ay • September 26,
nt committees against|
tiers in an effort to prou
jamming and unity.
■ special events commiti;
expanding its hosting
y hosting such events
resident’s Buffet and||
eadef’s Reunion,
is an honor for us to!
to host these events,
eat for our member
different people,”Loti
mid
? Hospitality conunitti
so planned bilingualps
•grams, a mystery rami
r with NOVA, new
inners and a 25thMS
ality Reunion,
reunion in October will
275 Conner members, k
1 people who have help
ality with the 150am?
'rs for dinner anddancj
k Hiemstra, public rt
ind development exeerni
>r finance major, saiii
on will give members
• to talk with peoplefn
ality’s past,
spitality has growntn
GO members to its cum
Hiemstra said.‘1
1 membership in the
ars, but it has madeNi
y stronger.”
e if you really takeiii
reshman computer et
e recently signed upb
ren.
1,1 )awes said. “1 wan;
going to do to us."
2s not expect the expe
ith his cl ass work, bul
't in the experiments,
ested in how the m;
n’t think the experim
r me, but it will hel]
2d research subjects
us,” he said. “Their pm
>r coming here is that
2 graduate business s
mked d 1st in the nation
■nt U.S. News and Vo:;
t article and in other
; as high as 27.
vers said the graduatep:
has been overshadowed',
at, but has begun to disc;
itself' in the last few years
nee they have reorganii
'ogram, we have steppt
competing with the unde
ate program,” she sai.
^The Battalion
Opinion
Tuesday
September 26, 1995
The Battalion
Established in 1893
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views
of the editorials 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.
Editorials Board
Rob Clark
Editor in Chief •
Sterling Hayman
Managing Editor
Kyle Littlefield
Opinion Editor
Elizabeth Preston
Assistant Opinion Editor
EENING
WHOOPI
GOLDBERG
iJlB l
y-
o
itself.
i Available at
)x Office
f Show
AT&T
yburTrue Choice
Editorial
Never Fold
The media should not cater to
terrorist or government demands.
Last week, the New York
Times and the Washington
Post printed the manifesto of
the Unabomber in an effort to
put an end to the 17-year ran
dom string of mail bombings.
The Unabomber, whose
identity is unknown to au
thorities, promised to end his
bombing streak if the Times
and Post would print his
35,000-word essay.
This decision not only af
fects both newspapers, but all
media organizations, as well.
Caving into the demands of a
terrorist sets a dangerous prece
dent: The media can be persuad
ed by threats to “bend its rules.”
In this sense, last week’s de
cision does not put an end to
the violence but rather leaves
another unpredictable door
open for more threats of vio
lence to bully the media.
The decision to print the
manifesto also exhibits ques
tionable logic on the part of the
two papers. Obviously, the Un
abomber is not a rational hu
man being, which makes the
decision all the more interest
ing. The papers have no guar
antee he will keep his promise.
The Houston Chronicle re
ported the newspapers made
their decision under persistent
urging from the Justice De
partment and the FBI. For
these government agencies to
make such a request, there
must be details not known to
the public.
The media has always prid
ed itself on being independent
of the government. Giving in to
such a request seems to go
against that basic philosophy.
While standing up for the
freedom of the press — which
includes deciding what is fit
to be printed in a newspaper
— in the face of threats of vio
lence, may seem like a ro
mantic ideal, it is an ideal
that has served the media
well in the past. There is no
need to shelve it now.
The media’s main purpose
is to objectively report news to
the public. By succumbing to
other interests, such as the
Unabomber or the govern
ment, the media fails.
College athletes don’t deserve pay
Erin
Fitzgerald
Columnist
I f you watched the football
game Saturday against
Colorado, you might have
seen the commercial with
the characters from Coach
explaining how the gradua
tion rate for football players
is continuously increasing.
That’s a good thing to
know, since football players
should actually be going to college for an
education and not for any other reason.
Last semester, I mentioned to a friend
that Texas A&M is one of the only major
universities that does not pay our student
body president.
Somehow, I received an unexpected, un
related response of, “Well, football players
should be paid before student body presi
dents.” In disbelief, I questioned from
where such reasoning came.
The justification was based on faulty
reasoning like: Our University monetarily
profits by having a winning football team.
