{Tuesday, July 30,199?
Opinion
8 s
ears, 26,
Wed the i
!989 at t
[01186, at
he skull nj>
^ed into!
skull |
5 of 10 mt Some of you may have heard the fu-
*r> the apt- ror in the news a while back about the
way Texas school funding was ruled
Lovejoy,; unconstitutional. Most or you were
“nt State L't probably somewhere between "yeah,
1 thigh bo: so?" and "huh?" in your reactions to
parents'fe the news.
* it probat Basically the courts ruled that it was
[ Joseph Q not fair for schools in rich neighbor-
-ounty co f hoods to get more money than schools
in poor neighborhoods. So how does
K ris affect you?
As a possible future college grad
ate, you are more than likely going to
!p>e one of the elite, the top 20 percent of
PimtK the people who make 50 percent of the
till It: wealth in this country. Your piece of
• paper will get you 160 percent of what
I2n someone without it is going to take
w home. You are going to be the ones liv
ing in the rich neighborhoods and your
hildren are going to be attending
hose schools. Your tax money how-
ver is going to go in part to support
ome little school somewhere down
round Brownsville and other poorer
ections of the state. Your children are
not going to be able to get the kind of
ducation they could if all your money
^ent to their schools.
However, that attitude ignores some
ery relevant realities. For a company
o choose to locate in an area, either it
as to be able to do so more cheaply
han in other possible sites or it has to
e able to get something at the site it
an't get elsewhere. There is always
oing to be somewhere that a company
an locate more cheaply than the
nited States, where they can find peo-
le who will work for less, that doesn't
equire costly environmental controls,
ith lower taxes, etc. So to get a com-
any to locate in the United States we
ave got to offer them something they
an't get elsewhere, and the object all
companies want that is always in short
The Battalion
Page 7
We need to educate
the state's poor, too
Michael Litchfield
Columnist
ives
p>
- with A1E
names, i
tients, to
idate who-
1 the peopl
es.
ie Candida:
but medic
the docte
lightmarii
agine tk
paign pre
o a doctci
ur Capk
for biomK
aiversity
s acknov
t of nantf
o colleaj
a p porter-
a tic cand-
then gait
mpaign.
s a list:
tibers fra;
* said sons
its, but no
iie couldr
jwn.
a doctc
t give or
i of peops
t," Jenkir;
supply is a skilled, educated work
force. We cannot compete with the
third and fourth worlds for cheapness,
so we have to compete on quality.
Unfortunately our workforce is not
all that great: we rank below the Japa
nese, we are sliding below the Western
European nations and soon the Ko
reans and the rest of the "Four Drag
ons" may outstrip us.
We have to support the public school
system. We have to educate all of our
citizens and not with the tired rote
learning that is popular in so many of
our school systems, but a flexible edu
cation that teaches our children how to
solve problems and reason, not just re
gurgitate what some underpaid wretch
just wrote on a blackboard. This is not
cheap. The students going to the
schools in the rich neighborhoods are
getting it, or at least a closer approxi
mation than the poor schools get. It is
not enough for the elite to be educated;
the entire workforce must be educated
and capable of performing complex,
challenging tasks. Doing that is going
to take money, your money because
you are going to be the ones who have
it. Neither can you pull your kids out of
the public system and place them in
private schools, for that will make a
ghetto our public system. We are going
to have to pay more and more for the
excesses and shortsightedness of our
parents, and hopefully we might have
a countiy worth something to give to
our children.
Michael Litchfield is a senior psychol
ogy major.
h
>
Soviets re
■cisions o:
had ware
America:
nedia cot
fe. Thedf
red weri
and eat
d Ivan U
to Busk
d newspa
>h playiK
1 his thy
sd his sot
t the sat
and df
untry mo
es of Got
ippear or
• •
Mail
/ r
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. There is no guarantee
letters will appear. Letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald, sent to Campus
Mail Stop 1111 or can be faxed to 845-5408.
Youth program did not waste water
EDITOR:
Contrary to the letter to the editor regarding excessive shower water
use, the Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU) Program was, in fact, not
the responsible party Richard Szecsy accused of wasting water at Cain
Pool. The YOU Program does not use the swimming facilities in mass. At
the most, we have had five or six students at the pool for either swimming
lessons or practice for the YOU Olympics. Even then, they used the pool in
the evening under the direct supervision of the headmaster of the program
and an accompanying pool staff lifeguard.
Furthermore, YOU students are in classes for four hours per day and
work the remaining four hours. Our students have done an outstanding
job overall of upholding the high standard of the YOU Program and Texas
A&M University. Anyone who feels that our students are misusing our
campus is encouraged to contact our office at 845-3304. Because of our lim
ited pool accessibility, it is evident that a different student group was re
sponsible for the shower abuse around Cain Pool.
