Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 8, 1994)
hk Battalion wom- 3 started >ised :u P on verge 1940 I — The New from a prize ind hopefully aid after the dng the long ory over the n the best-of •cused follow ; thrust them le back witt the goaltend ing of Briar. Richter made king stop or eriod. tie One une that he d take more against the Wednesday no matter lals and I’d use there is ot everybody ikeem Olaju- May 17 in a as his team- tern Confer- he’s comins who have a t to expect,' i ready to do o all Associa- 7- ICKETS > ± 58-24, /ich, 3rd 3rd with I: 17-11. Olajuwon, Thorpe, 13.6. Dlajuwon, pe, 10.6 jwon, 3.71 Defense: ton captured vest Division se record 58 ) ranked fifth ed the ying an NBA Portland is to one. »: Defeated es to three, feated Utah Y, not X, marks the spot for twentysomething generation G eneration X — the unknown, the unidentified, the slackers, the whiners, the emotionally- scarred ... these are all the labels many baby boomers are trying to force on our generation. It’s a subject talked about often these days. Newsweek, Peter Jennings and many talk shows are headlining Generation X, trying to pin down exactly what it is. This week’s edition of Newsweek believes its a myth. That it’s only stereotyping a whole 38 million-member generation of twentysomething Americans. The article believes baby boomers are labeling this generation because they don’t trust them. That’s how most parents react. That’s the main reason there has been such a negative image of Generation X. This generation is the product of baby boomers’ loins and dreams. It’s not a generation of unknown and unidentified people. Generation X — or a better-named Generation Y (Yes we can do it and we are doing it) — is a generation of young minds and open hearts who believe the world will be, not can be, a better place. That there is a role for everyone in peaceful coexistence. Our parents’ generation is going through its midlife crisis. They see our enthusiasm, ideals, hopes and dreams and see what they didn’t do, what they couldn’t do. Generation Y is breaking down the doors. We are doing it our way. We are not just white and we are not just men. As Newsweek shows, we are Fidel Vargas, age 25, mayor of Baldwin Park, Calif.; Jenny Harris, 24, producer of business news, CNN; Curtis Chin, 26, managing director of the Asian American Writers Workshop; and Allen Hughes, 22, co-director of “Menace II Society.” We definitely are not slackers, whiners, unknown or unidentified. Emotionally scarred? — Who doesn’t have problems? Generation Y is addressing society’s problems and individually trying help. It’s not a philosophy our parents held dearly. Better to keep it in the closet was their message. Conflict was solved by looking the other way. But, it’s not Generation Y’s way. A Gallup survey shows 48 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 are doing voluntary work. Generation Y wants to help; to give back to the community. And, because we are successful professionals, we have the time and energy to do volunteer work. But, our parents don’t see that. They see a generation of arrogant tykes who think they know what is best. Perhaps we don’t know, but we also are not sitting on our butts waiting for some “inspiration.” Yet, I don’t think that is the main reason our parents are so paranoid. Generation Y is more racially diverse than any previous generation. Martin Luther King’s dream is coming true — slowly, but surely. Although we are not just a generation of people who believe King’s philosophy. We have come to realize the immense contributions of Frederick Douglas, Betty Friedan, Cesar Chavez, Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman and Malcolm X. Baby boomers are scared because we have taken to heart what these great American figures have contributed to enrich all our lives. They label us “X” as Malcolm labeled himself. It’s insulting to think our parents’ generation, which grew up seeing and hearing (some even following) such a great figure, are now afraid of what he is to us. Malcolm used “X” because he refused to accept the name the slavemasters gave his forefathers. When he found the name of his ancestors, he changed his name to Malik El-Shabazz. Malcolm found out who he was. He explored his heritage and learned what his ancestors sacrificed for him. That’s the difference. Generation Y is learning and exploring its ancestry and multicultural background. It knows where it came from and where it’s going. Baby boomers might try exploring their own heritage. Perhaps Generation Y can teach them a few things; they might be surprised what they find. Some baby boomers are probably angered by such a suggestion. Well, why not? Baby boomers were saying the same to their parents. If they weren’t, the civil rights movement and “flower power” might not have occurred. It’s time to let go, parents. You raised us and taught the best you knew. However, don’t expect us to follow in your footsteps. The world has changed and with it new dreams have risen. It’s not just King’s dream we follow. We follow many dreams because we don’t have to worry about the Cold War or South African Apartheid any more. It’s our time to succeed and to fail ... So don’t stand in our way! Anas Ben-Musa is a senior journalism major mprb tum 'Z-oo / <doo reo?i& N\ASS*\CR£P i!