diment
a Sele s
of evil,"
awyers
\ loving
itically
id of at-
arries a
s causa
ingfor
'evious
o cale
lem uc-
of five
h major
saii
ave at
ng bi|
ituatio:
” Rohi;
end if
ues, it's
e to be
1’t have
far h;
Rohcr
I wae
he b:;
this ie
Rohd:
ts wit:
'o hoie
nds tke
out ma
coming
’ Rohde
iw that
of that
d catch
3 power
hat the
ed hi
he A
He wa
lortst
/ more
x.
said
iave at
icl
oachit-
d as th
er Lart:
rsity t|
Carlee
joinit
husett;
to la®
the ke;
afield
Timfr
ily fi vf j
coach
no sak
at W
i ad one
well G-1
rused:
LhsovP
d vowee
f hard’
mold r
mpeted
ips.
bate
onal
Id re-
jnt
vould
chool
itisW'
,ir to
e not
e not
rther
r OUt
letes
iould
fight
t the
ainst
three
letes
ally
ngr)'
zi° s
that
with
not
ere's
Clue
in
women tired of negative stereotypes
u “W" myself have never
I been able to find
-A-out precisely what
feminism is: I only know
that people call me a femi
nist whenever I express
sentiments that differenti
ate me from a doormat,”
said Rebecca West, in 1913.
It’s Women’s Week at A&M, and they’ve
thrown a variety of activities together in honor of
the occasion. Things like fashion shows, health is
sue lectures and panel discussions.
Speaking of the panel discussion. A bunch of
men were asked to talk about the women’s move
ment. That was interesting. A men’s panel dis
cussion as the high point of Women’s Week.
I suppose men might have something to say
about this topic, but why would they be the fea
tured speakers during a time of celebration for
women on this campus?
Perhaps the men’s panel discussion was held
so that men would be encouraged to participate
in Women’s Week. Perhaps it was thought, and
rightly so, that some men would rather hear
other men talk about women and their situa
tions, than actually listen to women discuss
those issues.
In any case, it seems disappointing that we
must cater to men during Women’s
Week.
Women shouldn’t have to soften
their message, or package their
agenda, or couch their concerns in
gentle terms, just to get people to lis
ten. People should listen because
women make up half of the human
population.
Women are people, equal to men.
They aren’t charity cases, and they aren’t prob
lems to be solved at a panel discussion.
So listen up.
Some did come to the panel, mostly guys. This
was also interesting. It seems that the marketing
ploy worked. Men spoke, men listened — the
women’s movement was analyzed, assessed, and
then they probably moved on.
Some good stuff did happen at the panel dis
cussion, and intelligent comments were made, es
pecially those that encouraged men to break
down gender barriers and avoid traditional
stereotypes.
But the “Don’t look at this as a battle between
the sexes. There is a lot to be gained when we
look beyond the stereotypes that we are taught,”
comment by panelist Dr. Gary Brooks, a psychol
ogist with the Temple Veterans Administration,
was a little tough to swallow.
Hmm ...
This isn’t a war, not necessarily, and yet there
are battles being fought. It isn’t ‘us’ against
‘them’ — it is ‘acceptable’ versus ‘unacceptable.’
Some conditions, some traditions, some behaviors
and many attitudes are simply unacceptable.
They need to be eliminated, not excused.
To simply push the fight aside, and say that
battles shouldn’t be fought, demeans the actions
of all the men and women who are working to
wards equality.
But thinking of men and women as two sides
in a terrible war isn’t the best way to achieve that
equality. Instead, let’s think of humans being on
one side; outdated traditions and remnants of
sexism are on the other.
We needn’t fight against each other, if all will
join the fight against sexism.
Unfortunately, some less than intelligent com
ments were made too. Observations that should
have been obvious several decades ago were pre
sented as revelations, such as this brilliant as
sessment: “There are many shades in the wom
en’s movement,” said Michael Osterburh, area co
ordinator for Residence Life and Housing.
He revealed to the audience that not all
women are one extreme or the other. Not all
women are traditionalists, not all women are
feminists.
Oh ...
But perhaps he was right to mention that
women are as varied in temperament, talent and
tendencies as men. Let’s hope we’ve got that
straight from now on.
The confusion experienced by men in their
dealings with women was also discussed, much
to the delight — I’m sure — of the mostly male
audience.
It was said: “We see a confusion of roles. Guys
don’t know if they should hold the door open or
pick up the check,” said Dr. Brian Williams, of
A&M’s Student Counseling Center, at the A&M
Women’s Week panel discussion.
“Conflicting messages from women are forc
ing men to think about what they really want,”
he said.
Do women really want the door held open?
Is this the big issue that the women’s move
ment has worked so hard for long to bring to pub
lic light?
