi
that Descartes, Hume, Berkeley and a hostofoiij
ers would somehow see my struggle andsendtl
knowledge from where ever they may be now,
prove that I was really serious, I drank aboutthu
cups of coffee, which is a desparate measure
cause I hate the stuff.
Gome test time I was wired. I had so much a
feine in me that I was bouncing off the walls. Hi
to calm down and tell myself that this isonlyats
But when 1 thought about the importance of tin
test 1 started zoning again.
1 did manage to calm down enough to at la
answer all the questions. I think I answeredm
of them correctly, at least I hope I did.
B\ t ht time an \ • nu i cads tins 1 will alrtv
know my fate. If you see me smiling and jump:
up and down in virtual ecstacy, you knowlpasst
If you see me with this look of doom inmyej
and hear me mumble something about suicie
you probably will see my ugly mug in this sat
space in the spring. j
Craig Renfro is a senior journalism majorm
columnist /or The Battalion.
Despite speak-and-deny tactics,
Meese’s message painfully clear
On Oct. 21, At
torney General
Edwin Meese III
delivered a speech
at Tulane Univer
sity in which he
said that the Con
stitution, not the
Supreme Court,
was the “supreme
law of the land.”
So seemingly un
remarkable was
that observation, that the Washington
Post expressed itself mystified and
asked editorially, “Why give that
speech?” In an op-ed column, Meese re
sponded. The result was 2,000 words of
mush.
For Meese, that was a characteristic
performance. First he seems to say
something outrageous and then denies
that he said anything extraordinary in
the first place. For instance, he would
have us believe that he went all the way
to New Orleans to tell a university audi
ence what every school kid is taught
around the third grade: the Constitu
tion is supreme. Thank you — and
George Washington was the first presi
dent.
Even for Meese, this is sophistry. We
know, just as surely as he does, what he
was saying at Tulane. The attorney gen
eral, after all, is a conservtive and his
speech had a definite political context.
He was improvising on a theme dear to
the heart of most conservatives; Su
preme Court decisions are not binding
on those who are not parties to the case
and who happen to disagree.
Now Meese takes it all back. He had
cited the 1954 Supreme Court decision
striking down public-school segregation
as unconstitutional. It is the law of the
land, he now concedes, even though
only a few school boards were parties to
the case and it was the ruling of a mere
court.
Meese was silent about his earlier de
fense of his ideological soul mate, Dan
iel A. Manion. As an Indiana state sen
ator, Manion had introduced a bill to
allow public schools to post the Ten
Commandments just two months after
the Supreme Court had ruled such
practices unconstitutional. Manion was
Meese’s choice for a federal judgeship.
School prayer, not school desegrega
tion, is a contemporary issue and, as op
posed to school segregation, there is a
political constituency for it. Along with
Supreme Court decisions on abortion,
mandatory busing, affirmative action
and the rights of the criminally accused,
school prayer is on the strict construc
tionists’ enemies list — one of the areas
where liberal judges have allegedly
strayed from the precepts of, among
others, James Madison. Meese knew the
relevance of his Tulane remarks and so
did his constituency. It cheered what it
knew he was saying even though, stack
of Bibles, he now says he was saying
nothing of the sort.
Meese is adept at this sort of thing.
He recently advised business leaders to
read an article advocating that employ
ers spy on workers to ensure they are
not taking drugs. The article recom
mended that employers follow workers
to bars to observe them there. Later,
when criticized, Meese turned naive: He
was not advocating spying; he had
merely mentioned an article that advo
cated it.
Still earlier, Meese told U.S. News 8c
World Report that, “If a person is inno
cent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
Such statements are downright bracing
to those who see the courts and all their
silly rules of evidence as an obstacle to
the fight against crime. And it was pre
cisely in that context that Meese made
his remarks. For not the first time, he
denounced the Miranda rule — and not
for the first time misrepresented it. Ig
noring that U.S. News had a transcript,
Meese said he was misquoted.
Meese’s remarks are contained in
carefully written speeches and are not
the product of a wandering tongue. He
clearly means what he says or, as the
case may be, what he seems to be saying.
His remarks amount to a statement of
intent — the way Meese would like
things to be.
For all the references to the founding
fathers, there is no real philosophy of
law here, merely an expression of per
sonal whim. For instance, if one case
outlawed school segregation through
out the land, then why does another
prohibiting the posting of the Ten Com
mandments in public schools not have
the same reach? Must the Supreme
Court rule 50 times on school prayer
but only once on school segregation?
It is these whopping contradictions
that preclude Meese from explaining
what he means. The reason he cannot
come right out and say what he means is
because what he means amounts to
nothing more than what he wants —
laws with which he is in agreement.
