Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 4, 1995)
Wednesday October 4, 1995 The Battalion Opinion Jurors’ decision had little to do with Simpson W e live in a strange world where things aren’t al ways what they seem. I liken it to those fun- house mirrors at carni vals. When standing in front of such a mirror, you appear different than you actually look. When you walk away from the mirror, things are back to normal. When you see your reflection in a window, you look as you always have. Yesterday, the O.J. Simpson verdict provided a similar mirror to play with our senses. It’s like a long, impassioned game of Clue: You catch Col. Mustard in the study holding the candle stick. It seems pretty cut and dry, but later you find it is actually Professor Plum who is guilty. Similarly, blood belonging to Simpson is found smeared all over the crime scene, O.J. flees from his arraignment, a recorded 911 phone call testifies that Simpson had a history of beating his wife. However, Simpson was found “not guilty.” The decision seems surprising until you real ize the trial was basically an illusion. First of all, rid yourself of the notion that Simpson’s guilt or innocence was at issue. This trial had little to do with Simpson. It could easily seem that way — the setting of our little allegorical drama was a courtroom. A crime had occurred. Simpson was the defendant. Yet, there was something greater acting itself out than the surface plot. The jurors, whether they realized it or not, were not deciding Simpson’s innocence. Rather, they were voicing an opinion — providing social commentary — on the conditions that exist in Los Ange les, Calif, and many other places around the nation. L.A. is a hotbed of racial ten sion, so racism was an obvious but brilliant card to play in the Simpson trial. The decision to question Mark Fuhrman’s validity as a witness was poetic because Fuhrman represented the L.A. police department, both physically and symbolically. After all, it was racism that prompted the riots af ter the police officers accused of beating Rodney King were acquitted. And because of its poor track record and un popularity, the LAPD was the symbolic defen dant in this trial. It may seem surprising that Simpson was found not guilty because of all of the evidence that hinted otherwise. But the residents of L.A. — represented by the jurors — were simply sending a message to the LAPD. The big problem is that this is not what the jus tice system is supposed to do. The verdict of a trial should not be a reaction to anything except the testimony heard in the court room. This is why trials are relocated when the pro posed environment is too emotionally charged for a trial to be considt ! “fair.” The people ol he United States should ask themselves, “Is this an isolate I incident?” It very well could be. O.J. Simp son was definitely not your ordi nary defendant. But if this verdict is more representative of the state of the criminal justice system as a whole, we are in trouble. Whereas you can always walk away from a fun- house mirror if you don’t like what you see, the state of our justice system is not so easy to sidestep. In 1970, the trial of Charles Manson was touted as the “trial of the century.” In retrospect, this was a premature assessment. However, it is now 1995 — with five more years until the turn of the century — and it is pretty safe to say that the trial of O.J. Simpson is definitely the “trial of the century.” Not because of the personalities involved, but be cause of the greater meaning attached. Law enforce ment agencies, the criminal justice system and to some extent, the government will never operate or be perceived in the same way. So you can be thrilled or disgusted at the thought of the jurors’ verdict, but understand that O.J. was never the real issue. Kyle Littlefield is a senior journalism major Egos too often dictate ethics Schools shouldn't always allow students to decide their own values A girl I know used to worry consistently about receiving per fect grades when she was in elemen tary school. One semester, things didn’t go as she had hoped, and she received several B’s. She snuck into the bathroom and changed her grades with a pen. With revised report card in hand, she marched out confidently to show-off her “A’s.” Of course, she was caught. Her naivete in believing that a teacher wouldn’t notice a large ‘A’ scribbled in a child’s hand still makes her laugh. She learned an important lesson, too, af ter she had to write an essay on not alter ing report cards. Not to mention enduring the disappoint ment of her parents. Everyone probably has at least one childhood experience that taught a similar lesson in the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ of life: stealing a piece of candy from the corner store, swiping a new Barbie Doll outfit from a playmate, taking someone else’s baseball card. When we got caught, we also caught the huge parental lecture on property, posses sion, stealing and honesty. It seems that too many of us, however, didn’t listen hard enough when our par ents spoke. Those childish behaviors have stuck with us, and we still do what we want when it suits us. Now, however, there aren’t necessarily any parents to make us return those stolen baseball cards. Every one of us, to some degree or another, is convinced that our per ception of