Jon Turton
assistant headmaster
Texas A&M YOU Program
Judge Thomas' critics reveal
growing divisions among blacks
As a consequence of my lack of con
trol over my genetic heritage, I am a
white man. As such, it is a risky en
deavor for this columnist to present the
following criticism of some clack lead
ers in this country. Nevertheless, I em
bark on just such a venture in the fol
lowing text. My motive in writing this
article is not to criticize or poke fun at
blacks; rather, it is to generate thought
and discussion in this age of multicul-
turalism.
The impetus for this "politically in
correct" article is a recent Washington
Post editorial by the chair of the politi
cal science department of Howard Uni
versity, Dr. Ronald Walters. Walters,
who happens to be both black and of
the liberal persuasion, wrote that Su
preme Court nominee Clarence
Thomas "will be found out not to be
the 'black' nominee to the (Supreme
Court), because 'blackness' ultimately
means more than color. It also means a
set of values from which Thomas is ap
parently estranged."
More than just an attack on Thomas,
Walters leaves the reader with a clear
implication; that is, all blacks should
share the same set of beliefs, values
and perspectives on life. But it is not
just this outspoken professor who pro
motes this idea. Similar sentiments
were expressed at the NAACP conven
tion several weeks ago by Rev. Jesse
Jackson and NAACP President Benja
min Hooks.
I have a hard time buying into the ar
gument that blacks, as a race, don't
have ideological or value differences.
To propose that the black population
should, because of historical circum
stances, hold similar political perspec
tives is almost as ludicrous as claiming
that all whites should hold to the same
views, or that we are all out to "get the
blacks."
Sure, an individual's belief system is
often developed through family.
Trey Jacobson
Columnist
"To propose that the black
population should, because
of historical circumstances,
hold similar political
perspectives is almost as
ludicrous as claiming that
all whites should hold to
the same views, or that we
are all out to 'get the
friends, teachers and other powerful
influences early in life. For blacks
growing up in the face of discrimina
tion, one might believe that they will
cling to similar perspectives. However,
such a model fails to take into account
the socialization of black men and
women into various organizations, so
cioeconomic classes and relationships
outside the black community.
The suggestion by Walters seems
more implausible when one considers
that more and more blacks are better
educated and are assuming prestigious
leadership positions in both the private
and public sectors. Moreover, the in
come levels of certain members of the
black community have been rising. It
makes sense to predict that segments
of the black population will become
conservative or even Republican. Thus,
the growing prominence of conserva
tive blacks such as Thomas, Stanford
Professor Thomas Sowell, former Am
bassador Alan Keyes and Connecticut
Rep. Gary Franks may not be a devia
tion from the right at all, but instead a
reflection of a burgeoning population
of conservative blacks.
To squash this new element and to
maintain group identity, many blacks
seem to suppress original individual
actions and thoughts by labeling other
blacks with names like "Uncle Tom." If
a black person criticizes redistributive
social programs, he is often called in
sensitive to his own race. Call me igno
rant, but aren't such claims a little ex
treme? Heck, is it so wrong for fellow
students or Thomas to act indepen
dently of the political leanings of the
NAACP?
It also seems to me that the apparent
ideological and politicaT division occur
ring in the black community is indi
rectly linked to ways of perceiving the
actions of the white population. Sup
pose for instance that a prominent
black economics professor, like Sowell
of the Hoover Institute, supports the
affirmative action policies of President
Bush and many Republicans. Is Sowell,
therefore, a racist like Bush is pur
ported to be? Although the question is
an inconsequential one, it brings to
light the clouding of the once dichoto
mous labels. Now, a white man might
not be so easily tagged as a racist for his
conservative beliefs.
Obviously, the examination of
Thomas' values has sped up the exami
nation of race politics in this country.
However, not only are the claims of
quotas being called into question, but
so are claims of racial unity among the
black population. From this, what will
happen is anyone's guess. But one
might hope, as I do, that the outra
geous comments of liberal blacks in this
country, especially from a highly
placed professor like Walters, will be
come increasingly ignored.
Trey Jacobson is a graduate student in
public administration.
Will new justice bring moderation or end to conservatism?
and
You've hoped and prayed ai
id bitched about it for vears.
and cried
years. You've
nent
• *
all sat around in nostalgic stupors la
menting its passage. The flower chil
dren walking around in tie dyes and
sandals have thought of nothing else
since Woodstock. The guys in three-
piece suits have lost themselves in it
through "Leave it to Beaver" reruns
and White House press conferences.
Well it's finally here, and I hope you're
all satisfied. What I'm talking about is
the past, and with President Bush on
the verge of putting yet another conser
vative on the Supreme Court, it is defi
nitely upon us.
