The Battalion
OPINION
Thursday, July 6,1989
/ /V\F\Dr\(V\e SLflm&oonriSKi,
f TeLL /V\£ WWT YOU SZ6T
I MAPP&iMb sm 77/e furu&e.
x see /m/mons of ujomfn dy/ns, fact/
VFA/Z F/zon\ ccAr//AN6>eN F6oR.~r/oAis...
x see /nd/wduAl Fteeepe/n du)/nouns
AU//)V... x see cf/lp A&use on ree N/sr
.. . 7C see oveT^PoPuuiFiw of t//f A/ANer.
Mail Call
Tower atmosphere conducive to learning
BUT, of counse, olu of ff/s co*/ mi. k
//FPFeN /F 77/F SUPResne eoucer -rF/nPetes
UJ/FF *&>e V.S (NAOC *
UJF/O/ a/06 a? Y /s FFoFiO
FA/0U6N 72? Do/
/
/
/
EDITOR:
One cannot help wonder about the motives of Ms. Rizzo in writing an article
downplaying the benefits and amenities offered by University Tower toTAMl
students, giving the student an additional housing option; namely, whether to live
in on-campus dorms, apartment complexes or elsewhere as compared to
University Tower. Perhaps it is simply misconception or lack of understanding.
The benefits of University Tower are many, and far exceed those referenced
by Ms. Rizzo.
University Tower believes there is nothing wrong, and it is in fact appropriate
to give students the option of determining where they will live, study and establish
friendships.
“Above and Beyond the Rest” is University Tower’s logo and, in mangement's
opinion, an appropriate one taking into account the combination of the many
benefits and amenities available at University Tower that are not available at
apartment complexes or on-campus dorms (as was indeed noted by The Battalion
when University Tower dorm plans were announced in a headline that read:
“University Tower Will Provide Benefits Unavailable in Dorms”). There certainly
does not appear to be any disagreement (even by Ms. Rizzo) as to the additional
benefits and amenities at University Tower.
Indeed, University Tower offers many amenities that are not availble
elsewhere. Our intent is to offer serious minded students accommodations thatart
nice, yet conducive to learning. Our commitment to excellence does not differ
from TAMU’s quest for excellence. We are simply providing excellence in living
accommodations. We believe that you will find University Tower to be an excellem
I value, a nice friendly place to call home and a place to share the fun and struggles
in obtaining an excellent college education. Please do not be misled by rumor or
misinformation — come by and see what University Tower is about.
Texa
dent lo
univers
debt co
Bent b(
Hire of
Hge, d
Hid, sai
Duri
H&M’s
Rudenl
iage sai
| The
2,300 s
ss of
Abortion decision dead wrong
Dr. Richard A. Berns
Wallerstein Property Manager
Last Monday the Supreme Court an
nounced its decision on Webster v. Re
productive Health Services, a case which
concerns Missouri’s abortion laws.
The decision upheld three Missouri
state laws. One law prohibits the use of
Missouri tax money for encouraging or
counseling women to have abortions.
Another law bans abortions performed
by public employees and abortions in
public facilities and hospitals unless the
life of the mother is in danger. The
third requires doctors to test fetuses of
at least 20 weeks gestation for viability
outside of the womb.
Timm
Doolen
Matt
McBurnett
counseling, women contemplating abor
tion are educated and given the infor
mation necessary to make an intelligent
decision. With no tax-funded counsel
ors, or at least not any who can be pro-
choice, fewer abortions will occur, thus
adding to the quagmire of poor women
not being given the chance to choose
abortions. And, as expected, the burden
of supporting the poor and their chil
dren will again fall on the taxpayer.
Drill teams deserve respect
The Court also stated that each state
could determine its own laws regarding
the restriction of abortion.
We believe the decision was mis
guided and wrong. As Justice Harry
Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opin
ion: “Never in my memory has a plural
ity announced a judgment of this court
that so foments disregard for the law
and for our standing decisions.”
Justice Blackmun alludes to the 1973
case of Roe v. Wade, in which the Su
preme Court held that the constitu
tional right to privacy gives women the
right to choose an abortion. The court
reaffirmed this decision in court cases in
1983 and 1986. As one of the most com
mon surgical practices in the United
States, over 1.5 million abortions occur
each year.
Fortunately, the Webster ruling left
the Roe v. Wade precedent intact for
the most part. However, the Supreme
Court chipped away at some of the op
portunities of those women seeking an
abortion in Missouri. And with the
states free to make their own laws, simi
lar laws may be passed around the coun
try.