\l RWANDA it\) irsl c=>TH£.^ NlEWb... irvj RwAaJPA MA/ d£CDh\£. Z-XTiNCT AS SURViVORe HUMT FeR 1 Why care about Rwanda, D-Day? Knowing about world problems eliminates indifference, apathy I n the last few weeks we’ve been inundated with news stories on two significant world events. One of them came to recent attention from the past. The other is occurring at this moment. Although death and sorrow surround the fighting in Rwanda and the memories of D-Day, many people recognize these events in the same way. Both are looked upon with apathy and ignorance because such events are so distant in time or space. Where the heck is Rwanda anyway? What’s going on there? If you haven’t been watching the news or aren’t a geography buff, you might assume it’s somewhere in Africa, just by the way the name sounds, and be correct. But what does ANYTHING in Rwanda have to do with US? Only the death really. In a nutshell, a rebel group of tribes is ferociously angry at the tribe which dominates the government and is trying to wipe it off the face of the earth, mostly with machete knives. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered in the manner we call genocide. This type of murder has occurred the world over in many instances and has nothing, but yet everything, to do with us. As shameful as it may be, many Aunericans — particularly younger ones — have little interest in what D-Day was or means. Even some college students, with formal exposure to history texts are sadly ignorant. After all, it happened 50 years ago and has no bearing on our present lives. It’s just a bunch of old men remembering war stuff, right? In another nutshell, D-Day was the date the Allied forces invaded France to turn back Hitler and reverse his military momentum. D-Day was essentially the cause of the genocide against European Jews coming to an end, the French people still being notoriously haughty and the Beatles not singing in German. Though this simplified information on Rwanda and D-Day may be helpful in appreciating the seriousness of both events, people still remain indifferent because of the lack of personal involvement or interest. But we ARE involved, even if we know nothing about such atrocities or wartime struggles. We are all a small part of everything that happens in the world. Of course, it’s not feasible or expected for “uninvolved” citizens of other countries to be correcting world problems. What can you do? Give all your money to C.A.R.E.? Shed tears for D-Day when your parents weren’t even bom yet? No. We can’t expect people to become emotionally saturated with such instances of great pain to other humans. It wouldn’t be mentally healthy. So how can one help? Although there are many levels of helpfulness, there are as many of indifference. As individuals, it is nearly impossible to have an impact on an international conflict or tragedy. But collectively, if we would all just give a damn about other societies’ pain or murderous natures that far exceed our own, political consciousness would be raised. It is through this consciousness that organizations like the United Nations will intervene in other nations’ affairs and work to stop senseless atrocities. There are explanations for these horrible doings. Overpopulation, religious disputes and arguments over land or ethnic purity are viable reasons for countless deaths — on the surface. But when the smoke clears, the land is divided and the families are notified, all that remains is a bunch of dead people. Some spoke French, some German. Some are black. But they are still dead fathers and dead little sisters. There is a tiny little thing we can do. It’s virtually effortless, costs no money and almost no time. Just know. Know about D-Day; know about Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia. Try to understand their plight, and as difficult as it may seem, - picture yourself in their position. Tuition, graduation and new cars pale in comparison to the concerns of our fellow human beings. Soldiers in battle and starving children have had life reduced to little more than survival. If you think you can’t do anything about these problems, discuss it with others. Care. If you believe, pray. Frank Stanford is a graduate philosophy student The Battalion Editorial Board Mark Evans, Editor in chief William Harrison, Managing editor lay Robbins, Opinion Editor 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. Contact the opinion editor for information on submitting guest columns. ‘No’ MEANS NO Lack of consent, not struggle, defines rape The Pennsylvania Supreme Court re cently ruled that a woman must be physi cally threatened into having sex before rape can be proved. The verdict ruled on a 1987 incident in which a female student at East Strouds burg University entered a dorm room looking for her boyfriend and found his roommate, Robert Berkowitz, who asked