Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 14, 1994)
•atedp,, ~ Lefi-fi 'on his ji; li the ^ ay and |d his sea, illion. get fiv, Monday, February 14,1994 6 lash: A/ hasi The Battalion Editorial Board JULI PHILLIPS, Editor in chief ; MICHAEL PLUMER, Managing editor KYLE BURNETT, Aggielife editor BELINDA BLANCARTE, Night news editor DENA DIZDAR, Aggielife editor HEATHER WINCH, Night News editor SEAN FRERKING, Sports editor TONI GARRARD CLAY, Opinion editor WILLIAM HARRISON, Photo editor JENNIFER SMITH, City editor ace the challenge H student wasting court's time vin Ceo? Upon entering college, stu dents who cannot perform acad emically in certain areas should be able and expected to learn how while they are there. That has always been a simple goal of higher education ... and kinder garten. But University of Houston student Jennifer Silverman dis agrees. She cannot understand college level math, and she isn't hiring a private tutor. She's suing UH and the Texas Higher Educa tion Coordinating Board. Silverman, who is 30 hours away from a journalism degree, failed the math portion of the Texas Academic Skills Program (TASP) test because, she says, she Vas been diagnosed with dyscal- IculfcU— a learning disability (which can cause a student to -have trouble with arithmetic be yond simple math. Silverman says she is a victim of discrimination and argues that the Americans with Disabilities Act should protect her right to Igraduate without taking math. Students with learning dis abilities in larger universities are offered alternative ways to learn and understand challenging ma terials. They require extra help, and they accept a greater chal lenge, but they never try to es cape without learning the materi al. How can anyone expect to earn a degree without taking math? A student who picks a university over a trade school or specialized college is expected to receive a well-rounded, "univer sal" education. Silverman does deserve credit for being so creative in her efforts to get through UH. Last year she published a magazine article in which she described her experi ences as a topless dancer. She used her $250 a night to pay her way through college. But this most recent creative survival technique is ridiculous and a waste of the court's time. Universities should not drasti cally change academic require ments to accommodate students who are weak in certain areas. It is the students who should change their choice of schools if they don't feel up to the require ments. And isn't college a time when students should challenge themselves to overcome their ed ucational weaknesses? PINION The Battalion Page 7 Just who was the genius that said that? Contrary to old cliche, love and war anything but fair FRANK STANFORD Columnist A ll's fair in love and war. I don't really know how old this saying is, but whoever uttered it first was dead wrong. Web ster's defines "fair" as being just and accord ing to the rules, and it is with this definition that a contradiction be gins. I'll start with Love because ibs more fun than War. "Lust," "lovers," "mine" and "partners" are all words that con note what I'll call "soap opera love." This is sometimes a slightly cheapened version of love —• regardless of whether or not the rela tionship in question contains actual "true love." For our purposes however, true love will remain only theoretical. Any of you who have been in some form of relationship with a member of whatever sex you're into, perhaps even as far back as elementary school, are aware of at least some of the basic unwritten rules of romance. These rules are important because without them there would be no scale on which to judge fairness. Although unwritten, "love rules" are still quite universal, and consid ered to be somewhat official. These rules are numerous and range from, "Don't have an affair or even glance favor ably toward your honey's roommate, friend or sibling" to "Don't say anything that could ever be misconstrued or used against you lat er." (This rule's very existence is unfair be cause of impossible avoidance.) I don't happen to have my statistics handy, but it seems females tend to act in more of a judicial capacity than men regard ing these rules of love. This is probably a good thing, because women seem to be so adept at the legislative aspect of the rules as well. As a result, most men in relationships are lucky enough to learn new legislation each and every day. It's a bit like law school, I think. Now according to definition, adherence to all of these rules — especially the fidelity ones — qualifies a person as being "fair." But even if both individuals are fair and abide by the rules, one may lose feeling for the other and justly terminate the relationship. Al though both people acted fairly, the sad dened person has received an unfair out come. So, from complete and total fairness may come unfairness, and this is contradictory. The saying "All's fair in love ..." is also incor rect because in order for "all" (everything) to be fair, there would have to be no rules to break, and this is clearly not the case. There fore, there is no way to understand love. Are you people catching all of this? Have I finally lost my mind? Well, lost mind or not, the issue of fairness in war looms before us. The statement, "All's fair in ... war" implies there are no rules in battle. This is very untrue. Along with ruth less slaughter and seemingly reckless aban don, wars tend to follow both written and unwritten laws. I assume most everyone is somewhat fa miliar with the Geneva Convention. In sim plest terms, a bunch of guys got together and wrote some rules for the game of war. Don't shoot medics. Cease-fire on ejecting para chutists — blast away on armed paratroop ers. And don't steal your POWs boots, to name a few. The Convention was extensive and included many other provisions, all of which concerned the guidelines of war. So — using Webster's definition of fair ness — if both sides of a war recognize and remain in accordance with the rules, we have ourselves a "fair" war. If the rules are violat ed, perpetrators are arrested and tried for "war crimes." This term means is that if a soldier gets up in the morning and has a long hard day dismembering and killing enemy soldiers with grenades, bullets and bayonets, he is playing by the rules, and all those enemy grunts have "fairly" lost eyes, limbs and lives. On his way home, our boy purposely runs over and kills an unarmed enemy sol dier, and "A Current Affair" gets it all on tape. After legally killing men all day, he is suddenly a criminal. Although this scenario is a little far-fetched, the point is that a dead man is still dead. Whether rules are followed or not — a "fair" war or not — he is still dead. After learning of recent heinous occur rences in battle-torn Bosnia and being aware of the Serbian political rationale behind the fighting, I find there's just no way to really understand war. I also find there's just no way to really un derstand love. Frank Stanford is a graduate philosophy student 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, cartoons and letters express the opinions of the authors. The Battalion encourages letters to the editor and will print as many as space allows. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author's name, class, and phone number. We reserve the right to edit letters and guest columns for length, style, and accuracy. Contact the opinion editor for information on submitting guest columns. Address letters to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Mail stop 1111 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 Fax: (409) 845-2647 ir tussia, two ill 1 ather 'round kids! It's Valentine's Day with Uncle Gappy bw, boys and girls, it's time for i Uncle Cappy's Playhouse. Today's | Story is "A Very Special Love." p Once upon a time, in a land far away, there lived Edward and Pene lope. The two were very much in love and could not stand to be apart from each other. They spent every day playing games, rid ing horses or sitting by the shallow brook talking. ^ One day as they were walking through the town square, Edward noticed a crowd of people standing around a man in very fine clothing. I "I have been sent here by King John to ask a favor of you good people," the mes senger shouted. "It seems our arch enemy DAVE WINDER Columnist to the east has kidnapped the lovely Princess Jacqueline. The king is asking that every healthy man that hears this message go and fight for the safe return of the princess." "I'll go," a burly man shouted as he made his way to the front. "The king assures me that all members of his royal army will be paid handsome ly," the messenger shouted. A whole chorus of men then pushed their way through the crowd to sign up. Others followed until almost every man was a soldier. "Penelope, my darling," Edward said, "I think it would be best if I joined." "But I won't be able to live without you," Penelope replied. "I beg you not to g°-" "It would be a good thing for us, Pene lope. We need money so that we can con tinue to live the way we are. We must not become beggars." "I guess it is for the best but it still breaks my heart to see you go." "Remember my love, I will be back. Never stop believing that one day you will see my face again.' Edward then joined the other men as they began their journey east to fight for Princess Jacqueline. After three days and nights of traveling, they came upon a hill overlooking the castle where the princess was being kept. They were joined there by men from all over the kingdom hoping to rescue Jacqueline. The next day. King John's royal army "Remember my love, I will be back. Never stop believ ing that one day you will see my face again." — Edward, young lover launched an attack, but was soundly de feated before it could reach the castle. Hun dreds of soldiers died on the battlefield while the rest retreated. As soldiers began to return home and tell stories of the battle, Penelope began to weep. All that survived had returned home, but her Edward was not among them. Instead, a badly wounded Edward had found his way to the home of a kind old woman. It