Now that the country is about to be
thrust into the 1950s, we might ask our
selves a question that many Americans
were asking themselves three and a
half decades ago. Does the Supreme
Court have too much power and not
enough checks on their ability to exer
cise it? In 1955 the answer from most
southern Americans, and a few stu
dents of the court, would have been a
resounding "yes." Of course, if the
court, under the guidance of Chief Jus
tice Earl Warren, hadn't had the power
to make bold policy changes then, the
country's school system might still be
segregated, and black Americans might
have much fewer rights than they have
now. But, does the end justify the
Reagon Clamon
Columnist
means?
In his eagerness to bring justice for
the forgotten minorities of America,
Warren's court blazed a trail through
the already well-traveled loopholes in
the Constitution. Many of the decisions
made during this period of the court's
history either intentionally or indirectly
expanded the courts powers to a point
not seen since Chief Justice John Mar
shall created judicial review in 1803,
giving the court the power to declare
an act of congress unconstitutional. In
Cooper v. Aaron (1958), one of the de
cisions most responsible for the expan
sion of the Warren Court's power, the
court stated that previous decisions
could be held as general principles; in
other words, they were law. Suddenly,
the Warren Court was making laws
without having to worry about appro
val from another branch and with no
bothersome constituents looking over
their shoulders. As Justice Warren him
self put it: "We serve no majority. We
serve no minority. We serve only
public interest as we see it."
ly the
Not many would now contest the
fact that something needed to be done.
When Warren took his seat behind the
bench, he looked out at a nation in par
adox: a "Land of the Free," where peo
ple were told where to eat, where to sit
and where to go to the bathroom, all
because of the color of their skin. Big
Earl didn't shed a tear of sympathy and
turn his back, though, he rolled up his
sleeves and proceeded to beat some
sense into the state and local govern
ments responsible. The ensuing battle
was so polarized, so "us" versus
"them," that the little questions, such
as "Isn't Justice Warren Idnda overstep-
pin' his boundaries a little?", were ei
ther ignored or dismissed as racist
dogma.
The Supreme Court Warren left be
hind on June 23, 1969, was so souped-
up that it could hardly be recognized as
the same branch of government men
tioned in the Constitution. When War
ren E. Burger, Nixon's pick to replace
Earl Warren, took the driver's seat, he
was at the controls of a very powerful
machine. Fortunately, his foot was well
away from the accelerator. With Burg
er's conservative, yet very inactive
leadership, the court drew itself back
into most of its original limitations.
This is how it has remained, even
when President Reagan put ultra-con
servative William Rhenquist behind the
wheel in 1986. Then came Antonin Sca-
lia and Anthony Kennedy, both
staunch conservatives. Still, the court
remained fairly balanced throughout
the early '80s.
In 1990 President Bush got his
chance to put a conservative on the Su
preme Court. He chose David Souter, a
former New Hampshire state judge. So
when Bush puts nis second conserva
tive on the bench, be it Clarence
Thomas or not, the super-charged "Su
preme Machine" will be firing on all six
cylinders: Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy,
Souter, O'Connor and the mystery
man or woman.
So, should we all run to the hills? Are
we doomed to lives without topless
dancers or Maplethorpe photographs?
I don't think so. The Supreme Court,
with all its power, still has trouble in a
government with an unsupportive
president. Whereas the Warren Court
thrived in the benevolent arms of Presi
dent Kennedy, the same court with
ered under the attacks of President Ei
senhower. All we have to do is wait for
a more liberal president; possibly not
for long. Fineman and Thomas of
Newsweek magazine see the Supreme
Court's ideological shifts as the fore
bearers of a change in the White
House. As they point out, in 1857, the
Dread Scott decision, which declared
slaves were merely propery, outraged
so many people that Abe Lincoln prac
tically won the presidency for merely
disagreeing with it. The conservative
revival we are experiencing now, the
Newsweek article contends, is the di
rect result of a backlash from the ultra
liberal Warren era.
What it boils down to is if Bush suc
ceeds in putting a hard-line conserva
tive on the bench — and he will — the
Supreme Court will no doubt be the fo
cal point of the '92 campaign. After all,
when your complaining about govern
ment policy, chances are your com
plaining about a Supreme Court deci
sion and screaming about the Supreme
Court makes for a great campaign
speech. What Bush must remember if
he is to keep his Washington address,
is the flame that bums twice as bright,
burns half as long. An ultra-ultra con
servative court might succeed in forc
ing the country back to the good ol'
days, but if Bush's six points of light
bum too brightly, they might succeed
in snuffing out his chances of re-elec
tion and bring the conservative era to a
close.
Reagon Clamon is a senior journalism
major.