Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 16, 1990)
The Battalion OPINION Friday, February 16,1990 Mail Call Release symbolizes future freedoms EDITOR: It was a glorious day for human rights as the legendary leader of the ANC was liberated. The imprisoned Mandela has been a symbol of Apartheid’s im perviousness. We college students never knew a free Nelson Mandela any more than we can recall a free South Africa. With due caution, it must be noted that a free Mandela and anti-apartheid organizations have coexisted with Apartheid in the past. However, let us hope that the Rubicon has been crossed and that political rights will progress at the Eastern European pace. If this is what the future holds, then we are on the verge of ending a sad chapter in human history as the world rids itself of the last remnant of colonialism, slavery and racism on a national scale. Every country would have a constitu tion which in theory would guarantee the representation and maximization of life for every citizen. Norman Muraya Graduate student Racial tensions flare at A&M EDITOR: While walking on campus recently, I happened to notice a phrase on the back of a student’s T-shirt that deeply disturbed me. The phrase read, “It’s a black Thang, and you wouldn’t understand!” To me, this statement displays the idea of blacks discriminating against all other races. This being my first semester as a transfer student here at Texas A&M, I was quite unfamiliar with the degree of racial tensions present at this University. However, I am very aware of racial tensions present in modern American society, and I firmly be lieve that reverse discrimination is not the answer to racism, on campus or off. When one group has to distinguish itself from others only on the basis of race, this is, in itself, discrimination. Black History Month is upon us. there is a se ries of events this month which are celebrated by African-American students focusing on “the African-American’s role in American society.” The month is designed to promote black awareness, and to “emphasize the history and ac complishments of African-Americans.” This is all culturally exciting, but I ask you, is there a Hispanic History Month, an Asian History Month, or, (God for bid), a White History Month? Another aspect of this reverse discrimination on the A&M campus is the existence of several “black-only” clubs. Organizations such as the National Society of Black Engineers and National Association of Black Accountants are active student programs on our campus. I really don’t think these organizations are necessary and they do promote discrimination. It seems as though blacks are segregating themselves, and in turn, discrimi nating against all other races (which is actually going against all of the basic principles encouraged by the great Martin Luther King Jr. who promoted the idea of equality for all, regardless of race or color). I would like to appeal to all the students and faculty at A&M, regardlesss of their color, to stop placing importance on their own race and focus their attention on the most important race of all, the human race. John Bussell ’92 S. Murrell ’93 Black history very beneficial EDITOR: Since this is Black History Month, I would like to take this timely opportu nity to recommend the course, “History of Blacks,” to all students at Texas A&M University. Until I took this course, I never realized how little black his tory is taught in most public schools. Racism is very evident in our society, however, I never realized how far institutionalized racism really reaches. Be cause we aren’t taught about great black leaders such as Booker T. Washing ton, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X in elementary or high school, I feel every one should take advantage of this opportunity, if possible, while at Texas A&M. White students, as well as black students, have the responsibility to learn about the great black leaders of American history. Understanding the scope of the power of the black leaders of history and their influence on our society, will help me and others to better understand our future. Melody Wilson ’91 Rudder steps not pulpit for religion EDITOR: This letter is in protest to the organizations that stand on the steps of Rud der Tower screaming Bible verses and “hell-and-damnation” messages for ev eryone within a half-mile radius to hear. W'here do these people get off? It’s bad enough that they write their messages on classroom boards and block sidewalks by handing out brochures to people who are trying to get into the classrooms to learn something from qualified professionals with factual knowledge. But when did those steps become a pulpit for religious zealots? If and when I desire to hear about God, the Bible or any aspect of religion, I’ll ask someone or attend a church service of my choice. I*don’t need these mes sages screamed at me from the steps of an institution for which I pay money to attend as I attempt to find a quiet place to study and eat lunch. I’m not against people’s expression of opinion as long as they don’t force it on me. This goes for all the current “hot topics”, on campus including X-rated movies and abortion. To the organizations responsible: Take it indoors and preach to only those people who desire your hollering. Leave the walkways and steps alone before you get run over or find out how much divine power it takes to remove a large microphone from the throat. Denise Thompson ’90 Have an opinion?Express it! Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. There is no guarantee that letters submitted will be printed. Each letter must be signed and must include the classification, address and telephone number of the writer. All letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald, or sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111. The Battalion (USPS 045 360) Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Scot Walker, Editor Monique Threadgill, Managing Editor Ellen Hobbs, Opinion Page Editor Melissa Naumann, City Editor Cindy McMillian, Lisa Robertson, News Editors Richard Tijerina, Sports Editor Fredrick D. Joe, Art Director Mary-Lynne Rice, Lifestyles Editor Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper 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 represent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. 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 Mc Donald, Texas A&M University, College Sta tion, TX 77843-1 111. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion. 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843- 4111. [he B Opinion Page Editor Ellen Hobbs : rida Ivana trumps Donald with divorc? One of the hottest news items this Valentine’s Day was a divorce. Despite all of this love in the air, Donald and Ivana Trump are apparently calling it quits after almost 13 years of marriage. And, as is the case with most divorces in America, there is a great likelihood that the groom will get a sour deal. The first report of the breakup had Ivana leaving Donald because she felt “betrayed.” Later stories provided that Donald engaged on a full-fledged walkout amid rumors of affairs and a midlife crisis. Among the women that the billionaire real estate developer has been rumored to have had on the side are Peggy Fleming. Yes, the ice skater. Other stories have united Trump and Robin Givens. Too bad news of this didn’t come earlier. Maybe Mike Tyson and Trump could have squared off in a title match, in Trump Plaza of course, with the loser getting Givens. Trump met Ivana at the 1976 Olympics. He was a developer on the rise and she was a skier/model. She supposedly deferred to him calling him “The Donald.” At any rate, they married and he became a billionaire. The news of this divorce did not prompt any reaction by me except one of sick pleasure which I derived from seeing something finally go wrong for poor Donald — the man who can walk down the street pointing at buildings as he passes saying “got it, got it, need it, got it.” Mrs. Trump’s statement (through her lawyer) calling the couple’s prenuptial agreement “unconscionable and fraudulent” is what gave me an opinion on this entire ordeal. Donald, the epitome of a shrewd businessman, was bright enough to see that his marriage might fail and he and Ivana signed an agreement covering all aspects of a divorce. A spokesman for Trump said that the prenuptial agreement entitled Ivana to $20 million, custody of their three children and one of the couple’s homes, in Greenwich Gonn. And she is not satisfied? Matt McBurnett Columnist A person close to Mrs. Trump said she would be seeking “a fair and equitable distribution of their mutual properties.” Ivana and I must differ in our definitions of fair. She gets the kids. Apparently she wanted them. She gets $20 million. Do you think she will have any trouble paying bills? She gets a house. Obviously Donald Trump, real estate developer, would build a tepee. The agreement in question was updated two years ago and was signed by both Donald and his wife. If this does not stand up in court, I will lose all of the remaining smidgen of faith that I have in bur justice system. First of all, the agreement was set up through attorneys for the specific case of a divorce. It is like a will, and should have full weight in court. Second, I could see its being overturned if it were not fair, but that is not the case. Donald Trump is a self-made billionaire. Ivana was his wife. That is it. She did not make deals, invest money or do anything except be a wife and a mom. Didn’t this happen to Johnny Carson once or twice? Carson’s wife did not make him funny. Actually no one did, but that is beside the point. She should not have received any great reward, though she did, for being his wife and living lavishly on the money that he brought home. After all, I thought marriage was supposed to be rewarding in itself . Trump was astute enough to sign an agreement that he hoped would prevent him from suffering the fate Carson and many males do. Prenuptial agreements are the only leg men have to stand on in divorce cases. The courts should in cripple men by taking this away.eii Trump’s case. In this age of increased women's independence, 1 cannot understand degrading stance the courts taketoi women. Women can carry their out weight. In some cases, such as when a w did nothing in a