her to stay. She agreed. After he “mas saged her breasts” and she re fused to perform oral sex on him, they both stood up Then he locked the door, pushed her down on the bed and had in tercourse with her. Berkowitz said “Wow, I guess we just got carried away.” The victim replied, “No, we didn’t get carried away. You got carried away.” The woman acknowledged that Berkowitz did not threaten or force her to remain in the room. She did testify, however, that she sought to leave the room and said “no” throughout the encounter. If a woman says “no,” she means no. Berkowitz claimed “they were very pas sionate ‘no’s.” That does not matter. She did not consent to have sex with him. Nonconsensual sex is rape. But what does “no” mean in Pennsylvania? Unfortunately, lack of consent by both parties cannot always prove that a rape occurred, as the Pennsylvania case shows. Pennsylvania law requires “forcible compulsion” for a rape convic tion. Since the woman did not scream or fight back, the court said it was not rape. At a basic level, the Pennsylvania court is faulty of ignoring the ever pre sent possibility of a worst-case scenario. How would a woman physically resist if she were temporar ily frozen with fright or if sbfe were a quadri plegic? Rules at some colleges go too far by requiring ex plicit affirmative consent for each escalation of sexual con tact. However, the laws of society must reflect the fact that noncon sensual sex is rape. The woman in Pennsylvania said that she did what she was taught: “Say ‘no’ and don’t fight, because you could wind up dead.” University of Chicago Law School pro fessor Stephen Schulhofer says that many states lack a sensible way to deal with cases that involve more than “... dis respectful touching and less than out right violence ...” He says the attack is trivialized by calling it indecent assault, which is only a Class B misdemeanor. The only sensible way to deal with nonviolent rape, date rape or any kind of nonconsensual sex is to call it rape — and punish the offender as a rapist. "" ' " Mail Call Gun control limits rights This letter is in response to the column writ ten by guest columnist Elizabeth Preston on June 1. Preston’s prohibitionist support of gun control is disturbing and illogical at best. Blam ing gun ownership with teen suicides and indi rectly accusing the National Rifle Association with endorsing cop-killing is asinine. While the majority of the Bill of Rights grants us, as citizens of the United States, the rights of privacy, intellectual expression, due process and practice of religion, the Second Amendment stands as the sole guardian of our ability as individuals and as a community to physically defend those rights. Our founding fathers obviously had their cultural roots in England and believed that they should be subject to the common law of England. This common law preserved, among other things, the right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights was in part a promise of the government to the people that they would never be disarmed and thus be subject to aggression by either private or the government. If there is any record of the term in the Second Amendment “the people” meaning anything other than its intent in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as Preston implies, then it has not survived in writings and records dating from 1787 to 1791 and is absent in all Supreme Court opinions. It is evident in this time of liberal gnn control legislation that the Supreme Court will soon be forced to expound upon and specify its position on what this amendment means. I sincerely hope that a case is not brought before them as the result of a police officer being killed in a public housing pro ject randomly searching for the very instrument which ended his life. Liberal legislators and colum nists must realize that by enacting gun control pol icy, they may well be leading to more victimization of the very law abiding citizens that it sought to protect. Should we not legislate higher account ability in the ownership of firearms rather than against the right to ownership itself? And should, in the defense of our life, liberty, and property, we be limited in our means of physical defense? Yes, guns do kill, that was the intent of their in vention and every individual who has both played Cowboys and Indians and fired a real gun will testi fy that one is a game and the other is deadly serious. So, the next time Preston wishes to challenge my Constitutional rights, she should not give me “news flashes” about hypothetical scenarios and erroneous historical opinions, and wake up to what she is proposing — that through the imposition of her choice not to own a gun on others, she may be direct ly leading to the victimization of someone else. Aaron P. Bidne Class of'96 Address letters to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Mailstop 1111 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 Fax: (409) 845-2647 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, dass, and phone number. We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy.