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