Page 2/The Battalion/ Wednesday, November 18, 1987
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Sondra Pickard, Editor
John Jarvis, Managing Editor
Sue Krenek, Opinion Page Editor
Rodney Rather, City Editor
Robbyn Lister, News Editor
Loyd Brumfield, Sports Editor
Tracy Staton, 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 addr. 1'he !' utalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M
Universit >, l-uUcge Station, TX 77843-4111.
Second I s postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POS'l MASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216
Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX
77843-4111.
Hot opinons
For the past several weeks, the Battalion newsroom has been
strewn with bonfire letters.
The Battalion reported that two Aggieland photographers
encountered harassment at bonfire. People got mad and wrote
letters. We printed some. Then everyone got mad at the people
who wrote those letters and wrote letters attacking them. We
printed some. Then a columnist wrote about bonfire, and every
one got mad and wrote more letters. We printed some.
Now, weeks after the original incident, the letters keep com
ing. They concern bonfire itself, or they concern the views of
other letter-writers. So in the interest of letting Aggies air their
views once and for all — and providing a good ending point for
debate — The Battalion is expanding today’s Mail Call and
printing as many of the letters as possible. Read and enjoy.
— The Battalion Editorial Board
Press must question
reaction, if any,
to ‘character issue’
I attended Gov.
Michael Dukakis’
A&M-based ap
pearance Friday,
and it was pretty
much what I ex-
pected : presi
dential candidate
makes his pitch to
potential voters.
Like any good
speaker, Dukakis
tailored his words
to his audience. He lauded the power of
youth in an eerily Kennedyesque way (“I
hope that, much as John Kennedy
inspired my generation, I can inspire
yours.”) and made reference to local
culture (“I’m very intrigued by that
large pile of logs out there. I hear it has
something to do with a historic football
rivalry.”).
But this program had an edge on the
standard “candidate gives a speech”
presentation. It used a question-and-an-
swer format. Unlike Ronald Reagan,
who shies away from even the most per
functory questioning about his policies,
Dukakis was willing to be put on the
spot — live — by college students from
across the country.
And they did put him on the spot.
Student questions covered topics in
cluding health care, Contra aid, nuclear
power, the shutdown of a General Mo
tors plant in Massachusetts, U.S.-Soviet
relations, disarmament, the stock mar
ket crash, the conflict between Greece
and Turkey, the Persian Gulf, welfare,
foreign investment, financial aid, acid
rain, U.S.-NATO relations. South Af
rica, Mexico, taxes and Star Wars.
Whew.
And the questioners were hardly dip
lomatic — some of these guys could eas
ily rival Sam Donaldson, like the guy
who snidely asked, “Is this how you’d
run the White House? Take credit for
the good and run from the bad?”
But through it all, one question didn’t
get asked. Despite the withdrawal of
Gary Hart and Joe Biden from the
Democratic race. Despite the ethical
missteps of Reaganauts Michael Deaver
and Ed Meese. Despite Douglas Gins-
burg’s admission that he had smoked
marijuana.
No one asked about the “character is
sue.”
I have to admit that I was using the
Dukakis program as sort of a litmus test.
As an alleged working member of the
media, I’ve received an inordinate
amount of inquisition about why candi
dates and government officials are be
ing subjected to such close scrutiny.
More often, I’ve been told in no uncer
tain terms that the press is making up an
issue to suit its own purposes.
After defending my fellow journalists
to my parents, family, friends, profes
sors, classmates, casual acquaintances,
passers-by and random people at Dud-
dley’s, I had come to a inclusion: The
people who complain m >t loudly about
media harassment of pu lie figures are
the same people who ru h to read the
accounts of their misbeha\ ior. I found it
amazing that those who claimed to de
plore journalistic “invasion of privacy”
somehow knew all the scandalous details
reported in those “unethical” stories.