The Court, in making this 5-4 deci
sion, is unfortunately allowing the states
too much freedom to restrict when,
where, and how abortions are per
formed. The extra tests that will have to
be performed will knock up the prices
of those abortions occuring 20 weeks af
ter conception. This will have a side ef
fect of allowing only those who can ini
tially afford the costs to obtain abortions
in the second trimester, and forcing
many poor women to have their chil
dren, thus multiplying their problems.
By allowing the states to liberally pass
conservative abortion laws, more states
will have more laws that limit the abor
tion process. Not only will this create
abortion laws that vary widely from state
to state, it will also probably bring more
litigation, such as the Missouri case,
challenging the state’s right to pass
those kinds of laws. And the litigation
may eventually reach the Supreme
Court, in hopes of overturning Roe v.
Wade once and for all.
In upholding the Missouri law pre
venting the use of tax money for pro
abortion causes, the Court has created a
situation which will eventually be more
of a burden on the taxpayer. Through
Another upsetting facet of the deci
sion is the upholding of the Missouri
statute banning the use of public facili
ties for abortions (even if the state
makes a profit from the abortions). Be
cause these institutions can only be used
when the mother’s life is in danger, the
most important aspect of the entire
abortion issue, the choice, is taken away
from the mother.
EDITOR:
Texas A&M is known worldwide for its fine tradition of friendliness. We would
like to thank Damon Arhos for carrying on this fine tradition in his June 29
column.
He wrote of the drill team “bimbos” that frequent our campus in the summer.
Unfortunately, he needed more information before attacking the so-called
“human Barbies.”
These camps bring large amounts of revenue into the University. Each camp
participant pays for meals, building use and dorm space. Many current students
were first exposed to the University while attending one of the various types of
camps A&M hosts each year.
As for Arhos’ criticism of a team’s color coordination, members w'ear similar
outfits to present a unified look which makes performances more pleasurable for
the viewer. Also, if you listen closely while these girls practice, you will not hear
“Ready-Okay!” (as Arhos began his column) but rather a “5-6-7-8 . . .’’The
other command is reserved for cheerleaders.
Again, let us thank Mr. Arhos for welcoming visitors to our campus with open
arms; only next time we hope you are more informed.
Jennifer Jordy ’89
Head Instructor — NCA SUPERSTAR Drill Team Camps
Allen Johnson ’87
Camp Director — United Spirit Association Summer Camps
Kille
pieme,
itates,
iService
a plan (
I “Kill
■Insect,
lologi
deadly,
pxnild r
ind ec
Also, if no public facilities or public
doctors may oe used for abortions, we
rightly wonder where the abortions will
take place and who will administer
them, especially for the poor. By leaving
this question unanswered, the Webster
case has simply added another stum
bling block on the path for those women
who choose to seek an abortion.
Relocation of trees not trivial
After 16 years and over 20 million
aborted fetuses, the United States surely
cannot turn its back on abortion. And
although overturning Roe v. Wade
would not end abortion, it would surely
limit it in the United States.
With the Court’s decision on Monday,
it has taken a first step in the wrong di
rection to overturning a landmark.
EDITOR.
I would like to address an issue that not too many people, including our
student body president, seem to have an interest in — the ridding of 26 trees
surrounding the Memorial Student Center to make way for expansion. Now I do
understand we need the room for student activities that are presently crammed on
the second floor of the Pavilion. And I’m not a radical ecologist crying over where
the birds and the squirrels will go. I am a concerned student who doesn’t want
A&M turned into a concrete and asphalt education complex that has to be
annexed every two years. And I have an even greater concern about promises
unkept.
The new student body president was elected in March, flying in on promises to
lobby the legislature, increase campus safety, better the quality of teaching and
protect green space from being lost to construction. Correct me if I’m wrong, but
the MSC — the building and surrounding grounds honoring Aggies who have
died for our country — has green space that is imminently being threatened. I
haven’t seen any action taken on Mr. Buchman’s part.
If this is an omen of the future, I fear the events of the oncoming year.
Shannon Hatfield ’92
Timm Doolen and Matt McBurnett
are junior engineering majors and col
umnists for The Battalion
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for stjk
and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author's intent. Each letter must be signed and must include thi
classification, address and telephone number of the writer.
Burning of American flag not always unpatriotic
Great. George Bush thinks we need
an amendment to the Constitution to
stop flag-burning. Of all the cheap, po
litical grandstanding, of all the shame
less pandering to an ill-informed na
tional snit — it makes me want to vomit;
but of course that would be symbolic
political speech and symbolic political
speech should be punishable by law,
shouldn’t it?
The flag is, after all, the symbol of
our freedom. It must not be desecrated.
We can burn crosses in this country, but
our secular symbol is more important
than our religious symbol — isn’t it?
