The Battalion
OPINION
Wednesday, October 24,1990
Opinion Page Editor Ellen Hobbs
President correct in veto of ‘civil rights’ act
G
There is nothing like a little senseless
political rhetoric to liven a day.
“The president’s actions demonstrate
that he is more interested in appeasing
the extremists in his own party than in
providing simple justice for the millions
of working women and minorities,”
cried Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
This quote was in reaction to
President Bush’s veto of the Civil Rights
Act of 1990. The whole liberal
establishment is moaning over this
“setback” in civil rights.
This bill deserved to die. Though it
sported the politically savvy words “civil
rights” in its title (Who is against civil
rights?), this bill has little relationship to
stronger civil rights. A more
appropriate title would have been the
“Quota Installment and Lawyers
Bonanza Act of 1990”.
The chief supporters of the bill were
attempting to remedy the perceived
injuries to the civil rights cause
perpetrated by the recent rulings by the
Supreme Court. The case in question
was Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio.
The plaintiffs in Wards Covecharged
that the management had been
discriminating against Filipinos,
Eskimos and Aleuts. They tried to prove
this by showing that the aforementioned
groups worked mostly in the cannery
positions, while most of the
management, non-cannery jobs were
held by whites.
The justices were not convinced. The
Supreme Court held that statistical
imbalances between employment
representation and the overall
population did not constitute proof of
Andrew
Matthews
Columnist
discrimination. Employees had to show
which specific actions of the company
discriminated against a group’s
representation in the firm.
The so-called civil rights activists were
furious at the decision. If the courts
would not push the liberal agenda, then
Congress would have to circumvent the
courts.
The Civil Rights Act of 1990 tries to
reverse the Wards decision and make it
easier to win discrimination lawsuits.
This bill enables plaintiffs to simply
show that employer hiring practices in
general had resulted in a “disparate
impact” on a certain minority or gender
class. It would not matter that no
discrimination was intended, the
employer would have to show that these
practices were “required by business
necessity.”
A plaintiff need not even have to
show which specific actions are
discriminatory. All they have to show is
the firm does not have the right amount
of a certain group.
Writing in opposition to the bill, Sen.
Orrin Hatch described the ramifications
of the bill:
“Rather than shift to the employer
the burden of producing evidence
explaining its employment practices,
with the plaintiff retaining the ultimate
burden ot persuasion, a burden of
persuasion shifts to the employer, i.e.,
the employer must prove an affirmative
defense.
“This seemingly technical change is
highly significant: it makes racial,
ethnic, and gender imbalance alone
illegal. Unless every job is virtually a
perfect match with the appropriate
outside labor market, the employer is
guilty of discrimination.”
The net result of the legislation
would be for companies to protect
themselves from potential lawsuits by
installing quotas. Sen. Kennedy claims
otherwise, but businesses are a better
judge of their own actions.
President Bush should be
commended for vetoing the bill. It takes
political courage to veto a bill with the
words “civil rights” in the title. He knew
that the bill would not establish stronger
civil rights or create more economic
opportunities. Instead, lawyers would
reap huge awards from punitive
damage awards, and companies would
weigh non-job-related factors such as
gender and race over job qualifications.
The goal of a non-racist/sexist society
is to eliminate such characteristics as
criteria for economic decision making.
Yet, civil rights activists constantly are
trying to force individuals to downplay
merit and emphasize ethnicity. Then,
qualified minorities who earned their
positions have to live with the stigma
that they did not really earn their way.
They would always be having to prove
that they were not just a quota
fulfillment.
That is what the Civil Rights Act of
1990 would have accomplished:
defensive females and minorities, and
bitter white males who feel they were
cheated out of a job. Is this how we want
our society to develop? A look at the
situation in India would show how
quotas can polarize society and result in
racial violence.
Let’s take heed to Rev. MartinLu4<
King’s immortal words and judge
people “not by the color of ourskinkt
by the content of our character.”
veto leads us one step closer to th
vision.
Andrew Matthews is a senior
economics major.
Re;
By JOE
Of The
Mail Call
Matthews needs history lesson
EDITOR:
After reading Andrew Matthews’ article in the October 9th issue ofTke
Battalion, it seems that he needs a lesson in economic history.
According to Matthews, increased tax rates will result in lower economic
activity thus lower tax revenues. If this argument is true, lower tax rates
increase tax revenues.
One need only to look at the early 80s and see that this belief doesn’t work
Under the Reagan Administration, the supply-side economists convinced
Reagan that decreased tax rates would loosen up investment, increase net tan
revenue and decrease the deficit in the process. Now in the 90s, we are
with a record budget deficit and a Congress that is failing to meet this deficit
head on.
Matthews’ proposal for a balanced budget amendment would magnifytlie
effects on the business cycle. In times of economic decline, government revc
nues would decline due to a decrease in consumption, income and business
expenditures. This constitutional hindrance woidd force the government to
cut spending, including public works projects, defense and other programs
employing thousands of people. The net result would be a multiplying effect
throughout the economy making the decline even worse. In times of reces
sion, the government should be increasing spending to counter the effectso!
decreased business activity; even at the cost of having a deficit. Likewise
opposite would be true for times of economic growth.
Horn
feet ad'
tual acf
byaTe
“Pan
factors
school'
lute ac
achieve
Selin
chology
vey for
His ;
conduc
Both
a predi
cents in
Schn
eludes
achieve
test sco
The
Matthew J. Nelson ’91
Rick Perry: Best choice for Ag Commissioner
The Texas Agriculture
Commissioner’s race offers one of the
clearest choices between two distinctive
candidates of any election being held
this fall. As is often the case, the
underdog challenger, Rick Perry, is by
far the most qualified candidate.