These players deserve to share in some of
the wealth. Another argument was they
are out on the field every day risking injury
which could completely ruin their future as
a professional athlete.
Also, many are on scholarships which
they could lose if unable to fulfill their du
ties as a football player.
Other myths include: Many would have
to drop out of school if they were not on the
football team because they would not be
able to pay tuition. And finally, they do not
have time to hold a part-time job since foot
ball practice takes up so much time.
All of these arguments are full of fluff.
Beginning with the first, I didn’t know
Texas A&M was now incorporated. Often
we complain about teachers focusing on re
search and ignoring their responsibility to
teach the students.
Paying football players is another exam
ple of people forgetting our University is an
institution of higher learning.
Besides, football players receive enough
perks on the side to compensate them for
their work. For example, football players
living off campus receive a
monthly stipend for living ex
penses.
I will only briefly remind
you that the university lost
millions of dollars by being
put on probation for certain
perks given by former stu
dents. Remember Greg Hill?
As for risking bodily harm
that could be detrimental to their.future —
do football players not have a major field of
study anymore?
Perhaps they have promising futures as
professional athletes, but having a major
should at least count as a back-up. If foot
ball players are seriously injured,
that is a risk they take for re
ceiving a free education for
playing football at an excel
lent University.
If a football player
were to lose a scholar
ship, he would simply
have to find another
means to pay his tuition.
No one would have
to drop out of the Uni
versity because he could
not pay for tuition. That
is why there is such a
thing as financial aid
and student loans.
Many non-athletes
have financial constraints
and manage an education.
Oh, and God forbid a football player should
have to rely on his academic ability to receive
any other scholarship.
Assuming football players must meet the
same academic requirements to be admitted
into A&M, they have just as much potential to
succeed as any Aggie.
On the other end of the spectrum, stu
dent body presidents do deserve a salary.
Every student elected to this position
has spent years at our University working
up through the ranks, contributing to cam
pus life, until they are finally elected by
their peers to represent the student body.
Their position may not bring in the bucks,
but they do spend numerous hours working
for unselfish goals to benefit fellow Ags.
The only perk our student body presi
dent has is free parking.
This is hardly compensation for the
many hours spent in their office and in
meetings. In comparison to other universi
ties, this “perk” is hardly worth mention
ing. Along with parking, the student body
president at t.u. receives $500 a month and
tuition is waived.
However, I am only playing the devil’s ad
vocate when I suggest that our student body
president should be paid.
While I do believe our student
body president contributes
more to the University than
football players, paying
him is unethical.
As the position now
stands, a person must
be willing to devote
an entire year of their
life, traveling to A&M
Mother’s Clubs, meet
ing with Dr. Souther
land, and speaking to
wr various student
groups on campus.
Meanwhile the student body
president strives to accomplish the
agenda promised to the students
when they were elected.
Our current Student Body President Toby
Boenig isn’t interested for being compensated
for his work.
“I don’t really care (to be paid). I think the
student body president position is one which
gives back to the students everything they’ve
gotten out of the University. As Aggies, we
strive for something which is greater than our
selves. Serving as student body president is
another way of doing that,” Boenig said.
Those who advocate that football players
should be paid for their “services” to this Uni
versity should take that to heart.
Erin Fitzgerald is a senior
English and political science major
Politically incorrect
PC is wrongfully labeled a liberal phenomenon
Strange visit
IRA's Gerry Adams has nothing to teach Texas A&M
Chris
Stidvent
Columnist
T hat’s it, I’m putting away
my flag-burning kit, get
ting another draft card and
joining the John Birch society.
Once again, the conservative
element has chosen to beat us
poor liberals over the head with
that big ugly monster of politi
cal correctness.
It’s gotten to the point that
I can’t take it anymore, so I’m defecting to the
other side.
James T. Evans, self-proclaimed “reformed liber
al” and author of the wittily-titled book Where Liber
als Go To Die, descended on our campus last Tues
day night. He brought with him some conservative
propaganda and misconceptions about the origins of
the PC movement that have been floating around
out there for quite some time.