took him five years to be nursed back to health and in return he worked the old woman's crops for another ten. Every night he fell asleep thinking of his lovely Penelope. As Edward prepared to leave for his trip home, the old woman told him that Princess Jacqueline was still being held captive in a cottage not far from her home. After following the woman's directions, Edward sneaked past the guards and res cued Jacqueline. After five days the princess was safely returned to her father. The king was so happy he offered his daughter's hand in marriage, promising Edward that he would one day become king. I am very flattered your majesty, but I cannot marry the princess," Edward apolo gized. "I have only one true love, and her name is Penelope." Edward then went on to explain how and he and Penelope felt about each other. The king was so touched he gave Edward enough money to last ten lifetimes. The next day Edward left to find Pene lope. When he arrived at the town square, he immediately saw his love and called to her. "Penelope," Edward shouted, running towards her "Edward," Penelope screamed, seeing Edward coming towards her. Meeting in the middle of the street, the two lovers hugged and kissed for what seemed an eternity, "Penelope, I love you. I'm sorry I've been gone for so long, but I now have enough money for us to get married. "I never lost faith in you, Edward. I just knew that you would return." Edward quickly grabbed Penelope for another long kiss. Then they were killed by a runaway ox cart. The moral of this story? Never turn down a chance to be king, even for love. Dave Winder is a sophomore journalism major Civilians should show respect for flag For those of you who frequently walk Ito or from the Commons area in the early I morning or late afternoon, you may have k noticed a small block of cadets headed to |and from the Systems Building, carrying Inine American Colors with them. There is |not a cadet in the Corps that hasn't helped Icare for the flags by taking part in "flag I detail." Etiquette around the Stars and Stripes for military personnel is highly regulated — however, for civilians, actions are at the discretion of the individual. I bring this up because as I was part of the detail as signed to secure the flags back in the Quad one evening, a rowdy group of 30 to 40 non-reg men passed us on the side walk. Most did not pay much attention; others decided to shout out insults aimed at the "Corps turds" marching to their mindless cadence. To these men: your opinion of the Corps is yours and you have a right to it. I do not have a problem with that. But to act so disrespectfully to wards people as they carry the colors of your country is inexcusable. Flag detail is a dignity that I and my compatriots are honored to bear; please acknowledge that. Almost half of those cadets will go on to serve. Some may even fight in a war and die for others' freedom; this includes myself. I do not care to give my life to those who do not bother to understand why, or could care less. Before I leave the Corps, I want to give one tip to the student body. If ever you come across the detail bearing the Colors, or a formation on the Quad as the Corps is saluting, simply stop where you are. And as a sign of extra reverence, hold your hand over your heart. It may not be con venient, or even "cool," but try to under stand why it is correct. Chad Kir diner Class of'95 Accompanied by 155 signatures Persuasive argument alters reader's view I am writing in response to the pro-con in the Feb. 4 issue of The Battalion. I per sonally have a deep respect for the South, so I was expecting to agree with Robbins' pro argument. However, I was surprised when I read both articles. I personally found Stokes much more valid and per suasive. She examined both viewpoints, conceded the validity of the opposing ar gument, and made me more closely exam ine my viewpoint. I do not think the Con federate flag should be taken away, but I can now see how some African-Ameri cans would be offended. It appeared to me that all she wanted through her article was not to ban the flag totally, just to re move it from public places. The flag, like any other, is a piece of history, not a sym bol to be displayed everywhere. Robbins, however, felt it was necessary to defend the Confederate by defaming other historic American flags. He brings up the instances of American hostility and brutality both during the War Between the States and toward American-Indians. Ap parently Robbins does not realize that those flags are no longer flying over our country. No one is saying that the United States' history is perfect, but symbols should not be held up to remind us all of our forefa thers' mistakes. We as the future genera tion have a responsibility to make life as decent and comfortable for everyone that lives around us. It seems to me that only displaying the "Stars and Bars" in private is a way to be considerate, nothing else. I would like to complement Stokes on opening my eyes to her view through her very persuasive article. Christopher D. Scheer Class of'97