Monday, April 15,199i
Graduating seniors should he allowed to register first
I
've registered for classes
for the last time.
Somehow, I thought it would be
different. I thought that maybe I
wouldn't be filled with anxiety caused
by the fear that I might not get into all
my classes. After all, I am a graduating
senior.
But when other business made me
walk past the incredibly long line of
people who were registering in the
honors program, and who were
registering before me, I decided that,
perhaps, anxiety was in order. That
anxiety made me feel compelled to take
the trouble to stand in the two and a
half hour line to register as a student
worker, only a day before my regularly
scheduled registration as a senior, for
fear I wouldn't get into one of the
Ellen Hobbs
Columnist
single-section classes I wanted to take.
And standing in that line gave me a
long time to think about the unfairness
of my fear. As an incoming freshman I
had been given the privilege of
registering after all of my fellow
Aggies. But as a graduating senior, I
don't ever get the privilege of
registering first.
It's true that student workers need to
be able to schedule their classes around
their jobs. Many of us wouldn't be able
to pay our tuition without that income.
And it's also true that being able to
^egiste^arl^s^^reatincentiv^o^^^
getting people to go into the honors
program. I have no doubt that many
honors graduates will be produced
because they have been enticed into
the program by early registration
privileges.
But it just doesn't follow that
graduating seniors should be made to
force themselves into classes they must
have to graduate in their last semester.
It doesn't even follow that graduating
seniors shouldn't get the choice of not
only the classes they've got to have,
but also the classes they merely want to
take.
A policy that would allow graduating
seniors to register first, before honors
students and student workers, would
cut down on the paperwork for
everyone involved in the "forcing"
process.
Departments wouldn't have to worry
about leaving so many open spaces in
classes for forcing in seniors who won't
graduate without certain classes.
Teaching faculty would be more free to
use the force spaces they do have to
allow promising students with fewer
hours a chance to get into upper-level
classes and show their stuff.
And let's face it: With the state
budget cuts, there are going to be fewer
classes available and more seniors
trying to force their way into them;
unless we come up with a solution.
Separating graduating seniors from
other seniors for registration is not an
unworkable idea. It could work two
ways:
★ The Stand-In-Line Method: This
would work just like student worker
registration. Graduating seniors would
get forms from their advisers
confirming their impending
graduation, just like student workers
get forms from their supervisors.
★ The Touch-Tone-Registration-
Method: Seniors with 16 or less hours
to graduate would be allowed to
register by phone for two days before
honors registration. Seniors who were
planning to take more than 16 hours
and graduate would have to get forms
from their advisers and get themselves
unblocked for registration during that
time. I think this probably is a better
method than standing in line.
Early registration for graduating
seniors would make life a little easier
on everyone. And even though being
able to say "reload" is nice, don't we
old elephants deserve a little
something more than that?
Ellen Hobbs is a senior journalism
major.
Press coverage distorts
coerced confessions case
On April 6, a Reader's Opinion was
published concerning the much-
publichzed Supreme Court decision
dealing with coerced confessions. The
opinion by Greg Buford made several
false assertions about what the Court
found in its decision and proceeded to
attack Presidents Reagan and Bush as
the architects of a " ... conservative
majority on the Supreme Court (that)
has managed to take away from the
American public a fundamental and
necessary tenet of our criminal justice
system." He also states that the Court
decision "... opens the door for
innumerable abuses of police power ...
by telling law enforcement officials
they can coerce confessions from
citizens who have been charged with a
crime."
The rather apocalyptic vision
presented in the Reader's Opinion is
based on the mistaken assumption that
the Court agreed "to allow illegally
obtained confessions to be used to
convict alleged criminals." If this were
the case, I probably would be running
around with a protest banner myself.
But fortunately, despite the inflated
rhetoric and all the slanted media
sound bites to the contrary, the truth is
much less insidious than what some
people would like us to believe.
In its decision, Arizona vs.
Fulminante, the Court did not change
the rules dictating what is and what is
not a coerced confession, and they
most certainly did not find that coerced
confessions are admissible as evidence
in a court of law. But before I try to
explain what the decision was, it might
be helpful to say something about the
case.
While he was in jail on another
charge, Fulminante admitted to FBI
informant Anthony Sarivola that when
his wife was in the hospital, he had
driven his stepdaughter to the desert
where he choked her, sexually
assaulted her and made hef beg for her
life, before shooting her twice in the
head. He confessed to Sarivola because
Sarivola told him he would protect him
from other inmates if he told him the
truth.
In its decision, the Court found that
because of Sarivola's offer to protect
Fulminante from the other prisoners,
the confession was coerced and,
therefore, inadmissible as evidence.
However, a majority of the Court also
ruled that if there had been sufficient
evidence other than the confession to
convict Fulminante, the admission of
Stephen Beck
Reader’s Opinion
the confession into the trial would be
treated as a "harmless error."