As Evans was there at the behest of the right-
wing Conservative Coalition and the somewhat sin
ister-sounding Students for America, I had a pretty
good idea of what I was getting into before I crept in
and slunk into a seat near the back of the room.
Evans began by letting us know that he was go
ing to “loosen us up from the rigors of political cor
rectness,” by creating a “Tough Questions
Safety Zone.”
The working assumption
was that political
correctness was a
repressive hall
mark of the liberal
movement.
Only in a room
full of strict conserv
atives could an indi
vidual speak his or
her mind without fear
of the “feeling” of liber
als reproaching them
for being culturally or
racially insensitive.
To soften us up, we were
first treated to some horrify
ing anecdotes concerning in
cidents in which proponents
of the PC movement had imposed sanctions and
fines on those who unwittingly might have offended
another person.
A woman trying to sell her house was fined be
cause the advertisement she wrote contained such
descriptions as “a lovely view of the river” and “a
short-walk from town.” This was considered offen
sive both to the blind and to those who were “differ
ently abled,” in that they couldn’t walk.
We were then led down the slippery slope
from this ridiculous incident to making connec
tions with fascist countries such as Czechoslova
kia during the late ’60s.
The implication was that, once again, we can’t al
low the liberal PC proponents to tell us what we can
and cannot say, because sooner or later they will be
telling us what we can and cannot think.
I guess if Clinton and his PC cronies stay in pow
er, we’ll be living in a society with a strong resem
blance to George Orwell’s 1984 or Stalinist Russia.
These sentiments are echoed in the recent let
ter sent by the College Republicans urging alum
ni to withhold donations from the University be
cause of the new “liberal” atmosphere prevailing
on our campus.
According to the now infamous missive,
“if I as a student in a Political Science
class argued that homosexuality is an un
natural lifestyle ... I would be punished by
being sent to sensitivity classes.” Once
again, those compassionate liberals are re
stricting our right to free speech under the
guise of establishing a society in which no
body is ever offended by anything that
anybody else says.
I was damned mad by this point and just about
ready to start voting for Pat Buchanan and the true
patriots of the Republican party, when I realized
something. What is going on here is not only mis
leading, but a colossal missing of the point. The PC
movement has been pinned onto those sorry liberals
for so long that we’ve all forgotten a fundamentally
important fact.
Political correctness, which involves telling peo
ple what they should and should not say, is just
plain censorship. It’s the repression of the free ex
change of ideas, ostensibly
because those ideas
might offend the
i tender sensibilities
^ of somebody else.
Censorship is
not a liberal
phenomenon.
It never has
been and it
never will
be. It is a
bastion of
conserva-
tivism
that
mas
querades un
der the guise of
warm fuzziness” and an ar
tificially elevated respect for oth
er’s feelings. True liberalism protects our
right to say whatever we want, whenever we
want and wherever we want.
If somebody is accidentally or intentionally of
fended, a true liberal either apologizes or simply
doesn’t care.
And then we have the American Civil Liberties
Union. These yellow liberal bastards have defended
the free-speech rights of despicable organizations
like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party.
As idiotic and backwards as these groups are,
they are still guaranteed their right to peaceful self-
expression. What the ACLU and its liberal propo
nents represent is equal-opportunity defense of the
right to free expression, no matter what it is that is
being expressed.
Here we have Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and their
Republican henchmen. These pseudo-fascists recent
ly supported a bill that would censor certain por
tions of the Internet. No real free exchange of ideas
being promoted here.
Politically correct thought and the censorship
that it entails belongs in the conservative tradition.
Any Republican who wants to take aim at the
roots of the political correctness movement might as
well shoot himself in the foot.
Maybe I’ll be a liberal after all.
Chris Stidvent is a senior English
and philosophy major
Lydia
Percival
Columnist
A ccording to the
Student Pro
grams Office
of the MSC, Gerry
Adams of the Irish
Republican Army
and president of the
Irish political party
Sinn Fein is coming
to Texas A&M.
This is in conjunction with a
conference by the Wiley Lecture
Series on the state of Ireland.
I have to wonder exactly what
we can learn from a terrorist.
Gerry Adams is famous for
the bombings which he appar
ently orchestrated in an attempt
to gain political independence
from Great Britain.
