Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 6, 1987)
Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, April 6, 1987 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 Follow the lead By publishing student evaluations of professors, the College of Business Administration is setting a long overdue precedent in the class-selection process. Although the plan has some rough spots, it is an effective means of making evaluations available to students. Current grade-distribution reports already are available to stu dents in all colleges, but finding out how many A’s and F’s a profes sor gives does not necessarily reflect the instructor’s abilities to teach. The final grade for a course is not as important as how that grade is determined. Finding out other students’ impressions of a professor is essential in determining which instructor to select. The present method of de termining teacher effectiveness is to ask friends who already have had the class — which usually gives students an inaccurate and bi ased view. Publishing course evaluations will give students access to a wide range of student impressions. It can help students and professors a- like avoid personality conflicts and disagreements that, while they don’t necessarily reflect a professor’s inability to teach, do inhibit the learning process. The plan still has some problems. Professors must give their con sent before evaluations can be printed, and each semester the per mission must be renewed. Although instructors’ uncertainty about the business college’s plan is understandable, students should have access to evaluations of all professors. If professors truly are con cerned with teaching, they should be concerned with how students perceive their effectiveness. But getting permission from professors to print evaluations may result in a tendency to publish only positive evaluations, defeating the purpose of the entire plan. Despite these flaws, the business college’s idea is a step in the right direction and is one that other colleges in the University should follow. After all, if students are going to brave increasing tuition costs to come to Texas A&M, they at least have a right to know what they’ll be getting for their money. lometi ited S ust tech i |vs of w sujx hnoloj Mith t |e liter lericar e a li' about (S.-Sovi adcasi and San ] lean Soci convent i< I Texas vosity ol Bier Ai “dn'viilin confer ei Bdge: Bnent 1 High court decision will hu future of American women B" I his i as mn na ■ ause u ternation Id Dr. ,4mjou ■' !: has B defin [United S In 1979, Paul Johnson, an em ployee of the Santa Clara County Transpor tation Agency, was competing with co-worker Diane Joyce for a pro motion to road dispatcher, a posi tion traditionally filled by men. Paula Vogrin Johnson had three years more se niority than Joyce and scored slightly better on a test. Because no woman held one of the 238 road dispatcher positions, Joyce was High court gives women a chance In 1979, Diane Joyce applied for a promotion. Since 1970, she had worked for Santa Clara C o u n t y (Calif.) at a variety of jobs, even doing a stint on a road- repair crew. Now she wanted to be a road dispatcher, and along with Richard Cohen other county employees she took an oral exam. She placed third, but got the pro motion anyway. The reason: She’s a woman. With the force of about 10 on the Richter scale, Justice Antonin Scalia dis sented. His words came down to a ring ing insistence that we all get judged as individuals and not as members of groups we happen to be born into. That is the American Way — a way, inciden tally, that has enabled me, the grandson of impoverished immigrants, to tell you what I think of the Supreme Court’s de cision. I think it’s terrific. Why? Because the Supreme Court deals with real life, not just legal abstrac tions. In real life, the job category that Joyce sought, skilled-craft worker, con sisted of 238 positions. Of these, not one was held by a woman. In all the higher job classifications, a similar situation prevailed throughout the county gov ernment. That’s why Santa Clara County entered into an affirmative-ac tion program. It did so voluntarily, not because it was sued. It wanted to right a situation that was, on the face of it, just plain wrong. And how about Joyce herself? On pa per, she is just another applicant. But in real life, she was a woman who was hassled on the job. When she volun teered to work on road-repair crews (so that she might later be promoted), she had to complain before being given work clothes, as men routinely are. And when she applied for promotion for road dispatcher, one of the men who tested her called her a “rebel-rousing, skirt-wearing person.” Affirmative-action cases are never easy. They all must be judged on their merits and they all must strike a balance between individual rights and the obli gation to ensure a non-discriminatory society. The Santa Clara case is no ex ception. There is no doubt that the man who brought the suit, Paul Johnson, is a victim. (He was eventually promoted anyway.) He was told to play by the rules, that merit would be rewarded, but when the time came for his reward, he was shunted aside. It did not matter that he scored a bit higher than Joyce on the oral exam. He was born the wrong sex. But if Johnson was injured because of membership in a group, so was Joyce. Given the crack uttered by one of her superiors and the harassment she had already suffered, who can believe that she was judged solely on merit — that the oral test was in any way “scientific?” And if both applicants were, in essence, equally qualified, doesn’t the county have the right to choose one of them to enunciate a beneficial public policy? All things being approximately equal, the county decided to do something about inequality. Sometimes numbers speak for them selves. If Santa Clara had 238 men in a job classification and no women, then something is happening. Maybe women are being discriminated against. Maybe they see the numbers and don’t bother to apply for the jobs. Maybe because they see certain jobs as “male” and oth ers as “female” they get the message and voluntarily segregate themselves. Whatever the reason, something has to be done to break the pattern — to show little girls what women can do. Job segregation, which helps account for why women on the average earn less than men, is neither good public policy nor good economics. Questions of equality aside, the nation can ill-afford to have half its brains shunted into the steno pool. Scalia’s brakeman’s flag should not go entirely unheeded, however. His warn ing that affirmative action has been con verted “into a powerful engine of racism and sexism” is not judicial Chicken Lit- tleism. Affirmative action seems incon sistent with the American ethic. There is a danger of institutionalizing it past the point where any public good is done. Eventually, the government must level the playing field. But as long as counties like Santa Clara have clerical work forces that are 76 percent female but administrative work forces that are 93 percent male, that time has not yet come. In theory, Johnson lost to Joyce be cause he was discriminated against. Sim ple. But, in reality, she prevailed be cause women — and maybe Joyce herself —have always been discrimi nated against. The court did not reject that most American of all precepts: “All men are created equal.” It reaffirmed it. All it’s saying now is treat people equally on the job. Copyright 1986, Washington Post Writers Group selected. Johnson complained of re verse discrimination and took his case to court. Eight years and many court dates later, the Supreme Court handed down a decision, but not the one Johnson had been hoping for. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in the Johnson case allows employers to promote women over arguably more- qualified men. The ruling is intended to redress historical job discrimination but has the potential to make it more diffi cult for women to succeed in positions traditionally held by men. The court’s intentions are admirable — equality in the workplace is an impor tant goal — but the court’s solution is a giant step in the wrong direction. I don’t deny that women in the work place are still victims of discrimination, especially in manual-labor jobs like con struction. How often do you see a fe male foreman? For that matter, how of ten do you see a female plumber, electrician, or oilfield roustabout? Not every day, to be sure. Women with ad equate knowledge and qualifications should be accepted in these fields with out hesitation. But these fields aren’t the only ones guilty of discrimination. Al though their numbers are increasing, female presidents, vice presidents, CEO’s and supervisors are still minori ties in large corporations. Something needs to be done to rem edy these situations, but the solution is sued by the Supreme Court is not the answer. It may seem surprising that I disagree with the court’s ruling. After all, I am one of the people it is intended to bene fit. But I cannot accept a decision that allows for promotion of a person on the basis of sex instead of individual skills and qualifications. The court’s decision will make it harder for women who have rightfully attained positions usually held by men to succeed. Co-workers will say she was promoted simply because she is a woman. It will be harder for a woman in this position to gain the respect of her subordinates, not to mention her supe riors. I would 8 ud AUST ek of t not accept a promotion granted on the basis of my sex, ciallv if I knew there was someocei male or female, more qualified Ij job. I would be insulted at thefaofc. [ so h my superiors knew 1 did not posse ih ■ ttfcd' skills for the job, but promotedmB^ 1 " way just to up the number of'■ ; B e ‘ lK holding a certain type of position 1 agree with Justice Antonin who in his dissenting opinion k berated the majority’s ruling. Hi plied that the majority wasmakini litical decision, supporting elected tic Ians seeking to accommodate sf* interest groups as well as corporal governmental employers who foils easier to hire less-qualified workei to fight discrimination lawsuits. He said the irony of the deds that people like Paul Johnson- dominately unknown, unaffluent ganized — are suffering an injus the hands of a court fond of thin! se If tl ie champion of the politicaiiB potent. The United States adherestoa pi im iple of non-discrimination 1 the basis of our civil rights law principle holds that employment sions should not he made on theta race or sex. The court’s ruling© this principle, encouraging entplf to promote women because tticB women, not because they are(jtnf for the job. In its decision, the court ruledth Urinative-action plans (hiring*! and minorities to increase bers in the workforce) are pern® when women as well as racial min® are underrepresented proportional a “manifest imbalance” in “traditt segregated job categories.” Hiring women to satisfy a“ imbalance” in “traditionally segrtf job categories” is not the answer! discrimination. If America wants to achievea‘ ! place truly free of discrimination 1 ployers must make employment sions based on the skills* qualifications of individuals, noton< sexual classification. It is theonlv* 5 bring about a society of equalopf* 1 nity for both males and females. Paula Vogrin is a senior journt major and a columnist for The5* I ion. Mail Cali Highway 6 to Russia EDITOR: Let’s all give three cheers for Karl Pallmeyer’s latest column on self-esteem. Just when I think he has made it to the zenith on the stupidity spectrum, Pallmeyer proves me wrong time and time again. I have yet to figure out the relationship between the right-wing’s war on drugs and self-esteem. Would it make a difference if the left wing was in office? If you are going to put out a fire, then aim for the base of the flame. Drugs are the fuel of low self-esteem. Take away the fuel and there is no fire. Also, Pallmeyer, you are contradicting yourself when you state how self esteem must come from the self and then write a column such as this one. A person’s self comes from how they are perceived by others. People will eventually gain some esteem if others, journalists included, would stop pounding these crybaby ideas into the back of their minds. Here again, take away the fuel and there is no fire. Here is another question for you, Pallmeyer. When did you become such an expert on people’s religious beliefs? It is a shame, though, tnat they banned “The Wizard of Oz.” We all know that was your favorite book. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t one of the first freedoms in the development of this country’s existence a freedom from religious persecution? Pardon me if I make a suggestion. Why don’t you write a positive column for once? I have an idea. Why don’t you and your protege, Mike Sullivan, pack your parachutes and bail out somewhere over Moscow and stay there to observe things for a while? That way, when you get back, you will have something positive to write about life in America . . . if you ever get back. Ken Heckman ’88 Another biased opinion? EDITOR: Time and time again, Mike Sullivan has devoted parts ol his columns toll 1 behavior of cadets at Texas A&M. In his famous Corps abolition column,he stated the conduct of members of the Corps was giving A&M a bad name around the world. Sullivan conveys a similar message in his April 1 column Only a few weeks ago the same Mike Sullivan dismissed the incidents at Wall 0 ®! “E” ramp as being typical, if not normal, of today’s college students. Thisleai 1 ! me to believe Sullivan’s brand of journalism is very biased and very yellow. I Aaron P. Kiker ’88 Editor’s note: The April 1 column had nothing to do with A&M’s imageartt the world. It dealt with a commonly held misconception among Aggies sb y\&M’s past. Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must include the classification, address and telephone number of the writer.