The point of the decision was that if a
confession is utilized in good faith, but
subsequently is found to be coerced, it
does not necessitate the conviction be
thrown out, if, in the opinion of the
Court, there was ample evidence to
convict without the confession. The
key point for people to realize is that
under no circumstances can a forced
confession be considered as admissible
evidence. Some people might question
the possibility of the prosecution using
a coerced confession in good faith, but
the possibility of honest error is aptly
demonstrated by the fact that only by a
5 to 4 margin did the justices find
Fulminante's confession coerced.
Additionally, the harmless error
analysis employed in this instance is
not a new or novel invention of the
present Supreme Court. Since the 1967
landmark decision in Chapman vs.
California, the Court has held that a
constitutional error does not
automatically require reversal of a
conviction if the error is found not to
have affected the outcome of the case,
and has recognized that most
constitutional errors can be harmless.
(See section II of the decision.)
I am particularly incensed by those
trying to make some warped
connection between this decision and
what happened in Los Angeles to
Rodney King. There is absolutely
nothing in the decision which would
suggest to any police officer anywhere
that coercion of a confession, especially
by violent means, is any less
reprehensible or illegal now than it has
ever been.
In light of the shoddy media
coverage of issues like this which
require more than a 10 second sound
bite to explain, it is understandable that
some people have gotten the wrong
impression about the decision.
Admittedly, there is much more to the
case than I have touched on in this
short opinion, but I hope I have made
things clear concerning the most
important aspects of the decision.
Stephen Beck is a senior electrical
engineering major.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Lisa Ann Robertson,
Editor —845-2647
Kathy Cox,
Managing Editor — 845-2647
Jennifer Jeffus,
Opinion Page Editor — 845-3314
Chris Vaughn,
City Editor — 845-3316
Keith Sartin,
Richard Tijerina,
News Editors — 845-2665
Alan Lehmann,
Sports Editor — 845-2688
Fredrick D. Joe,
Art Director — 845-3312
Kristin North,
Life Style Editor — 845-3313
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-sup
porting 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 opin
ions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty
or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion is published daily, except
Saturday, Sunday, holidays, exam periods,
and when school is not in session during fall
and spring semesters; publication is Tuesday
through Friday during the summer session.
Mail subscriptions are $20 per semester,
$40 per school year and $50 per full year:
845-2611. Advertising rates furnished on re
quest: 845-2696.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed Mc
Donald, Texas A&M University, College Sta
tion, TX 77843-1 111.
Second class postage paid at College Sta
tion, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas
A&M University, College Station TX 77843-
4111.
Mail Call
The Battalion is interested in hearing from its readers and welcomes all letters to the editor.
Please include name, classification, address and phone number on all letters. The editor reserves
the right to edit letters for style and length. Because of limited space, shorter letters have a better
chance of appearing. There is, however, no guarantee letters will appear. Letters may be brought
to 216 Reed McDonald or sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111.
Get off the homosexuality kick
EDITOR:
Give it a rest! I am really getting tired of the whole "ho
mosexuality fest" that's been going on in The Battalion.
And nothing turns my stomach more than a religion will
ing to compromise what it says it stands for.
If in fact, the Bible is what it claims to be, then it means
what it says and it says what it means. Leviticus 18:22,
Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy
1:8-10 make at least one thing clear — it is a perversion.
"The word became flesh — and through theologians it be
came words again."
If you are a Christian, you have an internal conflict.
You must balance unconditional love for your fellow man
based on your own integrity and the only allowable form
of hate — hating evil.
Don't get me wrong, homosexuals are not evil. Let me
put it to you like this. Low self-esteem is a perversion of
your concept of yourself. There are many forms of perver
sion: jealousy, greed, rape, incest, murder and the welfare
system. If you want to engage in jealousy, go ahead. You
will pay the price, not me. Just don't try to indoctrinate me
with your perversion.
1 know what I want, a female partner in life, peace and
happiness. Idealistically I know, but you must have a vi
sion of your goal before you will ever accomplish it. So get
on to another topic.
I really have no desire to understand homosexuals. Am
I closed-minded? Flighly probable. I just wonder why the
campus can't get off the homosexuality kick. I know I just
added to it, but I figured while I was at it — what the heck.
I think it's about high time we got onto something else.
Dale Legan '92
Another stupid fee
EDITOR:
This entire year, I have refrained from sending my
highly valued opinions to The Battalion opinion page. I can
restrain myself no longer.
I have to tell everyone how excited I am about the stu
dent referendum supporting the cable TV proposal. Just
think: I'll get to pay for others to watch cable TV. Thank
you, fellow Aggies, for giving me this privilege.
