Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 14, 1992)
PINION Monday, September 14,1992 The Battalion Page 9 mberli ay id ilives: tries she tie famili he chili ise their e garettes i, usualli women, ;nder bias I and is s scrimina: or race, vasiven ica, Asia ranges i i from da Taking sides: Parental leave: a good bill or a political smokescreen? ISOOll ys ED PRES Fla. - 'i luayiei is of Hie :ent city 5 ;d them hrough, people' en't ge® jh of neat ho system take timi ^d. promist the jot armenl 1 nbraced lughter i ederal J all it co- jme. id. He said."" bef eff® nilitanyl 1 ing ?uild up sert Sto» in a x of fad r the prt tr tried by! d the Hi , home le, beft* ■ral Erne it restaur* istratiofl tnise to 5 Air I sents econo®! .S. Sen* 1 ion mo® said it to bert lid. 1, and s« the inna ; andeu dshed tt i Ende* STACY FEDUCIA Columnist Last week House Democrats attempted to force President Bush's hand on his pet is sue of family val ues by forwarding the family leave bill to his desk, though supporters failed to muster the necessary votes to override his impending veto. Despite the ominous cloud of of boi politics that tarnishes the luster of this ersto® issue, the family leave bill provides American workers with the opportunity arm out to personally care for loved ones with- lulder® out the fear of losing their jobs. The bill requires private businesses of 50 employees or more to allow work ers up to 12 weeks' unpaid leave in or der to care for newborns, newly-adopt ed children, newly-placed foster chil dren, and seriously ill relatives. The forward-thinking, though hotly-debat ed issue of family leave arrives at the intersection of the two most publicized issues of the presidential campaign: the economy and family values. Economically speaking, the family leave program protects the jobs of those workers who might have been forced to quit in similar circumstances, possibly adding yet another name to the mono lithic government assistance rolls. When compared to similar programs in other industrialized countries — some of which required mandatory paid leave, often in excess of three months — the House family leave bill eases the fi nancial burden on business and indus try, suffering from recessional blues. While opponents of the bill decry it as being 'a death sentence to small businesses," the family leave bill actual ly affects only five percent of all em ployers. In addition, bipartisan propo nents cite that family leave enjoys the support of up to 70% of the population. At a time when the American family buckles under the weight of burgeoning health care costs, the opportunity to care for the sick and the young in the comforts of the home offers a sliver of hope and definite relief to those who cannot afford private nurses and coun try club doctors. At a time when most working fami lies shudder at the exorbitant costs and the paltry availability of good day care, family leave provides a modest salve by allowing mothers and fathers modest time to care for their own — at their own expense. At a time when the American infant mortality rate shames the United States in the face of other modern, industrial ized countries, family leave allows mothers at least a modicum of time to take care of themselves and their new- ■4 born children, i n h , At a time when the American public grows weary of blame-laying allega tions and mudslinging campaigns; y when voters roll their eyes at political statements and press releases; when our confidence in the institutions which are supposedly of the people, by the people and for the people dwindles into obliv ion, it is high time the politicos put poli- _ jnsl«|tics aside and did something for Ameri- 3 tHo^ can workers and American families, fnotheij Family leave, family values? Maybe so. and launch on. her 1^ A peculiar habit — or disease? — of mind, perceiv ing some need or good of society, jumps to the con clusion that the State, via legisla tive fiat, calls them into existence. A recent example is the parental leave bill, just pinched off by the House in a fit of family values piety. Parental leave is certainly a valuable and costly bene fit. The argument is whether or not this benefit ought to be mandated by the State, and whether or not someone is entitled to such benefits at someone else's expense. It is not about whether parental leave is a desirable end per se. Indeed, parental leave is already of fered in the labor market. Some 90% of corporations surveyed offered some kind of maternity leave. The two-thirds taking this leave had guaranteed rein statement rights. A study of firms with 100+ employees found that 36% of full time workers had parental leave access, which averaged 19 weeks. Some 75% of firms with 20+ employees have some form of family benefits. The market is a complex of wages and benefits negotiat ed between employer and employee: some 40% of employee compensation consists of benefits (hence a drop in wages and de rigueur hand wringing on the part of naifs). Flexible, voluntary programs work better in the competitive atmosphere and narrow profit margins of U.S. mar kets. The most obvious effect of the bill would be less choice in available bene fits and/or lower wages as firms reallo cate costs to cover the bill's mandate. Some firms could raise prices, passing costs to consumers; marginal firms would fail. It would act as a barrier to smaller firms, as expanding employ ment to the point that they fall under the statute would be costly. It increases the cost of creating jobs. That the West ern industrial world has similar laws is less than persuasive. The Western in dustrial world had almost no net job gains during the 1980's, in contrast to the United States. Women would be more costly to em ploy (women are 10 times more likely to take leave than