June 2,1993
Jinale
>troud
Rosas
4owdv, omml
?cts
say
ivided the
ps depend-
on of folate,
red the inci-
i the top 20
lumers and
nat among
h the high-
isumption
r incidence
npared to
;st level of
For men,
lower inci-
m alcohol
d. Women
>0 grams of
an 84 per-
of having
64 percent
560
ursday 6/3
hem. 101
;t I Review
nd
>n
Opinion
Wednesday, June 2,1993 The Battalion Page 5
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, Aggie/ife editor
Mack Harrison, morning news editor Billy Moran, photo editor
Editorial
The Battalion
100 years at
Texas A&M
Referendum shot down
Richards silences handgun issue
With the end of the regular ses
sion of the 1993 state Legislature,
there are still a few things left to sort
out. One of these is the debate over
whether Texans should have the
right to carry concealed handguns.
The latest attempt to allow con
cealed handguns is a bill to put a
handgun referendum on the Nov. 2
ballot.
This bill is necessary be
cause such a referendum
would allow the peo
ple to decide for
themselves if they
need to carry
handguns. How
ever, it appears
that the governor
would rather
make this deci
sion herself.
The first try at a
concealed handgun
bill passed in the
House but died in the
Senate after Richards
promised to veto it.
After a failed resurrection of the
bill, the legislators then tried to as
certain the opinion of their con
stituents through a referendum. But
the governor, in a desperate attempt
not to be outdone, has decided to
deny Texans the right to express
their opinions.
Richards has promised to veto the
handgun referendum bill even
though it is completely non-binding
and considerably weaker than the
earlier proposals. Her view is that
allowing Texans to carry handguns
would be a step toward increasing
violence.
The governor called the referen
dum a tax-supported poll for hand
gun interests and said any such poll
ought to be conducted and paid for
by the private sector. The poll is ex
pected to cost about $60,000.
Whether Texans
should be allowed to
carry concealed
handguns is still
debatable. But if
the issue is large
enough to occu
py so much of
the Legislature's
time, then per
haps the people
ought to have the
opportunity to at
least express their
opinion.
As for the $60,000 price
tag, that's a relatively small part
of the money the state spends all the
time. If they don't spend the money
to measure public opinion on a top
ic that has become an important is
sue, then they will probably spend
it on something a lot less construc
tive.
The handgun referendum war
rants a place on the Nov. 2 ballot.
The citizens of Texas deserve the
chance to let their voices be heard.
Summer's for playing catch-up
Four-year college degree quickly fading into past
Hot time, summer in the city . . .
college in the summer can sure be . . .
well, a real drag, to put it mildly.
Think of it: While you sweat buckets
under the College Station steam
canopy, your friends are frolicking
on beaches, or lounging poolside
with all the other scantily clad sum
mer bums who chose to enjoy the
good life instead of trudging through
summer school.
Why'd you do it? Are you insane?
What would keep you in this lake of
fire when you could be debauching
your body somewhere with your
buddies? You must be anxious to
graduate. Either that, or you've been
sniffing the wrong kind of glue.
Actually, there are thousands of you who made the same
decision to attend summer school. More than 16,000 stu
dents enrolled for this first summer session here at A&M.
That's more than one-third of the students who were here
in the spring or fall semesters.
Most of you stayed around just so you could graduate
on schedule. What happened? How did you fall so far be
hind that you have to stick around and pay penance over
the summer?
Faculty advisers say many students use summer as a
time for catching up. They say students use the summer
time to take classes they failed to take before — or simply
failed. But what about the thousands of students who took
the classes they needed, and passed them? Where did they
fail?
Only at the task of being over-achievers. The average
course load is just under 14 hours per semester. Students
who take more than 14 hours sometimes live to regret it —
if they live at all.
Some such students I contacted were found muttering
quietly in a corner. They had little to say but offered some
advice. I think their exact words were, "It's crazy. Don't
do it." and, "Be afraid. Be very afraid."
Yes, loading semester hours like a stack of pancakes has
left many students feeling rooty, tooty, not fresh, but fruity.
Yet, with most degree plans, students must take — and
pass — at least 16 hours per semester if they plan to gradu
ate in the four years traditionally allotted.
So many times I have heard people quietly classify them
selves as "fifth-year seniors" as if it were some affliction
suffered by a select group of people who soon would be ap
plying for minority status. The fact is the students who
graduate in four years or fewer are the freaks exceptions.
Nearly two-thirds of the students who graduate do so after
four years of intense labor. Not before. (Editorial Note: If
Vasquez appears to be envious of those students who excel,
it is only because he is academically impaired.) Students
who graduate in fewer than four years are those who took
excessive amounts of classes each semester simply so they
could graduate in a timely manner and move to some ex
pensive home to make a better life and lots, and lots of
money.
While such goals/achievements are truly honorable, we
mortals who stick around for an extra year or two ... or
three . . . should not feel delinquent.