But the hypocrisy didn’t really sur
prise me. We are living, after all, in a
voyeuristic society, one where TV
screens feature ever-steamier scenes
and sleazy romance novels top the best
seller lists.
And we’re a little embarrassed by our
fascination with the lurid, the glamo
rous, the sensationalistic. We read USA
Today and People, not U.S. News 8c
World Report or the Christian Science
Monitor. We watch “Entertainment To
night” and “Lifestyles of the Rich and
Famous,” not MacNeil-Lehrer. And
we’re not too willing to admit it.
But after you live on a steady diet of
sensationalism, politicians and issues
must seem, well, a little dull. It’s hard to
get excited about the trade deficit when
the next page offers revelations from
Donna Rice. And it’s hard for a journal
ist to be optimistic about his audience
when readership surveys show that
more people look at the 96-color, three-
dimensional weather map than read sto
ries on the economy or foreign policy.
So I was surprised that no one asked
Dukakis about character — his or that of
the other candidates. I was surprised
that no one asked about Ginsburg or
drug abuse, especially after Kitty Duka
kis’ admission last summer that she had
a long-term dependency on diet pills,
one that required counseling to end.
Her case, which drew little attention,
seemed an ironic precursor to the Gins
burg fiasco.
Maybe some students wanted to ask
about character. Maybe their calls didn’t
get through or they didn’t make it to the
microphone. But I was impressed with
most of the questions that were asked.
They concerned issues, the obscure as
well as the obvious. If the students were
curious about Dukakis’ values or his
past, they didn’t show it.
I realize the audience at a university
presentation is hardly typical of the na
tion at large, and as long as “Entertain
ment Tonight” is a ratings hit, I’ll be
skeptical about claims that only the me
dia is interested in candidate gossip.
But the Dukakis presentation has
made me take a closer look at the stories
I read. And I’m realizing that although
I think character can be important,
some people find it meaningless.
I know the media didn’t manufacture
the character issue. But I know now that
we also can’t perpetuate it once it isn’t
relevant for anyone else.
Sue Krenek is a senior journalism ma
jor and opinion page editor for The
Battalion.
Opinion
Mail Call
Thanks to the ladies '
EDITOR:
To the ladies who work for bonfire:
We are writing this letter to extend our thanks for what
you have done for us at bonfire cut site. The steady supply
of ice water, the lunches delivered, and the Cokes, candy,
and tobacco that are made available are most sincerely
appreciated. Cut site would be much less productive if it
weren’t for the help you give us. Considering some of the
recent publicity concerning women at bonfire, we felt it
necessary to show our gratitude.
Robert Hefner ’88
bonfire officer, Company P-2
accompanied by 185 signatures
Out of the boys' locker room
EDITOR:
Girls, girls — can we talk? It seems that the fuss being
raised about bonfire and the fact that women are not
allowed to work inside the perimeter is, well, wrong. A&M
is one of the last schools where chivalry may still be found.
The point is this: The men who build bonfire do much
more than just stack logs. They smoke cigars, dip snuff,
and — rumor has it — converse in normal, intelligible
patterns of speech using common but profane words. Not
that any of this is particularly admirable — it’s not — but it
does serve to promote a profound sense of camaraderie.
And I don’t see anything wrong with that. The fact
that they don’t want us out there is not because we’re
incapable of wiring logs together, and they know that. It’s
because those boys don’t feel comfortable being “bonfire-
ish” around girls, and quite frankly, I don’t mind letting
them have their fun. It’s not hurting me any. Call it
chauvinism; call it anything you like. But what goes on in
the boys’ locker room is none of our business. Let the boys
be boys.
Nancy Haire ’89
Kim Spessard ’89
Women must earn respect
EDITOR:
Recently, the words “bonfire,” “sexual harassment,”
and “sexual discrimination,” used in the same sentence,
have begun to invoke anger and hostility in many people.
Well, I’m mad too, Eddie.
