Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, March 9,1987
Opinion
Bill’s not good enough for SMU, but he’s OK by Texas
He is only 41
days into his new
term and already
the man has set
two records.
Gov. Bill Clem
ents claimed his
first record — the
record for break-
ing campaign
promises the soon
est — back when
his new term was a
mere babe of 14 days old.
While on the campaign trail in Octo
ber, Clements told a group of college
students at Texas A&M, “It’s absolutely
wrong to cut higher education. That is
180 degrees from what this state should
be doing.”
Five months later, Clements has pro
posed tapping the Permanent Univer
sity Fund and other areas of education
funding as a solution to the state’s bud
get crisis. The man is serious about his
proposals.
When he testified to the House Com
mittee on Higher Education, Jess Hay,
chairman of the University of Texas
System, said he denounced Clements’
plan as a “betrayal of our trust to higher
education.”
Clements responded by telling Hay in
a phone conversation that he will do
anything he can to see that Hay is re
placed as chairman.
And of course, there’s Clements’ cam
paign promise not to raise taxes — an
absurd promise considering the state’s
financial problems. Nonetheless, he
made it.
As Clements said Feb. 3, “I have the
know-how and the commitment to tell
Texans that I will veto any and all tax or
fee increases. Bill Clements stands abso
lutely firm on this.”
Recently, he proposed an increase in
sales and motor fuels taxes in a contin
uation of “temporary taxes” passed by
the Legislature under the Mark White
administration.
But enough on his record-breaking
speed for breaking campaign promises.
Anyone with a bit of foresight could
have seen his double talk coming.
Last week, however, Clements caught
many Texans off guard as he stole his
second record since taking office. With
snake-like dexterity, Clements slithered
up and claimed the record for being
recognized the fastest by the public as a
liar.
Of course, I’m talking about his she
nanigans with Southern Methodist Uni
versity — a situation that earns him the
title of liar, where his broken campaign
Mike
Sullivan
promises only merits him the title of
politician. After all, campaign promises
are meant to be broken.
But along with his newly earned title
of Liar, Clements’ involvement with the
payoffs to SMU football players should
earn him the title of Impeached Gover
nor.
From 1983 until January when he
took office, Clements served as the
chairman of SMU’s Board of Gover
nors. By hiring him, SMU had hoped
Clements would help restore credibility
to the board.
When the NCAA investigations of
SMU began to heat up during Clements’
campaign for governor, he said in inter
views that if the allegations against SMU
proved true, he would seek the harshest
penalties for the university. Little did
the public know what a sickening hypo
crite the man is.
On Mar. 3, Clements announced that,
while serving as chairman, he and other
board members had decided to “phase
out” the payments to student athletes af
ter the NCAA put the school on its sixth
probation in 1985.
Apparently, that was news to the
other board members who denied
knowledge of any payments, according
to board member William Hutchison.
He said an external committee was be
ing set up to investigate Clement’s
claims.
Clements isn’t making the investiga
tion any easier, as he refuses to give the
names of his fellow conspirators to the
board of governors or the NCAA. Fol
lowing in the footsteps of big brother
Reagan, Clements apparently is con
fused about the specifics of the situa
tion.
Robert H. Dedman, SMU board
member and friend of Clements, said,
“The governor is trying to get together
in his mind the sequence of events and
under what circumstances the
agreement was made — in a car, or at a
party, or what.”
But Clements, in his campaign fash
ion, said, “There’s no question about
what I’ve said. I’ve never varied and I’m
not going to vary. What I’m saying, I
stand behind.”
Regardless of the questionable claims
Clements makes about the deals — in
cluding the claim that NCAA officials
approved the payments — there is no
questioning that Clements himself was
in on the scandal.
An interesting note is that SMU is
calling for anyone involved in the scan
dal to “publically disclose such informa
tion and ... for the sake of the univer
sity resign from any position within the
university.”
This means that because he's
volved, Clements makes the blackfe
SMU. He isn’t honorable enough to;
on SMU’s Board of C Governors, but hi
honorable enough to govern the states
Texas.
1 can’t help but wonder about the*
tegrity of a man who, after only 41 da
in office, already has a track record |
would make Ferdinand Marcos takem
tice — a man whose sole duty istosei
the best interest of Texans for anoii*
three years and 10 months.
If Clements, as chairman of S.\||
Board of Governors, wasn’t concent
about breaking the rules, the reputatj
of SMU, and the hearts — and poss;|
the futures — of SMU students, fad
and staff, why should he be so:|
cerned about the welfare of 17 mil!
faceless Texans?
