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/”