For more than two decades,
his movement has struck terror
in the hearts of Irish and Eng
lish alike. Tourists and citizens
of the United Kingdom have
died at the hands of this man
who will come to speak at
Texas A&M.
For example, in one weekend,
the Aug. 14, 1995 edition of the.
Glasgow Herald reported that
“youths threw petrol bombs, set
vehicles alight and stoned fire
fighters. In Armagh, crowds
threw bottles and bricks at po
lice and firefighters.
One fireman was injured, and
police cars and several buses
were damaged. In Belfast a bus
was hijacked and set alight by a
man with a handgun. In London
derry, crowds hurled petrol
bombs and damaged shops. A
crane at a new shopping centre
was set ablaze.”
These examples all occurred
during peace talks, thus they
were just plain old riots. Imag
ine what life was like when Ger
ry Adams wasn’t in the mood for
peace.
In many cas
es, Adams’
groups pre
ferred to blow
up pubs and
shops at their
busiest times.
In short, his ac
tions were de
spicable.
So how much money did the
Wiley Lecture Series pay to
bring this terrorist here?
Understandably, Wiley Lec
ture Series was not able to com
ment on the cost of bringing in
Adams because the affair is “un
der contract,” so 1 called the
American FYograms Bureau, Inc.
It listed his honorarium any
where between $15,000 and
$20,000.
Wiley Lecture Series receives
no student fees, but they are an
organization of the MSC’s Stu
dent Programs Office.
The idea that a terrorist is
coming to Texas A&M through
Texas A&M seems awful.
I do not disagree with bring
ing speakers of other ideologies.
Bring in a communist and I
would be interested to hear how
someone can justify believing in
an ideology which seems to
have failed all over the world.
But please do not bring in a
terrorist under the auspices of
education to this University.
There is nothing to learn
from Gerry Adams (unless you
need a tip on blowing up your
professor’s car in order to avoid
that chemistry test that is
growing near).
I understand that Gerry
Adams isn’t still blowing people
up today. So what?
Let’s say a miracle occurred
and President Clinton was actu
ally successful in foreign policy
regarding Bosnia.
Let’s pretend that a peace ac
cord was struck today and all
the shelling would end. In a few
months would we bring in Slobo
dan Milosevic to speak to us on
why he believed genocide was
justified in the midst of his civil
war? I hope not!
If Hitler hadn’t killed himself,
maybe the Wiley Lecture Series
of 1950 could have brought him
to speak at A&M.
Okay, maybe Gerry Adams is
n’t Hitler, and some even go so far
as to consider him a patriot.
I was telling a friend in
Washington, D.C. about Adams
coming here and he said he
feels Adams is a freedom fight
er, not a terrorist.
But is blowing up innocent
civilians having a beer in a pub is
any way to fight for freedom?
Perhaps anarchists would say
that if accused bomber Timothy
Me Veigh is convicted he was a
freedom fighter against a tyranni
cal government.
I have to wonder how we
would feel if some university in
Ireland decided to invite McVeigh
to speak to them. I would be pret
ty ticked off.
So why should we bring
Adams?
However, there is a positive
side to Adams’ coming here.
Somebody should alert the FBI
to come and search the audience
because the Unabomber might
show up to pick up some tricks of
the trade from an expert.
Isn’t it nice to know A&M can
be of some service to the world?
Lydia Percival is a senior
political science major
Ags shouldn't tear
down AIDS signs
Many people have recently
spent hours putting up fliers to
promote events that we are orga
nizing with AIDS Services of
Mail
ALL
Brazos Valley, in connection with
AIDS Awareness Month.
As I was walking through
Blocker today, I noticed that a
number of posters.! had put up
were no longer there. These
posters were advertising a fund
raiser and had a red ribbon to
support AIDS-related issues.
I understand that there are
some who see this ribbon and con
nect it with certain emotions and
prejudices they have with AIDS.
However, I do not see the suc
cess achieved in removing these
posters. They were costly to
make. They are also the result of
months of hard work to organize
this event. I am dismayed that
these were removed, and hope
they will be returned.
If you see something that you
do not agree with, ignore it. Or
read the information: You may
leam something.
Ignorance is no excuse for
stupidity.
Jennifer Schmidt
Class of ’95