Considering his recent proposa.i
cut into just about everything excep::
business, Clements isn’t concerned.;
anything but his big-business bud'i
and perhaps his ego.
I’m not big business, and neitherii!
most of you. So where does thatkB
us?
Barring an impeachment, it leavel
1,419 days away from a new govern l|
Mike Sullivan is a senior joum:
major and the Opinion Pageedmi
The Battalion.
What about the ideology?
The Tower
Commission re
port lines up a
rogues’ gallery of
fools and in
competents to
blame for the
Iran-contra fiasco,
sparing no one, in
cluding the presi
dent. (He lacked Richard
managerial acu- Cohon
men.) But as anal-
ysis, the report falls short: It does not
question the ideology that shaped Rea
gan Administration foreign policy and
led to the current debacle.
But as surely as the Watergate scan
dal had its genesis in the suspicious and
hostile personality of Richard Nixon, so
does the Iran-contra affair stem from
the ideology of Ronald Reagan. He
holds a troika of fundamental beliefs:
The Soviet Union really is the “focus of
evil”; there are simple solutions to com
plex problems; and government, given
its head, will only botch things up.
The report trips all over evidence of
that line of thinking — but its authors,
respectful of a popular president, shied
away from ideological questions.
The Tower report cites Secretary of
State George Shultz’s June 1985 re
sponse to a National Security Council
memo about the Soviet threat to Iran.
The NSC had just painted a “grim” pic
ture of the Russian bear extending a
paw to the south and concluded that the
United States needed to “blunt Soviet
influence” by allowing American allies
to sell arms to Tehran. At that point
Shultz, in effect, hollered “Wait a minu
te!” Schultz said the memo “appears to
exaggerate current anti-regime senti
ment (in Iran) and Soviet advantages
over us in gaining influence.” He re
minded the NSC that “Iranians have a
deep historical mistrust of the USSR”
and noted that under the Shah, Iran’s
relations with Russia “were closer and
more cooperative than they are now.”
Having made these necessary points,
Schultz unfortunately then proceeded
to take a long nap as the Iranian arms
initiative took hold.
The Schultz memo is one of the few
examples cited in the Tower report
where someone with standing chal
lenged the knee-jerk anti-communism
of the Reagan White House. Although
Because several members of the
The Battalion editorial board will
be attending the Columbia Schol
astic Press Association Conference
in New York City from March I I-
14, some of the columns this week
will not appear on their regular
days.
the arms sale to Iran quickly became an
attempt to free American hostages, its
intellectual justification was that this was
an effort at Soviet containment or, any
way, could always be explained as such.
The virulent anti-communist rhetoric
of Iranian leaders, the decimation of the
Iranian communist party (the Tudeh)
and, for that matter, the lessons the So
viets have learned in Afghanistan,
seemed not to matter to the White
House. If it could not assemble evidence
to support its ideology, it proceeded
anyway. When you’re right, you don’t
need facts.
The tendency to reduce regional and
discrete foreign-policy challenges into
the old East-West struggle really started
in Nicaragua. The secret diversion of
funds to the Contras — maybe illegal,
and possibly hidden from the president
himself — is the direct consequence of
Reagan’s rhetoric. He endowed regional
struggles in the Middle East and Central
America with an historic East-West di
mension they lack. As a result, the cast
of characters who made war on the
sneak may be pardoned for thinking
their first obligation was to history —
and not to a congressional law cutting
off funds. The president himself had es
tablished the stakes.
In tone and substance, the Tower
Commission report reads like a manage
ment study. It faults the president for
being disengaged, for not knowing and
not caring what his subordinates were
up to. All that is obvious, and even in
credible. But the larger problem is not
one of management, but of Reagan’s pe
culiar and simplistic ways of seeing
things.
Just as the president believed military
spending could be dramatically in
creased, taxes reduced and the budget
balanced, so he believed in Iranian “mo
derates” and Nicaragua freedom fight
ers. The ability to simultaneously sell
arms to terrorists, while at the same time
condemning others who do so, is no
more remarkable than calling for a bal
anced budget after depriving the gov
ernment of funds. With Reagan, the
wish is not just the command; it is the
entire program.
The Washington wisdom is that the
president needs to pay more attention
to detail and rely less on his staff. That’s
folly. It was a keen staff — vilified by
conservatives as pragmatic — that saved
him in his first term. And it was a staff
that let Reagan be Reagan that has, in
second term, brought the president so
low. What ails the White House is not
just bad management — that can be
fixed — but the ideology and mindset of
Ronald Reagan. For that, there is no
remedy.