That is what we all want and the reason
we can’t have it is older even than the
Constitution and, if possible, more ba
sic:
We are a government of laws and not
men. Men like Meese remind us from
time to time what a good idea that is.
Copyright 1986, Washington Post Writers Group
Richard
Cohen
Mail Call
Sarcasm refreshing
EDITOR:
This is not a hate letter—just the opposite. I just w’anted to commend
Karl Pallmeyer on a well written and terribly funny article about bonfireon
Thursday. I love this school and its traditions as much as the next Aggie.but
somewhere along the line you’ve got to find a sense of humor about the
whole thing. Its nice to read something so refreshingly sarc astic. Pallmeyer
made my economics class considerably more bearable!
Stephanie Moll
Breaking away
EDITOR:
More than 200 years ago some people deemed religious f reedom valuable
enough to break away from a state church that made religion a matteroflaw.
They believed in and established a nation in which the t ight to live according
to the dictates of one’s conscience was guaranteed. As if to confirm their
respect for other beliefs, their first president is said to have been a
Rosicrucian.
Despite disclaimers by the disheartened, that nation is today a bastion of
freedom for the world. How wonderf ul to have inherited such a legacy. But
how sad it is to see what those same f reedoms have brought. Except for the
ostrich, we must daily confront problems ranging from a proliferation of
drugs and crime, to an increase in rape, incest and other sex-related crimes,
to a breakdown in the family unit and schools in large metropolises thatare
not safe and are of questionable educational value.
I agree with those who say that what we have lost along the way is God.
There is a big difference between repsecting another’s belief s and denyinga!
religion. We need Cod, in every way. We need him in our families, we need
him in our organizations, we need him in our government and we need him
in our personal lives. Moslem, Jew, Hindu, Christian, Rosicrucian,
Scientologist or Moonie, we need Him.
A recent campaign solicits signatures in support of a return to a God
centered morality and education about the dangers of atheistic communism.
Three cheers to those CAUSA USA persons willing to spend time focusing
our attention on these important issues. Surely those who collect signatures in
support of these things cannot expect all the signees to become rnembersof
their own religion. Some people have objected to this campaign on that very
ground. May I remind those persons they run the risk of becoming the
narrow-minded establishment that it is necessary to break away from in order
to be free.
; a
tlmi
cie I k
T-
tonn
1 (:
Situ
coni
Ton-
Con
Sara Horsfall
Reagan's 'secret plan'
EDITOR:
In response to Bill Emshoffs letter about bipartisan criticism of the
Reagan administration, I must say this: I have always been a staunch
supporter of President Reagan, and this arms scandal disappointed metosa)
the least. But perhaps there is a silver lining in this dark cloud, and maybe
that’s what Reagan has been after all along.
Iran’s present political situation is very tense. Although it would appear
to us Westerners that the Ayatollah Khomeini is sitting pretty atop the
revolutionary government, there will be a fierce struggle for power. Reagan
is trying to set someone who favors U.S. relations in a position to take control
of Iran’s government. This is the most effective means of combatting
terrorism yet available to us — cut it off at the source.
Also,there are these things to consider.
1. Iran is an oil-rich nation.
2. Iran is strategically close to the Soviet Union.
3. In early 1985 I watched a documentary on red communism on PBS.ln
this documentary a retired American general stated that the Soviet Union
currently has 26,000 divisions of their army stationed on the border with
Iran. The entire American Army has perhaps 20 divisions.
Perhaps our president has foresight that, sadly, many of us lack?
Roy Sikes ’90
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staf f reserves the rijl 1
to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author's iniei 11
Each letter must be signed and must include the classification, address and telephone nutnbc |l>
the writer.
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 Editof
Frank Smith, City Editor
Sue Krenek, News Editor
Ken Sury, Sports Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting tifwipiP' 1 ,
ated as a cornrminity service to Texas A&M and Bryan-Cw
lion. j
Opinions expressed in 77ie Bafta/ro/i are.lhoseofuK^
board or the author, and do not necessarily representihcrl
of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of RdC
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaperIm“ I
in reporting, editing and photography classes within tl*
ment of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Frith'
Texas Ai-M regular semesters, except for holiday and er"
periods.
Mail subscriptions are SI7.74 per semester, $34.62(<'
year and $36.44 pet full year. Advertising rates fumisli®
quest. ,
Our address: The Battalion, ‘210 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Second class postage paid at College Station. TX 7784-
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Bitt*
Reed McDonald, Texas A & M University. C.olleR 0 i 11 *
77843.