As long as we are sharing in such a communist fashion,
there are a few things I would like. Why don't we provide
them for everyone:
□ George Michael pin-ups.
□ Minnie Mouse T-shirts.
□ Ne w Kids on the Block paraphernalia — all of it.
n Vomit-patterned baggy weightlifting pants.
n The clapper.
Now, if everyone will just pay $100 per semester, we
can have all of these things for this small fee. We can call it
the another stupid fee fee. I'll get back to you soon with
more details.
Jason West '94
Jesus lives today
EDITOR:
In response to Cecil N. Bedford's letter in Mail Call on
"Inspired word of God," I would just like to draw attention
to Jesus Christ and His feelings toward mankind today.
Jesus Christ, God's only son, dearly loves every human
being (every Aggie). He wants every person to understand
Him and to have a real, honest and sincere relationship
with Him (1 Timothy 2:4).
He wants the absolute best for every individual and it
does not matter whether a person is hetero or homosexual,
upper, middle or lowerclass, white, black, yellow or what
ever (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 6:11).
Jesus will accept and love any person at any time,
whether they understand Him or not, and whether they
have said incorrect things about Him in the past or not —
so long as they acknowledge Him and turn to Him for the
forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12, 6:37).
People always will misunderstand Jesus (and Chris
tianity) and defame His name, until the end of time (John
15:18-25). Nevertheless, Jesus does not change (Mai. 3:6,
Hebrews 13:8).
He weeps for the lost and calls them "back home" to
Himself every second, until the end comes (Matthew 9:36,
Revelations 20:11-15). Jesus told a skeptic of His day(Nic-
odemus): "For God did not send his Son into the world to
condemn the world, but to save the world through Him"
(John 3:17).
Jesus lives today. He's real and He's not in the business
of condemning people — only loving them and saving
them.
H. C. Ross'94
Aggies helping other Aggies
EDITOR:
During the past four and a half years, I have been pleas
antly reminded of the original reasons I chose to come to
Aggieland.
Those reasons included the University's excellent aca
demic credentials, the friendly atmosphere and the down
to-earth student body, plus the rich Aggie traditions.
Recently, I have been fortunate enough to experience
another characteristic more common to Aggies thanproba
bly any other group of individuals. I am speaking of theex
ceptional loyalty Aggies have for each other.
Early in the fall of 1989, I lost my Aggie ring at the
Southwood Valley Athletic Complex. After a number of
unsuccessful attempts at trying to find my ring, I ended up
ordering a second one.
Two weeks ago (over one and a half years later), I re
ceived a phone call from a sophomore named Daniel San-
tellana.
Daniel had been playing soccer at Southwood Valley
when he noticed something shiny in the grass. After dig
ging up my ring, Daniel did what most students from
other institutions would not have done.
He tracked down my phone number through informa
tion and called me once he returned home. Daniel even
went to the trouble of cleaning my ring before returning it
to me.
Of course, I am thankful and deeply impressed with
Daniel's selfless and honorable actions. I also look forward
to the friendship that will grow between the two of us in
the future.
Most of us have heard stories of Aggies helping other
Aggies. I just want other Aggies to know that there is a
good chance they too could experience the strong ties that
bind each of us together, even though we might not know
one another.
I would also like to take this chance to tell Daniel
"Thanks," once again.
Brian Burdorf'91
Bible says what it means
EDITOR:
In response to the April 8 front-page article about ho
mosexuality not being condemned in the Bible, I must
strongly dis agree.
First of all, what the Bible says is what the Bible means
It is not our place to "interpret" what the Bible says be
cause:
f~1 God directly inspired the prophets to write what is
contained in the Old Testament.
□ The apostle Paul knew exactly what he was writing
in his letters in the New Testament, and Paul knew a W
more about God's intent than Helminiak could ever hope
to know.
Romans 1:32 clearly states, "they that commit such
things are worthy of death," referring to homosexual ads
in verses 26 and 27. If that is not a condemnation, then!
don't know what is.
And in Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shall not lie with man
kind as with womankind; it is an abomination." Helminial
disputes the meaning of the word "abomination." This
word has no significance in the purpose of this verse. K
clearly says, "you shall not do it," meaning to commit such
an act would be a sin. And all sins are equal in God's eyes,
whether it be lying, committing homosexual acts or mur
der.
I don't claim to be an expert on Bible interpretation, but
no one needs to be an expert to understand what these
passages are trying to say.
Mike Miertschin'94
■r
Fir
wi
air
Con
of the
opmer
early
Colleg
Parks £
"Arc
signs ;
ing pk
should
Ono
the Co
constn
Phase 1
"If t:
late Ju
structic
ber," B
The i
timatec
include
ils and
about
Beachy
Phas
extensi
an are;
be twee
east by
Ex
SAN
wells tb
or negle
soned
stroyed
Texas,
who wa
tervene
Hunc