Copyright 1986, Washington Post Writers Group
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Loren Steffy, Editor
Marybeth Rohsner, Managing Editor
Mike Sullivan, Opinion Page Editor
Jens Koepke, City Editor
Jeanne Isenberg, Sue Krenek, News Editors
Homer Jacobs, Sports Editor
Tom Ownbey, Photo Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper oper
ated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-College Sta
tion.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial
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 Depart
ment of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during
Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination
periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62 per school
year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on re
quest.
Our address: The Battalion, Department of Journalism, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, De
partment of Journalism, Texas A&M University, College Station
tx 77843-4 111. 0
MARGUUI6S
<91907 MOfclbfJ F&T
Mail Call
Whaf s censored?
EDITOR:
Will Kenneth Brobst please present some of these
“giant strides” and “evidence” found by creationists and
present the methodology used in these experiments? I’ve
received creationist information from “the horse’s
mouth.” A friend and co-worker of mine taught scientific
creationism at a small and undistinguished fundamentalist
“college” in Shreveport, La.
His entire tenet for rejecting evolution as an
explanation for speciation rested on rejecting the efficacy
of carbon-14 dating, with no testable evidence for that
rejection. I asked him why he felt so negative about
evolution. He replied, “It doesn’t fit in with my
interpretation of the Bible.” This is a religious justification
for creationism and his only justification.
As for bigotry and censorship in this arena, let’s not
forget the Scopes trial and the many attempts of
fundamentalists (i.e., Mrs. Frost of Tennessee) at
censorship. Nobody objects to the teaching of the biblical
story of creation, but it should be taught in religion classes,
not in science classes. Should medical schools teach
shamanism? No, it is taught in anthropology classes, where
it belongs. The only danger in teaching creationism would
be in teaching it as science and the precedence this would
set in allowing so-called religious zealots to apply double
think to our educational processes.
I am sure the entire intellectual community is very
tired of fundamentalists spouting out with their claptrap
they try to pass off as “truth” and “evidence.” Distortion of
facts to fit one’s own world view is at least as immoral and
unethical as any other misdeed, Brobst. Do you really
believe that God would set up a world governed by natural
laws which he himself would just ignore? Brobst, the
“mumbo jumbo” is actually all in your corner.
Ramsey L. Sealy, graduate student
State funds?
EDITOR:
Assuming that The Battalion quoted Bob Wiatt
correctly in his response to my letter to the Eagle, I must
comment on his remarks.
I am perfectly well aware of the source of funding for
the parking garage, and that it will be paid for by revenues
that the garage itself generates. However, I disagree with;
his contention that this is not “state money,” which is
patently absurd. Funds collected by state agencies, orthei
subdivisions (e.g., the University’s police department)are
“state funds,” even though they are not appropriated bv I
the legislature, and it is nonsense to pretend that they are
not. They are in fact taxes imposed by the state without
legislative approval; calling them “user fees” or “parkinj
revenues” does not change their nature. If the currentla*
prohibits monies collected as parking fines or permit feet
from being used to support academic activities, thenitis
time for the law to be changed. Any surplus funds
produced by the police department (or for that matter,^
athletic department) should be diverted into the general
University budget, and used for enhancing the academic
programs that are (or so we are told) the real reason that
Texas A&M exists. They should not be used for empire-
building on the part of the administration, nor for the !
personal aggrandizement of members of the Board of
Regents. If the parking people can generate $12.3 millioc
for a parking garage, they can also generate that amount
for more worthwhile purposes, such as improving the
collection at the library or for student aid, and for
retention of quality faculty members. Parking is not the
University’s prime function: education is. Any revenue
generating activity which could enhance education,and
which is not so used, is obstructive of the University's true
mission.
President Vandiver, in an address to the Faculty
Senate, has expressed his distaste for the garage project
and his inability to do anything about it. I, and sevenotM
faculty members from my Gollege, have sent a letter to
Governor Clements about this scandalous waste of mont 1
on yet another unnecessary building. I urge all students
and former students who are concerned about the quaiit 1
of educational opportunity at A&M now and in thefutut 1 :
to do the same. The Governor has publically announced
his committment to supporting higher education, and"'
believe that only he has the power to prevent the Boardc ;
Regents from forcing this additional burden on the
University. The facts are clear: the parking garage is a
waste of money that could be used for better things. Itis
“fat” in the University’s budget that should be eliminate^
Mr. Wiatt’s opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, j
Thomas Caceci, Ph.D
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The edilont'^. {
reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make ever) ^ M
nuiintain the author's intent. Each letter must be signed and must intWjj |
classification, address and telephone number of the writer.
1