The president says that as a combat vet
eran, he is offended by flag-burning. So
am I. Black citizens are offended by rac
ist speech and it does more than hurt
their feelings — it costs them in count
less ways, sometimes it even costs them
their lives. Shall we outlaw all racist
speech?
Women are offended by sexiest
speech — it not only demeans us, but
many studies show it promotes violence
against us — rape, assault, beatings,
murder. Shall we outlaw all sexist
speech?
Jews have at least 6 million reasons to
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Ellen Hobbs,
Editor
Juliette Rizzo,
Opinion Page Editor
Fiona Soltes,
City Editor
Drew Leder, Chuck Squatriglia,
News Editors
Steven Merritt,
Sports Editor
Katny Haveman,
Art Director
Hal Hammons,
Makeup Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa-
per operated as a community service to Texas A&M and
Bryan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the
editorial board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, fac
ulty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper
for students in reporting, editing and photography
classes within the Department 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 request.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1 111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX
77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal
ion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station TX 77843-4111.
be offended by anti-Semtic speech and
by its symbol, the swastika. Shall we out
law anti-Semtic speech? Shall that in
clude all criticism of Israel?
Muslims are deeply offended by Sal
man Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Ver
ses” — shall we outlaw Mr. Rushdie’s
work?
Let’s try this again, very slowly.
The argument is that it should be
against the law to desecrate the Ameri
can flag, right? The flag is desecrated
every time the Ku Klux Klan carries it in
a march or displays it at a rally. The flag
is desecrated every day in this country
— it is worn on the bottoms of blue
jeans, it is worn on the leather jackets or
motorcycle thugs whose idea of fun is to
get drunk and wreck and rape. It is tat
tooed on the fat bellies of ignorant slugs
who don’t even know how to read the
Constitution for which it stands. It is
printed on ashtrays and wastebaskets
and even toilet seats, and even though
I’ve never seen one, it’s doubtlessly on
spittoons somewhere. Every George
Washington’s Birthday, and every other
day of the year, merchants use the flag
to help sell underwear, deodorant, toilet
paper and machine guns. The Ameri
can flag has been so commercialized and
is so commonly used to shill by
hucksters that burning it sounds clean.
And above all, the flag is used by poli
ticians for demagoguery. I would rather
see it burned by a passionate protester
than exploited by a sleazy politician for
his own cynical ambition.
Twenty years ago, after James Mere
dith was shot in the back while walking
down a Mississippi highway on a lonely
civil-rights march, a black man named
Sidney Street burned a flag on a Harlem
street corner to protest that shooting. If
a man could be shot for marching (sym
bolic political speech, of course) for
equal rights, said Street, then we don’t
need a flag because America’s ideals
have already gone up in smoke. Did Sid
ney Street have no right to say that? Did
he have no right to think that? Did we
have any right to keep him from saying
that?
All right, speech is speech and burn
ing a flag is an action. So is sticking out
your tongue at the flag. So is shooting
the well-known middle finger at the
president. So is wearing a black arm-
band on a day called to protest the war
in Vietnam. Shall we have a constitu
tional amendment to stop anyone from
holding his nose when the flag goes by?
What is someone who burns the flag
saying? “I’m mad at the government,
I’m mad at this country, I think there
are a lot of things wrongs with it.” God
Almighty, at least 50 percent of the peo
ple are mad at the government at any
given time. The most common conver
sation in the country starts with some
one saying, “Did you see what those
fools in Washington . . . Since
when can’t you criticize the government,
since when can’t you say there are things
wrong with this country? What do you
think freedom means?
Fascism is not a word I like to throw
around, but there is something fascistic
about these national snits we get into
Perhaps it’s because we are so seldom
united about much in this country —
given our ethnic, religious, political and
linguistic diversity. Our constant condi
tion is of that of conflict and tension, all
of it underlined by our national habit,
when confronted with a problem, of im
mediately mounting horses and riding
off in 360 different directions. So
there’s something gratifying about fi
nally feeling that everybody, absolutely
everybody is finally together on A) hat
ing the Ayatollah B) being mad at Gad-
hafi C) feeling terrible about American
hostages being held in Iran or D) what
ever the snit of the month is. It’s the
same pleasure you get from being part
of the crowd that stands up to scream
during a football game.
There is a terrible pressure toward
conformity during these snits — as
though anybody who doesn’t agree isn’t
a loyal American.
Thomas Paine said that true patriot
ism is refreshed by reference to first
principles. One of the principles on
which this country was founded — the
Founders could not possibly have been
more clear about it — was freedom of
expression. To limit that freedom be
cause someone burned the symbol of it
is crazy. It just makes no sense.