The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, June 01, 1993, Image 5

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    ly, June 1,1993
ion
Opinion
Tuesday, June 1,1993
The Battalion
Page 5
Lawmakers de-
to simply con-
r the next two
ues.
as approved to
Board of Insur-
state's $35 bil-
idustry. It also
nations to pro
se to determine
rict regulatory
commissioner.
al that was de-
isurance more
: or small busi-
50 people,
to provide for
n against pre-
uston woman
ien's room at a
awmakers en-
facility where
would have to
)f women's re-
requirement
ies either built
os, D-Austin,
:y" and good
er — segment
e good news,
s, ^slackers,"
: Arthur, took
m to stay in
sed charging
dergraduates
i 158 hours of
ke.
/as aimed at
for recreation-
subsidized by
ecome a great
ey didn't mo-
ergy, though,
round to con-
dinale
UT Tll/VT STOLEN
N X AlhJ'T
>unr WITHOUT
PRESENT^/
troud
i RESULT
KVUs|<5 AM
beaver. y
?osas
f arfcii
ZAFfr this fat£L
:PWAI?P KIH& dll-
id the price
ade the fact
le spoke as
s and coins,
and honor
and defeat-
arned from
• II that we
prepared to
the nations
gether.”
sked about
ar or plans
ance at the
in the day.
lished Sun-
ack marble
nder of the
ration torn
•isky politi-
sident.
The Battalion Editorial Board
Jason Loughman, editor in chief
Mark Evans, managing editor
Stephanie Pattillo, city editor Kyle Burnett, sports editor
Dave Thomas, night news editor Anas Ben-Musa, AggieZ/fe editor
Mack Harrison, morning news editor Billy Moran, photo editor
The Battalion
100 years at
Texas A&M
Editorial
Making the best of it
A&M system tries to soften cuts
While some people may find last
week's layoffs by the Texas A&M
University System a little hard to
swallow, it appears the cuts have
come only after administrators
carved out as much as possible
from other areas.
The decision to eliminate 53 jobs
came after estimates of the System's
income from the Available Univer
sity Fund fell below previous years'
levels. The fund provides more
than one-third of the System's
administrative and gener
al offices budget.
"We've been reduc
ing operating ex
penses and capital
over time, but we're
very people-inten
sive and there's not
a lot of places we
have left to go,"
Deputy Chancellor Ed
Davis said.
Though it is unfortu
nate that administrators had
to resort to eliminating jobs, the lay
offs will allow the System to save
$2 million and pay for programs
not funded solely by the Texas Leg
islature, such as retirement plans.
Administrators went the extra
mile to protect as many jobs as they
possibly could. They initiated a
hiring freeze in January. They spent
months planning for foreseen bud
get cuts. They cut office expenses.
All of this allowed them to reduce
the number of employees actually
let go by saving money in other ar
eas.
Even those employees slated for
termination may not find them
selves actually out of a job. Some
staff members will be transferred or
see their positions consolidated.
Those staff members who are fac
ing unemployment will not find
themselves booted out onto the
.streets with nowhere to go.
Administrators have al
ready given these em
ployees priority for
positions that open
up elsewhere within
the System. And the
Human Resources
Office is offering
employees help in
finding jobs outside
of Texas A&M.
In a time of budget
cuts and shrinking rev
enue from outside sources,
A&M administrators could not ex
pect to totally dodge laying off
some of their employees and still
adequately fund the System's pro
grams.
They saw the cuts coming and
tried to at least minimize the num
ber of employees affected. All in all
System officials did the best they
could with such a difficult situa
tion.
Sexism: drawing a clearer line
How can we distinguish sensitivity from paranoia?
FRANK
STANFORD
Columnist
U nlike some college males, I am
not a barbarian. I have a gen
eral concept of widely accept
ed behavior toward, and in the pres
ence of, women. But because of a re
cent verbal lashing by a female friend
of mine, I realized just how confused
I really am about what constitutes
sexual harassment and what doesn't.
I am not referring to explicitly un
acceptable behavior, like the boss
who makes lewd suggestions and
double entendres to his secretary, or
the professor who propositions a stu
dent. Things that concern me are that
fine line between playful, flirtatious
remarks and unacceptable overtures,
and a seemingly pervasive male attitude in our society that
tends to view women as somewhat less important than
men.
First, males must determine what behavior towards a
woman is appropriate in a given situation. How old is
she? The woman in the next seat in history class doesn't
even blink when you mention how "pissed-off" your
grade makes you. If she is more than ten years your elder,
you find yourself speaking in a more "mature" manner
and probably without expletives. If she is your mother's or
even grandmother's age, you smile more, address them
with a plethora of "Yes ma'ams" and "No ma'ams" and
make a concerted effort to suppress all foul words — even
the mild ones.
Although these may be merely examples of good
self-monitoring practice, it is here that the ambiguity be
gins.
If there is indeed a somewhat hierarchical approach to
determining behavior, is there a "lower-archical" one? In
other words, should the male change his attitude or behav
ior according to the way a woman dresses, behaves or
speaks? Most of us would say, "Of course. That happens
naturally." But this perception is often misinterpreted by
males, resulting in an angry woman and the buffoon ask
ing, "What'd I do?"
I have always assumed, perhaps wrongly, that when a
woman's dress at a nightclub prompts stares and open
mouths, it was intended to do so, and that any overconfi
dent guy who's thinking, "She wants me!" can be expected
to approach her. At what point does his overture become
harassing? The second time? The third? Perhaps only
when he touches her arm? Has "no" been stated distinct-
ly?