Jim Hightower, the Democratic
incumbent, is a liberal’s liberal. He has
used what was traditionally an
unnoticed elected position as a
springboard for higher political
ambitions — a U.S. Senate seat.
Hightower has paraded around the
Larry
’ "lii
Cox
1%
Columnist
| ;
» - -
country for the past eight years dressed
like a drugstore cowboy, promoting his
leftist social agenda at Farm Aid
concerts and rallies around the nation.
Rick Perry, the Republican
challenger, is everything that
Hightower isn’t. As a staunchly
conservative farmer and rancher from
Haskell, in west Texas, Perry is in touch
with the agriculturalists of our state.
Perry is a fifth-generation farmer and
rancher. He is a 1972 graduate of Texas
A&M, where he received a degree in
animal science and served as a yell
leader. After a stint as a pilot in the Air
Force, he came back home to serve
three terms in the Texas House of
Representatives, where he was named
one of the ten most effective legislators
in 1989 by the Dallas Morning News.
In his eight years in office, Jim
Hightower has completely alienated
himself from the farmers and ranchers
of the state. A journalist by training, he
has called innumerable press
conferences to help promote his liberal
agenda, while putting the states’
farmers and ranchers on the back
burner.
Let’s look at some of his brighter
moments. In 1988, Hightower was the
first statewide elected official in the
South to endorse Jesse Jackson for the
presidency (Mike Dukakis was too
conservative?). A year later, he fasted
with Caesar Chavez to protest pesticides
and migrant farm worker rights.
When European politicians erected
trade barriers to American beef,
Hightower went behind the backs of the
federal government and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture in siding
with the Europeans.
He touts himself as the “people’s Ag
Commissioner,” but after calling
President Bush “the hind end of a
horse” and saying it was “stupid for us
to make a big fuss about” people who
burn the American flag, it’s unlikely
that his views are the populist
ponderings which he makes them out to
be.
During his tenure in office,
Hightower has stressed exotic crops
such as Belgian endive and Chinese
cabbage, to the exclusion of the
traditional cash crops. Perry wants to
return the focus of the Texas
Department of Agriculture to basic
farming such as cattle, cotton, and feed
crops — 99.9 percent of the $30 billion a
year which agriculture contributes to
the Texas economy. He intends to put
his emphasis on farm production rather
than political gain.
Given his behavior, it’s no wonder
that Hightower isn’t popular with
farmers and ranchers. That’s why every
Ag!
A g
host £
Pore I
Whit<
MS'
major agricultural group in thestatcis
backing Perry, from the Farm Bureau
to the Texas and SouthwesternCatilf
Raisers to citrus and vegetable grow
to cotton growers to pork producers,
Hightower has played on thepuit
fear of chemicals by railing againsttlit
“chemical interests” which heclaitns
dominate state agriculture and control
the ag economy. It’s easy to tell the
urban masses what they want to he
order to get their vote, but the fact
remains that chemicals and pesticides
are necessary to provide the stable
cheap food supply to which they are
accustomed. Integrated manageraeni
practices and minimal chemical useate
certainly prudent steps, but pinning
Bogey-man label on the chemical
companies in order to win votes is
flawed and deceptive.
Perry is a realist. He wants to expami
exports and process Texas products®
Texas. He also wants to re-establish tits
with national organizations and federal
agencies which have been strainedor
severed under Hightower’s abusive
reign.
In its endorsement of Rick Peitylafl
week, the Houston Chronicle pointed
out that a working farmer or rancher
hasn’t held the Ag Commissioner’s
for 40 years. That’s way too long,
Jim Hightower is simply an ambitie
liberal Democratic politician who is
waiting for Lloyd Bentsen to step don
in 1994 so that he can step into his
shoes. He has no farm background,®!
absolutely no idea what a pairofworl
boots are used for.
Considering the troubles which
agriculture and the family farmerha«
faced during the decade of the 80's,do
them a favor. Put a working rancherio
charge of their futures’ direction,non
career politician.
Vote for Rick Perry for Ag
Commissioner on November 6.
Larry Cox is a graduate student in
range science.
MS
its a i
Day tt
floor c
Rep
and b
able t
their t
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Cindy McMillian,
Editor
Timm Doolen, Managing Editor
Ellen Hobbs, Opinion Page Editor
Holly Becka, City Editor
Kathy Cox,
Kristin North,
News Editors
Nadja Sabawala,
Sports Editor
Eric Roalson, Art Director
Lisa Ann Robertson,
Lifestyles Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-sup
porting newspaper operated as a commu
nity service to Texas A&M and Bryan-
College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion
are those of the editorial board or the au
thor, 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 regu
lar semesters, except for holiday and ex
amination periods. Newsroom: 845-3313.
Mail subscriptions are $20 per semes
ter, $40 per school year and $50 per full
year: 845-2611. Advertising rates fur
nished on request: 845-2696.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed
McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station, TX 77843-1111.
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.
Adventures In Cartooning by Don Atkinson Ji
mmr vesmcH
mcMs imr ms
COMfC STRIP IS Am/lVG
SOUS MSOR MISTAKES'
/ MO SET., MO 'bOEes,
NO dGSR, AO EOCUim'
otezf nrs a mm
wms pews < rOj ,
rt or.' J
7ft£ PUBLIC WANTS "m
SAMPSONS," 'Cftum AMP
NOB&CST "7PC FRR S/D6.'
not m/s opinion Arm,
66LF-Sm/fM6 STUFF
FOO GOVS DOT
V