The four year college term, says one faculty adviser,
comes from a time when students averaged much heavier
course loads. Twenty years ago students averaged between
16 and 20 hours as compared to the current average load
which is between 12 and 14 hours.
The reasons for the decrease in the average number of
hours taken range from matters of choice to necessity. Stu
dents now have the opportunity to participate in a vast
number of activities commonly called "the other educa
tion." From football to underwater basket weaving, stu
dents can choose from a number of extracurricular activi
ties which were not available to students of previous gener
ations. While these outside activities may slow students in
the race towards graduation, many advisers suggest they
are as equally important in the student's development as
academics.
Other students must work while attending school.
Again, this outside activity may postpone graduation, but
often it is what makes graduation possible. Increasingly,
employers are seeking students who worked their way
through college, paying more attention to their persever
ance rather than the amount of time taken to graduate.
Students shouldn't fret if they take a little extra time to
graduate. As one retired executive told me, enjoy the time
you have in college. Make the most of it. You only have a
few short years here. You'll spend the rest of your life out
of school, in the real world. Don't rush it.
Vasquez is a senior journalism major.
ROBERT
VASQUEZ
Columnist
Dickerson column
misinterprets article
Columnist Matthew Dickerson in The
httalion dated May 31 seriously distorts
and misrepresents what appeared in my
article titled "College Station's 38%
Poverty Rate: High Rank (2nd in U.S.),
low Profile" that appeared in the
April/May Touchstone.
As paraphrased by Dickerson, I sup
posedly wrote that "... poverty rates are
effected not by College Station's high
Percentage of typically low income stu
dents .. In my Touchstone article I made
no such claim.
A point I made in The Touchstone arti-
c iewas that since College Station was the
°nly university city in the five worst
Poverty rate cities with population over
50,000, then most likely there were other
causes in addition to a large student pop
ulation.
The claim that the high poverty rate is
only because of College Station's high
student population is probably incorrect
because no other university city of simi
lar size and with a similar or possibly
even higher percentage student popula
tion rated in the five worst poverty rate
cities.
In fact, there are at least five other uni
versity cities of similar size that (by an
admittedly rough measure) had a larger
percentage of students than College Sta
tion; yet, there were only four university
cities total in the 25 worst poverty rate
cities. Of the these university cities only
College Station was among the worst
five.
Hence, poverty in College Station is
probably much more widespread than
our city and university officials are ad
mitting.
I think that Battalion columnists such
as Mr. Dickerson should at the least both
er to first read what's written in The
Touchstone and to accurately report
what's there before criticizing its con
tents.
Danny Yeager
Professor of Chemistry
Hunting bill to open
season on state parks
A common belief is that animal rights
and environmentalism don't mix, be
cause animal rightists have to be opposed
to hunting, even when it is necessary to
preserve ecosystemic integrity.
I think this is a false dichotomy, and
environmental groups' support of a bill
currently before the Texas state Legisla
ture can be used to illustrate my point.
S.B. 179 would permit hunting in
Texas state parks, whenever hunting
would be permitted outside the parks,
whereas current law permits the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department to autho
rize hunts in state parks on an ad hoc ba
sis, whenever hunting is shown to be "bi
ologically necessary."
Animal rights groups, predictably, are
opposing the bill, but so are the Sierra
Club and the National Audubon Society,
environmental groups which have taken
great pains in recent years to distance
themselves from animal rights groups.
But I think that the Sierra Club's position
on S.B. 179 can be fully endorsed by an
animal rightist.
According to its State Capitol Report,
"The Sierra Club is opposed to any bill
that will shift the burden of proof from
no hunting in state parks unless 'biologi
cally necessary/ to hunting is allowed
unless proven harmful to the area's re
sources."
How could an animal rightist endorse
the Sierra Club's position?
In a nutshell (albeit an excruciatingly
small one), my argument is this: if hunt
ing's being "biologically necessary"
means that is is necessary to safeguard
the integrity of an ecosystem, then re
spect for future generations of animals
requires us to cull some current individu
als whenever this is "biologically neces
sary," that is, whenever it would be per
mitted in state parks under current state
law.
In the cas^e of S.B. 179, environmental
ists and animal rights activists can join
hands; only someone intent upon open
ing the state's most heavily used recre
ation areas to biologically unnecessary
hunting would support S.B. 179. At pub
lic hearings, only two people registered
support for the bill, whereas opponents
produced over 1200 signatures of park
visitors (20% of them hunters) in opposi
tion to it.
Nevertheless, the bill is sailing
through the state legislature. It passed
the Senate April 7 and the House Agri
culture and Wildlife Committee ap
proved it unanimously on April 15. As
the bill will be set for a vote in the House
shortly, calls to state representatives are
critical at this juncture.
Gajy Varner
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
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 Call items express
the opinions of the authors.
The 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, doss, and phone number.
Contact the editor or managing editor for information
on submitting guest columns.
We reserve the right to edit letters and guest coiomns
for length, style, ond accuracy.
Letters should be addressed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Real McDonald /Mail stop 1111
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843