I don’t think so, but the answer is: If he gets
there first, then yes, he should hold it open.
Conflicting messages? I couldn’t reply any bet
ter than Susan Faludi, Pulitzer prize-winning au
thor of Backlash does:
“Feminism’s agenda is basic: It asks
tbat women ... be free to define them
selves — instead of having their identity
defined for them, time and again, by their
culture ... Feminism remains a pretty sim
ple concept, despite repeated efforts to
dress it up in grease paint and turn its
proponents into gargoyles.”
Any questions?
Erin Hill is a senior
English major
i
|H Mail
Legislators should not
censor super-highway
I’ve uncovered something terrible on
the Internet. It seems that Congress,
including our own Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchison, has decided it’s time to cen
sor the net. A bill that began making its
rounds on Feb. 1 of this year was hand
ed back by the Senate Commerce Com
mittee — of which Hutchison is a mem
ber — on Thursday of last week (March
23) as an addition to the Telecommuni
cations Deregulation Act of 1995.
It proposes to make it illegal to
“transmit” or “make available” any sort
of “communication, request, proposal,
image, or suggestion” that is, as the bill
says, is “indecent.”
This is a blatant attempt to censor
the Internet. The bill actually amends
43 U.S.C. 223 to include telecommuni
cations devices (like modems) rather
than just telephones. And, in addition,
doubles the fine from $50,000 to
$100,000 and quadruples the jail time
from six months to two years for viola
tion should it become law.
To me this sounds like a dangerous
blow to Freedom of Speech as protected
by the Bill of Rights. Please contact
your senators and ask them to stand up
for your rights to say whatever you feel
like on the net.
I know there are Ags out there
that know how to use IRC, Mosaic and
the WWW, e-mail and Usenet. All these
things are in danger as we speak. Pro
tect your rights as an Aggie and a citi
zen of the U.S. of A!
when he is completely clueless about
his subject.
The Corps does not gather all candi
dates interested in running for office
and pick and choose who is going to be
in the elections.
Any cadet that wishes to run for any
political position may do so.
One thing that will never change
about the Corps is that we will always
support our own.
Landauer sees this support as party
politics, but I see it as a vote for the
candidates we are most familiar with.
Non-reg friends of mine have told me
that they vote the same way.
Cadets are encouraged to vote for
other cadets, but they are NOT ordered
to. When I was an underclassman, I
voted for non-regs if I felt they were the
best candidate.
Yell Leader is a position that should
have nothing to do with politics.
The Yell Leaders are probably the
most visible people on this campus and
they should embody the Aggie spirit
that is important to all of us on this
campus.
A Yell Leader, cadet or non-reg,
needs to be unselfish and think more
his fellow Aggies than he does of
himself.
Corps Yell Leader candidates are
chosen by their peers for demonstrat
ing these qualities. I have absolutely
no respect for any selfish individual
that pouts and whines when he is not
chosen and decides he is so important
that he needs to shake up the system
and run anyway.
I do not see how this kind of person
could call himself an Aggie or expect
others to do so.
Matt Barbour
Class of ’95
Aggie spirit intact
despite controversy
was a message that my checkbook had
been found. Later that evening, the girl
who had found them dropped the check
book off at my apartment. I wasn’t
there when she came by, and I just
wanted to thank her. You are an awe
some Ag!
Kathi Burnett
Class of ’96
Corps needs to change
attitudes, behavior
I am writing regarding the situation
of Yell Leader elections. Personally, I
have to say that I am embarrassed with
the attitudes and disloyalty that certain
“leaders” in the Corps of Cadets have
displayed this year.
Does this school not pride itself on
being a family and being united?
I personally have a hard time re
specting these people when they have
disowned one of their own. How do
they justify discouraging any member
for standing up for what he/she be
lieves in?
Aggies are supposed to be fair, and
more than that the Corps of Cadets is
said to be a family within themselves.
However, in this situation this “fami
ly concept” has not shown through.
Instead, they vandalized one’s
property and heckled behind their
backs when they should be proud
when one feels such a love and desire
for this school to want to stand up for
Texas A&M University as a Yell
Leader. I have to wonder how these
“leaders” feel right now?
Do they feel like Aggies? Because to
me, their actions do not hold true the
real meaning of an Aggie.
Texas A&M University prides itself
on not tolerating those who lie, cheat
nor steal.
I feel that these “leaders” need to
take a serious look at themselves and
re-evaluate their character.
Pete Siekierski
Class of ’96
Corps of Cadets does
not play party politics
I am writing in response to Michael
Landauer’s column about “party poli
tics” in the March 29 Battalion.
First of all, Landauer displayed poor
journalism skills by writing a column
With all the controversy that
seems to be going on all the time here
in Aggieland, I just wanted to assure
everyone that the Aggie Spirit is alive
and well.