men), making it prof itable to discriminate against them to the extent that it is legally possible. The long-term unemployment (12+ months) rate for women in the over-vaunted Eu ropean Community is running at 53% (!) of all unemployed females, com pared to 3.7% in the United States. Finally, it is vindictively regressive, a sucker punch to the working-poor: a higher percentage of poor workers' in come goes toward necessities. Most are incapable of taking unpaid leave. So, in the name of progress. Biff and Muffy can tool around in the Lexus with their new bundle, bonding and all that. Simply demonstrating that parental leave is a good thing, an end, is no ar gument for the means by which it is to be obtained. The State cannot create, ex nihilo, these goods. Goods — benefits — are costly. A litany of the legislated benefits of, say, Italy, without any anal ysis of the tradeoffs is gross naivete. MATTHEW DICKERSON Columnist t has $ idJs#: j- see H 1 ■vve a I 0 * ? polls 1 found I* y at Sa>? fell to 1 ,ft carfl ver rf-" Teducia is a senior English and Dickerson is a sophomore history major ecconomics major Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the opinion page staff and editor in chief only, and do not represent, in any way, the opinions of reporters, staff, or editors of other sections of the newspaper. Columns, guest columns, and Mail Call items express the opinions of the authors only. Trie Battalion encourages letters to the editor and will print as many as space allows in the Mail Call section. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author's name. We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. tetters should be addressed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald /Campus mail stop 1111 Texas MM University College Station, TX 77843 Some say it was midnight hell My intense pride in what A&M stands for and in its remarkable stu dent body has never faltered — until last Friday night. Words cannot adequately express the shock, dismay and outrage I felt as I watched Aggies viciously attacking one another in the middle of Kyle Field. I stood, appalled and very em barrassed, among parents, incoming students, and visitors — all gaining their first impression of "Aggie Spirit. How do you convincingly explain that this is not commonplace or even re motely typical of A&M? While 1 recognize that it is the re sponsibility of Corps units to guard the field, it is also their responsibility to do so in a mature, non-violent, humane manner. The over-aggressive response of some members served only to rein force the provoking behavior of the of fenders, while simultaneously enraging on-lookers, many of whom rushed to join the multitude already fighting on the field. No behavior warrants the vi olent, uncontrolled response of some of the Corps members and others. A Corps member who can not effectively deal with such a situation by leading the accosted student off the field (in stead of losing their temper) should not be in any position or power. No "knightly gentleman" would ever act in the disgraceful manner displayed by some members of the Corps of Cadets Friday night. Similarly, any student who cannot successfully perform the very simple task of respecting Kyle Field and those who guard it should remain in the stands where they belong. Yell Practice is not a showcase for those seeking at tention or thrills. Yell Practice is one of the oldest, most unique traditions of Aggieland and Kyle Field is a memori al to those who died in World War I. Not only is it extremely inappropriate and disrespectful to gallivant across the field, it also exhibits immaturity and lack of character. Those individuals who did so need to get on with the business of learning what being an Ag gie is all about. Being an Aggie in cludes respecting A&M traditions, be having in a civilized manner, develop ing a strong sense of integrity, and treating others with the utmost respect. I certainly and fervently hope that the fiasco of Friday night is not repeated. Susan May Class of '92 We converged on Kyle Field at mid night Friday to lift up Aggie football and be lifted and inspired ourselves. Instead, as we entered the stadium we were not at all inspired or lifted up, but rather, torn down and dejected. We witnessed the violation of a memorial to World War I veterans by those who ran across Kyle Field as though it were a common playground. We witnessed the violation of our traditions by a small clique that stood in front of us with hats on, joking back and forth, while the true Twelfth Man practiced yells for the game. We witnessed the violation of Aggie brotherhood as our student leaders were belittled by the very people who should support them. We witnessed the violation of an indi vidual's integrity as a drunk student brought a girl to tears by yelling at her during the Spirit of Aggieland. We refuse to accept what we saw Friday as the fate of Texas A&M and its traditions. We refuse to sit by and let the friendliest campus in the nation turn into just another place to go to class. The traditions and pride in A&M are what attracts so many to our uni versity and we feel it is our obligation and duty to preserve the uniqueness and rich traditions for many future generations to love and enjoy. We sim ply ask if you are not here to get every thing out of A&M, and give everything back, then please do not keep us from enjoying all the traditions and living the spirit of Aggieland every day of our lives. Mark Stickney Class of '93 accompanied hy four signatures Tradition and honor will see its un doing through a blind eye. Midnight ell practice on Friday was an atrocity, trong Aggie tradition dedicates Kyle Field as a memorial to honor past gen erations of deceased Aggies. Running across the field is viewed as disrespect ful to Aggie tradition. Many people ran across the field preceding yell prac tice with the intent of provoking mem bers of the Corps into a chase; members of the Corps feel it is their duty to pro tect A&M traditions. Most of these "disrespectful" people were caught and dog-piled by hordes of Corps per sons. However, instead of escorting the offenders off the field, members of the Corps repeatedly punched and kicked their victims. Attempting to walk off the field after being "pun ished," several individuals were tack led and pummeled again. One individ ual was staggering severely after suf fering two attacks, while several others had trouble standing up after being pulverized into the ground. Some of the offenders tried to fight back and the situation worsened. Corps members stuck together. I watched one Corps member repeatedly strike a crouching individual in the face while another Corps member landed a blow to the side of the victim's head with his army boot. As for the deceased Aggies being honored, I don't think they would feel any honor nor condone the behavior of those Corps members taking such vio lent actions. The disgrace of such prac tices goes against the fundamental di rective and reason for the existence of the Corps of Cadets. Aggies fight to protect their country. They don't fight fellow Aggies. The traditions of Texas A&M are for the living, not the dead. Let us keep the spirit of Aggieland alive with honor before it's taken away in disgrace. Jim Dobberfuhl Class of '93 The behavior of some members of the Corps of Cadets at Friday's mid night yell practice was beyond despica ble, it was downright sickening. The Corps is an otherwise fine institution at A&M, commanding deserved respect all over the world. But that respect was tainted Friday by the actions of a few cadets spurred on by the crowd (not all of the crowd) and a warped sense of tradition. Now I think tradition has an important place here, so I realize that those people shouldn't have been out on the playing field. I also realize that it is the Corps job to take them off of it — but there is something wrong with the mindset that encourages a Q T. to beat the daylights out of a fellow Aggie just because he (or she) flouts a tradi tion. Not all the cadets were doing this, of course; some were merely tack ling people, then helping them off the field in what looked like a spirit of ca maraderie. Others, however, were in volved in blatant acts of violence which had nothing whatsoever to do with re spect for tradition, but rather with the idea that one's actions are excused by the mob. I mean, Ags, we need our pri orities straight. Did it ever occur to any one of these people that no tradition is worth assaulting someone over? And please spare me the "sacredness of Kyle Field" speech. I agree that some things are truly sacred (the MSC, for in stance), but a football field is not one of them. At least not to the point of hos- f >italizing another human being over it. n the interest of their own integrity, the Corps of Cadets should not hide these thugs under the guise of solidari ty, but should bring them forward to face the assault charges they deserve. Yuri Homer Graduate student National health care is no cure Mrs. Ralston gave us a beautiful pic ture of how the world should be in her column on health care. She claims that health care is a right, just like educa tion, in this country. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and not a fairy tale Utopia. She says that governrrtent should take on the responsibility of providing this health care. However, we all know how poorly our govern ment runs the education system, not to mention our postal service and other inefficient and ineffective services. We cannot allow our government to run something as important as health care given this kind of track record. While socialized medicine can be made to sound good, it is not a realistic solution to the nigh cost of health care. To be certain, we have all seen socialized medicine at its best in the Quack Shack. Do we really want all of our doctor's office experiences to be like that? Bruce Milbrath Class of '93 Mrs. Ralston questions whether ba sic health care is a right. No man has the right to medical care by the simple principle that no man has the right to enslave another man for any purpose. If he cannot pay for what he needs, then he must depend on the charity of others. By demanding that the govern ment develop a national health care plan, proponents of the idea depend on taxation for funding. They proclaim that altruistic service to the needy is man's duty, i.e., that it is the responsi bility of every man to struggle and work to produce benefits for anyone but himself. The governmental control of medical finances necessitates the enslavement of doctors. But proponents of national health care claim that the government would never attempt to control the doctors or their methods. With the ex ample of Medicare and Medicaid in mind, let us see what has happened since their inception in 1965. The pa tients covered by these programs now no longer had to pay attention to cost. In 1952, medical expenditures in the United States were 4.3% of CNF; as of 1985 they were about 11% and still ris ing. The programs are moving toward bankruptcy. The government, in an ef fort to do something, decided to keep the programs but impose rigid controls on them. A set fee is now paid to hos- itals depending only on the diagnosis, o stay financially sound, the hospital now needs to provide less services, and everyone under the program begins to suffer. Without more money from the government (from your earnings), the situation will continue to deteriorate. Steve Hale Class pf '93 ACC£PTAM(£ SPffCtt outstanowc young Tbxas £X w/”