marriage but raise children and other necessary tasks! did not work, I can easily see how si would need to be kept financially in the case of a divorce. I failtoseel $20 million would not keep someo® well beyond secure. In the past, men were the main breadwinners in society. If Ward a® June (Heaver had divorced, Ico easily see how June would needaloi linanc ial support. Ward would bait to live without Wally and Beaver bin support of them would be necessitai hi by t lie ’50s society which didnota! women equal rights to work.Times! changed whether or not the court system realizes it. 1 saw a bumper sticker once thi “Can you hug your child today?" sponsored by an organization of divorced males. The courts, in mi custody cases reward the children!! mother, fo further the cause of glres by women s equal rights, men andwown tha must be treated equally in divorceoB vestl S‘ AUS? cuts sah ducin; ri-mu rticuf I And Ivana frump should be quite satisfied. 1 wenty million dollarsw |y 0 ( i ea easily allow her to continue to livetln posh lilestvle and keep her high-dot Jerati< x on b in “if id get lucath Clem ire’s t irse r Matt McBurnett is a junior electi an tw< engineering major. f riends that she met through her husband’s money. I f not, maybesk could get a job. Her success would® good measure of how muchsheaci contributed to the frump fortune Germ ce wa is opi owns Pro gun-control column full of holt I wotdd like to respond to the three basic premises in Timm Doolen’s column “Gun laws won’t restrict freedom” printed on Feb. 7. First, Doolen states that even if the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of an individual to bear arms, “ ... certain limits can be imposed upon the amendment. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but free speech is limited in a multitude of ways.” Wrong. There are very few proscriptions on the First Amendment. You are free to say or do (symbolic speech) almost anything that does not impose a real and immediate threat of violence, (i.e. a person may not stand up and yell “fire” in a crowded theater). The Supreme Court has ruled that prior restraint is unconstitutional. One may not infringe upon an individual’s right of free speech and prevent an innocent person from speaking for fear he may act in a careless or harmful manner, (i.e. yell “fire” in a theater). He is guaranteed the right to free speech. If he abuses that right and yells “fire”, then he may be prosecuted and denied speech. For law to be order and not chaos, it must be consistent. In the analogous precedent of the First Amendment, the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment cannot lie infringed upon. That is, prior restraint may not he used to deny an innocent individual the right to bear arms for fear he may act in a careless or harmful manner. If the right is abused, then that individual should be prosecuted and denied arms. Second, Doolen stated that “ ... there is no real, justifiable need for semi automatic weapons in America.” Wrong. The Second Amendment was specifically written to grant the individual the “right to bear arms” not “the right to hunt.” The framers of the Constitution were careful to enumerate this right to the individual as a check for a potentially abusive and oppressive government. This check in balance would provide a means for the successf ul overthrow of an abusive government by the people. Violent overthrow? Yes. Bloody overthrow? Yes. Abusive government? Could our system of government become abusive? Could Nixon bug the Watergate Complex? Could Reagan secretly sell arms to Iran? Could Congress raise their own pay $50,000 against the wish of 80 percent of the people? Could the government take 43 percent (7.65 percent Social Security plus 7.65 percent employer contribution Social Security plus 8 percent sales tax plus 15 percent federal income tax plus 5 percent miscellaneous, excise, property and tarriff taxes) of your paycheck in taxes? Could the National Guardshooi kill unarmed Kent State students? Doolen, the blood bath in China a have never happened and ended ill way it did if the Chinese had thenjl bear arms. I bird, Doolen stated that the pci the motto “(inns don’t kill people; people kill people’... is irrelevant.” Wrong. I o once again use thethea illustration, no law is going tostopi careless or harmful person fromvd “fire” — oidy the individual’s sensei morality and responsibility will. Likewise, no law is going to stop criminals from using guns to kill,™ prevent them f rom having access! them. Please, all of you liberals whose! are so broad that they are flat,pies understand this important point ! criminals are felons, t hey have no respect for law. Outlawingguns«t only mean that outlaws have guns People’s hearts that need to be changed — not the gun laws. In conclusion: I am notamemb the NRA, nor a radical wishing to overthrow the government, nor,dol own a handgun or assault rifle simply an individual who knows tin answer to our violent crime problei not more gun control, but a re structuring of our judicial andpeis systems. That is another subjecD'd of another day. Kevin Davis is a sophomore electrical engineering major. Adventures In Cartooning