On Wednesday, March 22, I left my
checkbook on the bus.
When I realized it was missing, I was
frantic.
I was worried that someone would
use the checks before I could report
them missing.
When I got home from class there
Hope Siegele
Class of ’95
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 for
length, style, clarity and accuracy. Letters may be sub
mitted in person at 013 Reed McDonald. A valid
student I.D. is required. Letters may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call Fax: (409) 845-2647
013 Reed McDonald E-mail:
Texas A&M University Batt@tamvm1.tamu.edu
College Station, TX 77843-1111
Arlen Spector leaves
much to be desired
for Republicans
S enator
Arlen Spec-
tor of Penn
sylvania has an
nounced he will
seek the Repub
lican nomination for the President
of the United States.
His announcement, although not
unanticipated, presents puzzling
questions on why he thinks he has
a chance.
If the 1994 elections made any
statement, it is that America
wants more conservative leader
ship in Washington.
Both houses of Congress have
become dramatically more conserv
ative. And since the elections.
President Clinton has tried to
paint himself once again as a “New
Democrat” by proposing tax cuts.
Senator Spector, who has been
in politics for three decades, has
distinguished himself through his
voting record as probably the most
liberal Republican vying for the
nomination. He has a history of
breaking ranks with Republicans.
In the 1980’s when President
Reagan nominated Judge Robert
Bork for the supreme court. Sena
tor Spector was one of the few Re
publicans who helped Democrats
kill the nomination.
Why?
Because Judge Bork disagreed
with Roe v. Wade.
More recently. Senator Spector
aided the Democrats in breaking
the Republican filibuster on the
1994 crime bill.
As a former district attorney, he
is a strong supporter of social pro
grams, such as midnight basketball,
which were part of the legislation.
Senator Spector is one of the few
candidates that is pro-choice. He is
an outspoken advocate of removing
the pro-life plank in the Republi
can party platform.
With his voting record, why does
he think he has a chance?
If there was any year that you
would think moderate or liberal
Republicans would not run for
President, this is it.
In primaries, voters in both par
ties are decidedly more polarized.
Moderates tend to stay home and
wait for the general election.
But Senator Spector has an even
more intriguing history many peo
ple are not aware of.
In 1990, in anticipation of a
tough senatorial primary challenge
from a conservative Republican,
Senator Spector chose to be the
chief Republican in charge of inter
rogating Anita Hill during the
Clarence Thomas confirmation
hearings.
Although this effort helped him
survive the primary, it almost cost
him his seat in the general election.
An unknown Pennsylvania house
wife who was incensed by how Spec-
tor treated Anita Hill’s sexual ha
rassment allegations, garnered 49
percent of the vote.
After the fact, Senator Spector
has spoken of his regret about the
affair and has insinuated that if he
had to do it again, he would have
voted against Justice Thomas.
But more importantly, in 1964 a
young assistant district attorney
named Arlen Spector was chosen to
be a staff member on the Warren
Commission, which was charged
with investigating the assassina
tion of President John F. Kennedy.
Given the Commission’s fore
gone conclusion that Lee Harvey
Oswald acted alone. Specter’s job
was to determine how this could
have happened.
The result of Spector’s investiga
tion was the “magic bullet theory.”
You remember — the bullet that
caused seven wounds (two in
Kennedy and five in Governor John
Connally) and came out intact and
in pristine condition.
It was also the bullet that
zigzagged and paused in mid air.
This theory is the very founda
tion of the Warren Report. Only
three shells were fired from the Os
wald rifle, and two are accounted
for — one missed and one was the
fatal head shot.
Once you conclude that one bul
let could not have caused all seven
Many Republicans will not
support Spector because
of his renegade voting
record and his tendency to
vote for big spending.
wounds, you must conclude there
was a fourth shot.
And with a fourth shot, you nec
essarily need a second gunman.
Trivial facts such as these were
ignored by Senator Spector in his
frantic search for closure.
I am confident Senator Spector
will not win the nomination.
Many conservatives will not vote
for him because he is pro-choice.
Many Republicans will not sup
port him because of his renegade
voting record and his tendency to
vote for big government spending
programs.
His vote for a crime bill that in
cluded an assault weapons ban en
sures a poor showing in the south
ern region.
But those are not the reasons
why I could never support Senator
Spector.
In certain circumstances I can
forgive a Senator’s past voting
mistakes. I also do not hold abor
tion as a litmus test for Republi
can candidates.
But I cannot forgive someone for
committing the biggest fraud in the
history of America.
Because of Senator Spector’s ef
forts to conclude the investigation
into President Kennedy’s death
quickly and expeditiously, Ameri
cans have been denied a truthful
explanation on what really oc
curred on November 22, 1963.
Jim Staley is a senior
management major
Jim Staley
Guest
Columnist