The Battalion
•OPINION* 2
Wednesday, November 7, 1990
Opinion Page Editor Ellen Hobbs 845-331i
1990 Civil Rights bill supporter boos Bush’s veto
Gra
President Bush’s recent veto of the
1990 Civil Rights bill has evoked strong
reactions from all quarters. Leading
liberal and civil rights groups have
termed it a step backwards, while
conservative groups, terming the bill a
“quota bill,” have, in general, hailed the
veto. Both sides present strong
arguments in favor of their opinions.
But the chief point in this controversy
has been — was this a quota bill?
The origins of the controversy
regarding some of the bill’s provisions
can be traced back to the landmark 1971
Griggs vs. Duke Power ruling. In this
ruling, the Supreme Court declared
that the historic 1964 CivliRights Act
covered not only instances of overt
discrimination, but also business
practices that resulted in favoring one
group over another, i.e., indirect
discrimination. The Griggs ruling also
shifted the burden of justifying such a
business practice to the employer. In
other words, the employer, not the
plaintiff, was required to prove that the
business practice was necessary to the
job under consideration.
Sarang
Shidore
Coltimnlst
However, in 1989, the Supreme
Court essentially reversed the Griggs
ruling. In the Wards Cove Packing vs.
Atonio case, the court allowed
businesses the ground of “business
necessity” in justifying hiring practices.
Furthermore, it shifted to the plaintiff
the burden of proof of proving that the
business practice under consideration
was “discriminatory.”
Undoubtedly, the Wards Cove ruling
was unfair. It is unreasonable to expect
a victim of discrimination to prove that
the business practice which resulted in a
lower representation of minority groups
was discriminatory. Not only are his or
her financial resources meagre as
compared to the employer, but, more
importantly, it is almost impossible for
such a person to obtain detailed
information about the company’s hiring
Garages don’t insure
dorm students’ safety
A few weeks ago, a Battalion editorial
advocated allowing off-campus students
to park in the parking garage. The
editorial addressed the issues of
convenience and fairness, not, as
subsequent letters to the editor pointed
out, safety.
It’s true, the safety of on-campus
students who have to park in remote
parking areas has to be addressed, but
giving them priority in parking garages
is not the best way to increase their
safety.
The parking garage at Northgate was
not designed to keep students safe, only
cars. When the Northgate garage was
opened, both on- and off-campus
students were able to get spaces there.
If the garage had been designed for
the safety of dorm students, it probably
would look slightly different. The
parking service officers’ guardroom
would probably be on the side of the
garage nearest the residence halls where
it would be easier to monitor the safety
of students going to the halls, for
example.
Maybe if it were really meant to keep
on-campus students safe, it would have
been built in an area closer to more
halls. There are only two women’s halls
adjacent to the garage (and usually,
when people worry about the safety of
students, they are worrying about
women) and one men’s dorm.
Women who don’t live in Hobby or
Neeley Halls have to walk at least a block
and a half to reach their hall, and the
protection of the parking garage space
ends pretty much as soon as you walk
out the garage doors.
The new garage on the south side is
in a central location to many women’s
halls, and therefore more safe for the
students who park there. But there is a
catch.
It’s expensive to get a space in the
garage. It cost $200 a year.
But wait, there’s more! The women’s
dorms nearest the parking garages are
the most expensive dorms on campus.
What does that mean to you and me?
It means if you want to be really safe,
you’ve got to be able to afford the
highest-priced dorms and parking
spaces on campus.
Not everybody can afford that, right?
And many of the people about whose
0k
Ellen
Hobbs
Opinion Page Editor
safety we are most concerned, those
who have jobs off-campus and may not
be able to park until after dark, must
work so they can afford school. They’re
exactly the sort of people who may not
be able to afford the luxuries of garage
parking and modular dorms.
That just sucks. We should be able to
park and get to our cars safely no matter
how much money we have.
Several semesters ago a woman was
abducted from the fish lot, raped,
stabbed and left for dead. All this
happened in broad daylight. And the
reaction from the rest of the students?
They got scared.
These scared students wanted to be
safe, so they asked for parking spaces
closer to their dorms. And they were
given some spaces — the parking garage
spaces.
What they should have done was
demand that action be taken
immediately to stop crime in the remote
parking areas, areas in which some
dorm students will always have to park.
If you’ve been to an airport parking
lot in an urban area you’ve probably
seen the manned towers that guard the
safety of parked cars and their
passengers while they’re in the parking
lot. Texas A&M should have that type
of system in its remote parking areas.
And students should demand it.
It’s gonna cost money. If they’ve got
to spend some money that’s been
earmarked for athletic facilities or
something like that, who cares? It’s the
lives and health of students we’re
talking about here.
When you graduate from A&M, they
give a little speech about how when
you’re out in the real world, Aggies take
care of their own.
Why not take care of their own when
they’re still here?
Ellen Hobbs is a senior journalism
major.
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-
Colle^e 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.
policies. Therefore, it is only reasonable
to expect the employer to establish his
argument by citing specific hiring
statistics, or policy directives.
Another major objection to the
Wards Cove ruling was that it
incorporated the concept of “business
necessity” for the purpose of justifying a
hiring practice. Indeed, there are
restrictions which employers must
establish during the hiring process, such
as those relating to technical expertise,
or communication skills, as long as they
directly pertain to the objectives of the
job. Such restrictions are universally
accepted as being valid. However, the
ill-defined concept of “business
necessity” is beyond the reasonable.
Such a concept would, for example,
justify airlines hiring only pretty
stewardesses for inflight jobs.
The 1990 Civil Rights bill was
designed precisely to restore the status
quo which existed before Wards Cove,
and in fact, explicitly states this in so
many words. However, in opposing the
bill, prominent White House
conservatives, such as Attorney General
Dick Thornburgh, argued that it was a
“quota bill,” as it would have resulted in
employers establishing hiring by quotas
to avoid litigation that might result from
an unfair business practice.
Such an argument falls flat when
confronted with the fact that, in the 18
years that have passed since the Griggs
ruling, there has been no evidence
whatsoever that it resulted in quotas, a
fact admitted by opponents of the bill
themselves. In fact, during all the
endless debating of the bill on the floor
of the House, the bill’s opponents could
not cite even one such instance.
Liberal Democrats are not the only
ones who contend that the proposed
legislation was not a quota measure. In
addition to the 55 Democrats in the
Senate, 11 Republicans voted to
override the veto.
Many prominent organizations
opposed to quotas also supported this
bill. For example the powerful Jewish
group B’nai B’rith, which has
vehemently opposed quotas in the past,
strongly supported the bill.
An administration serious aboutdvi
rights would have fully supported this
bill which directly affects more thanhal
of all working Americans. An
administration sensitive to thecauseofl
social justice, would not have caved ir.:,
pressure from the extreme right.
Instead, this administration haschosei
to turn the clock backwards on civil
rights.
By vetoing the 1990 Civil Rights bill
President bush has earned the dubious
distinction of being only the third
president to have vetoed a civil rights
measure. (In 1866, Andrew Johnson
vetoed a bill guaranteeing protection
for newly freed slaves, and in 1984,
President Reagan vetoed the Civil
Rights Restoration bill.)
Perhaps the president cast his veto
out of ideological reasons. Perhaps he
did it to shake of his image of
indecisiveness. Whatever may the
reasons be, he has lost the support of
the countless Americans who also have 1 -
dream.
By KEVIN M
Of The Battal
Waving Ai
ing stickers,
ered Tuesdi
Station Hike
didates.
In additio
politicians, L
U.S. Sen. PI
gathering.
When it
voted him t
landslide of
Gramm, his
I him, address
“If there ii
i democracy,
leader can 1
Washington
back home,”
“Tonight
have given r
more work c
men and wo;
grateful for t
Sarang Shidore is a graduate student
Gramm al
is an incum
anti-incumb
“Tonight
are saying, ‘
he said, ref
tions, prove
here and th
cal Democr;
Tuesday nig
Bill McG
fal Democr:
he believes
Brazos Cou
mng to que
Republican
“People c
isn’t this the
before?’ am
realize we (i
ing with th
said while v
at the Rama
the Brazo
Party.
Reaction;
started the
some conf
race, howev
terest of me
When (
Richards as
Shanty-bashers express beliefs
EDITOR:
I walked past the wreckage of the symbolic shanty be
hind the Academic Building recently. After the initial dis
gust with the way the litter was cluttering my visual field
of the campus, I was angered. Angered by the fact that
anyone would seek to nullify the freedom of expression
of those who had erected the shanty.
But then I had to stop myself. Wasn’t the destruction a
form of expression also? Maybe the so called “racists” are
nothing more than realists. Maybe the reality is that it is
noble, but surprisingly easy, to erect a symbolic shanty
with nails and two-by-fours.
It is very easy to spray-paint signs which scream “stop
oppression”. And it is definitely easy to condemn apart
heid in South Africa while standing in Brazos County.
Maybe the realists realize that once South Africa chooses
to shed its cloak of apartheid which leaves many out in
the cold, maybe the activists will turn their efforts toward
addressing inequalities here in the United States, Texas
or even Bryan-College Station, as uncomfortably close to
home that is.
On the other hand, maybe no one will mess with the
status quo in Texas, precisely because it is uncomfortably
close to home.
The public service announcement asks: “It’s eight
o’clock, do you know the plight of the destitute in South
Africa?” The answer is “yes”. But when the question is
“It’s eight o’clock, do you know the plight of the destitute
in your back yard?”, the answer is “no”.
Condemning another country’s bankrupt established
social system is noble, even if morally imperialistic. Build
ing a shanty is noble, even if comfortable. The over
whelming fact is that the forces of change within South
Africa are likely to bring justice to that country, with or
without our symbolic shanties. On the other hand, if we
don’t feed and clothe the poor in our community, then
who will?
The question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” has two an
swers. My South African brother, “yes”. My Bryan-Col
lege Station brother, “no”. How vulgar! How comfort
able!
governor,
more than f
Merinda
Aggies for
believes on<
exciting wa
true chan
elections.
“With A:
people of
that no am
the govern'
a junior p
Texas A&N
She said
Tim Truesdale
graduate student
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, ad
dress and telephone number of the writer. All letters may be brought to 216 Reed
McDonald, or sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111.
ocratic cam
dealt with c
“Ann sti
voters knev
dra said. “
clearly was
Anothei
agreed will
time one p;
ical to Texz
Stephen
gie Democi
ards’ victor
her oppor
ence.
“With a
gaffes, I’m
Cor
Adventures In Cartooning
by Don Atkinson Ji lipd
AUSTIN
constitutior
til GOP g
couldn’t re«
The ame
ate con fir n
approval w
percent op
The arm
appointees
serve until
In an ini
asked how
over his a
much abou
Democr:
seized on f
land oilma
governor.
Followii:
what had t
a victory o>
The pre
ments was