Any physical action is seen as a serious violation of so
cial etiquette, but I have seen women converse with, and
even dance with a guy to get him off her back, while others
take offense at any approach.
What about the male who admires from a distance, re
luctant to possibly offend? Has he missed the opportunity
to meet Miss Right? Should he wait for her to approach, a
practice not so accepted in our society?
Any woman should definitely have the freedom to
speak, act, and wear whatever she likes without the threat
of harassment or offensive comments, but unfair as it is,
such freedom runs the risk of aggressive male behavior.
The issue now becomes one of achieving gender equali
ty by changing or at least slowing the proliferation of these
behavioral tendencies toward women. It appears on the
surface that men are mainly to blame. After all, women
don't really DO anything to deserve such treatment. But to
many men, a woman who is just BEING is "doing" some
thing to him.
An attractive woman walking in front of a construction
site, for example, is seen as a tease for the workers, who
vent their frustration by hollering bawdy remarks at her.
Does she deserve this? Absolutely not. But from an ear
ly age, most males are taught to view the female form as an
object of beauty and adornment to be utilized for visual as
well as physical pleasure, suppressing the notion of
women as thinking, feeling beings.
The last few decades have seen great progress for
women, but how can we possibly eliminate the gender
roles that have perpetuated the idea of what it is to be fem
inine? Should we eliminate these roles or only alter them?
When half our bricklayers are women and half our nan
nies are men, will attitudes change? And what of those
women who are sexist against themselves — who firmly be
lieve in traditional gender bias based on cultural norms or
religious slant? Can we change their attitudes?
Obviously we have our work cut out for us. Only with
clearly defined and widely agreed upon goals will the next
step of progress be achieved.
Stanford is a graduate student in philosophy
NEW
Smoking ban will
cost us big money
President Mobley is trying to raise
federal tax dollars! By prohibiting
smoking on campus, people are going
to be living longer because they won't
be inhaling smoke. This means that af
ter retirement they're going to be col
lecting social security for a long time.
Social security comes from tax dollars
which is paid by those people still
working; the increased financial bur
den will be on them.
When you're 80 years old, sitting on
your ass watching television and wait
ing for your check from the govern
ment to come in, your children and
grandchildren will be working longer
and harder for a lifestyle that won't be
as good as yours. The horrible truth
can't be denied; it's already happening.
We have to do something, now!
So if you read this, please, for the
sake of your children and their chil
dren, please, start smoking. Start some
other habits, too. Take drugs, drink
booze, stop wearing seat-belts, use
your hair dryer in the shower. We need
to all be dead before we're 65.
And another thing, if anyone tries to
stop you from dying, get rid of them.
Impeach Bill Mobley! His four years
are up! This is a public school, right?
A public school in a democratic coun
try? He's a president isn't he? I don't
remember hearing anything about
electing the school president, did you?
Is it in the student handbook? Print
this one up in bold print, 'cuz I got
something to say!
Steven R. Bryson
Class of'93
Real facts support
concealed gun bill
Regarding the bill to allow qualified
citizens to carry concealed handguns.
I'm sure it will be a repeat of last year's
failed attempt. Sad. PC politics in ac
tion, folks. It's a political gaucherie to
go against the prevailing (and totally
inane) "wisdom" that this bill would
lead directly to "old West" justice and
"insult shootouts."
I don't hear anyone criticizing this
"logic" in print. Why? Nobody can
support it with hard facts; such evi
dence does not exist.
Consider what you've read oppos
ing the concealed weapon concept. It's
all replete with normative, not logical,
constructs. Hardly admissible evi
dence to kill a concept that has proven
effective in other states and municipali
ties have concealed gun laws. Florida
was a fascinating case study. The
doom and gloom experts predicted a
bloodbath upon inception, and all
hands watched with careful scrutiny
for signs of Dodge City. And no, the
world did not come crashing to a halt.
Violent crime, however, decreased and
there have been multiple documented
saves under the new system. This is
not a freak. In 1966, following a spree
of rapes in Orlando, police offered to
train civilian women to use and carry
handguns. Guess what? Rape in Or
lando fell virtually to zero! Even more
convincing is the "displacement" of
crime observed. As rape fell so dra
matically in Orlando, in surrounding
environs the rate jumped 300 percent!
It puzzles me greatly why women's
groups, and as well other minority
groups at risk from the barbarically un
educated contingent of our society, are
so in favor of conventional gun control.
Read the Orlando story again! Con
ventional gun control does not work.
Concealed weapon laws do.
Kevin Wilmeth
Class of '93
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views
of the editorial board. They do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the Texas
A&M student body, regents, administration, faculty or
staff.
Columns, guest columns, and Mail Coil items express
the c»inians of the authors.
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor and will
print os many as space allows in the Mail Coll section.
Letters must be 300 words or less and include the
author’s name, class, and phone number.
Contact the editor or managing editor for information
on submitting guest columns.
We reserve the right to edit letters and guest columns
for length, style, and accuracy.
Letters should be addressed to;
The Battofion • Moil Call
01 3 Reed McDonald /Mail stop 1111
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
Editor’s note:
Applications are available
in 013 Reed McDonald for
The Battalion Reader’s
Panel.
The panel will meet
regularly with editors to
give us a better picture of
what our readers want from
their newspaper.
If you have ideas about the
paper - if you want to be
involved - stop by and fill
out a short application.
It’s your newspaper ...