More than a month ago I began working on bonfire
with OCA. I felt awkward at first, because there were only a
few women, and I did not know anyone (I am a transfer
student). Within no time at all, however, my anxiety was
gone. I was working as a part of group, and not just as
some unknown woman who came out to cut. To the guys I
cut with, loaded with, yelled with, and carried logs with, I
was just another worker, no different from anyone else.
They respected me at cut not because I told them they
must or else I’d scream discrimination; they respected me
because ! went out there expecting no respect until I
proved to them I was worthy of it.
On Nov. 7, I went out to stack to work. At least three
red pots told trie to let them know if any of the guys gave
me a rough time, but there was no problem. I was there for
more than three hours, and in that time I carried logs
from point A to point B, worked the tag line, wired logs on
the ground, and wired logs up on stack. I worked on stack
because the pots out there have worked with me. I’ve
earned their respect and their trust. If I hadn’t worked for |
it, they would never have allowed me up on stack — and
very rightfully so.
The CT’s and the non-regs don’t discriminate; they
abuse and verbally harass everyone, regardless of who he 1
or she is. They give me a rough time, but if they didn’t
then I would feel like an outsider, not part of the unit. 1
give them a rough time right back, too. Then we all laugh |
and continue working. We’re not male and female, we’re I
Ags. We work together, and there is unity. That’s what
bonfire is all about.
Laura Gilliland ’89
Wanting to be included
EDITOR:
I disagree with Paul Schwarz’s letter about women’s
role in the bonfire. I think that he is very selfish and
doesn’t understand the true meaning of the tradition of
bonfire. In essence, his letter says that women are not
physically capable of contributing and therefore should be
excluded from building the bonfire.
I thought that bonfire was a tradition meant to
promote school spirit and unity among the student body !
also thought that women were now fully part of the
student body and allowed to participate in all A&M
traditions. According to Mr. Schwarz, bonfire, at least,
should be reserved only for the physically superior male, j
Mr. Schwarz may be a member of a “superior group "(1
doubt it), but does that mean that women cannot “loveand
defend the spirit and tradition of bonfire” also? I hope
not. Can you blame us for wanting to help?
Joanne L. McBride
grad student
I'm a chauvinist, too
EDITOR:
In response to the letter by Mr. Schwarz, let me say
this: I, too, am a bonfire chauvinist. I do not, however,
follow your ideals. I agree that not everyone should work
on stack, although I also believe that everyone should be
given the opportunity to do so. It should be up to the
individual to decide whether he or she is physically and
mentally prepared to handle that work.
Many students may not be able to handle the work —
not because of their sex, but because of their size, build or
stamina. Therefore, please do not stereotype. I have
known several women whose stature and work experience
would definitely allow them to do such work, and just as
many men who for the same basic reasons could not.
About two years ago, I earned the right to work on
stack. To achieve that, I cut, carried and loaded logs.
Those were some of the best times I have had, and you
could feel bonfire spirit everywhere. I had worked on
bonfire for four years, and in 1985 I became an OCA log
crew chief. I am still proud of the fact that I was given that
“nod of approval” by the redpots although I did not have
the chance to work on stack because of my studies.
To me it was and still is special because I am probably
not what you would expect: I am 5’6”, 105 pounds and
female.
Barbara Peterson Dowling ’86
BLOOM COUNTY
by Berke Breath
TV HCCK WITH OVR
# 73, WO 1-055 ON W6
5WCK MARKET / 0(7R
UFE5TYUZ .
NOT CHmtN0/\
YOU 'RE OO/NO 70
HARVflKP... mm KE-
FAIVTINE WE MW ROOM,
ANP 1 WfU- 3VY THAT
Hf-FOOT "MIAMI VICE*
x 5FEEP30AT.?
t:
ot
YE5, (VE MAY 36 3
c-rrne short in uqu/p
ASSETS, 3UTI IN/Cl NOT
RUN Fi PEF/C/T IN
ONE AREA-