the world is correct. This leads us to believe that the conclusions we draw are accurate, and the actions we take are acceptable. Deep down, or sometimes not so deep down, we believe ourselves to be right on target concerning just about everything. We start to trust our own in stincts too much. We believe our own hype, and our egos swell. When we trust our instincts too much — instincts that exist to protect ourselves — we stop believing in Right and Wrong and start believe in Right and Okay For Now. Or, even worse, we believe in Right and Right for Me. This philosophy is reinforced at every turn by our schools. “Good values are what each person values” is a myth that is too much with us. Our parents may have told us it was wrong to do whatever we want without thinking about the morality of our actions. However, schools, in an effort to not instill specific values in students, avoid teaching values at all. They teach, instead, a strange brand of moral relativism which encourages stu dents to keep looking out for #1. “Teaching the Virtues,” by Christina Hoff Summers, is a stinging essay on the pervasiveness of moral relativism in our schools and in the larger society. Summers, an ethics instructor, tells the story of an instructor who believed Sum mers’ commitment to teaching private morality to be off-target. Then half of that particular professor’s class cheated on the take-home final, and she came begging for Summers’ advice. Summer’s counsel: If you don’t want students to become ethical creatures, let all students believe that their feelings and personal perceptions are inherently good or worthwhile. Let them feel that “ ... one’s personal preferences in [all] instances are all that matter.” This way, “students’ ability to ar rive at reasonable moral judgments is se verely, even bizarrely, affected,” and ethics won’t matter much at all. The following comments are from one of Summer’s colleagues: “You are not go ing to have moral people until you have moral institutions. You will not have moral citizens until you have a moral government.” But it is actually the other way around. We will not have moral institutions or a moral government until we first become moral people. If our pool of potential leaders is filled with toads, there’s no way that Princess Charming is going to hop out of the swamp and hop into the Oval Office. And there’s no way that we are going to hop out of the swamp of moral relativism and egotistical ethics with moral common sense unless we are guided. As children, we didn’t always know that stealing candy was wrong, so our parents told us. As students and adults, we are still in need of help. If we are left to our own egos, there’s sure to be trouble. Erin Hill is a graduate pursing a teaching certificate Commentary on Jesus as a liberal A thought on Shannon Hal- brook’s column: What Jesus was opposed to was people putting money before God and ignoring the problems of the poor. What the early church did and, I think, what Jesus expect ed, was voluntarily giving mon ey away and selling goods. To sell goods you have to own them first, and to give money, it helps if the government’s not taking it out of your hands. This isn’t charity, this is taxes. If you want to be compassion ate, that’s good, but do it with your own money. Don’t take it from others by taxation. It’s easier to be generous with other peoples’ money than with your own money. Robert Jackson Class of ’96 • I am ecstatic that Shannon Halbrook spoke out on the con tradictory coalition of Chris tians and conservatives. Jesus taught his followers to love all others and that this love was to be placed above all mate rial things — even the deficit. In my opinion, Jesus Christ was the greatest liberal that ever lived. Ditto, Shannon! Jeffrey Cranor Class of ’9 7 • Halbrook’s accusation that Jesus was a liberal is wrong be cause he based it on three erro neous assumptions. First, he make the assump tion that the only valid expres sion of compassion is support for unsuccessful government wealth redistribution programs. He made no mention of the various private charity organi zations as an alternative form of giving to the poor. “Conserva tive Christians,” often through their churches, contribute a sig nificant amount of the funding for these groups. Many private charities boast that 80 cents from every dollar goes to the needy. Government programs have an efficiency of only 20 cents on the dollar. Therefore, it is logical that “zealous fiscal conservatives” would rather give to these pro grams than the government. Second, he assumes that Je sus would support government programs that rely on the threat of force (i.e. property con fiscation) to attain its funding. This is not compassion, as was taught by Jesus; it is theft. The fact is, no one has the choice to give to these programs. Individuals cannot withhold funds if they no longer approve of their use. This is especially disturbing to a “Christian” because it is too easily to abuse this system. These abusers not only take tax payers’ money, but deny it to the underprivileged that truly need it. Why would Jesus sup port such a system? Third, Halbrook made the statement that capitalism was not around during the time of Jesus. I would like to point out that the Roman Empire was a capitalistic economy. William Zipf Class of ’94 'Quack Shack' strikes out again A friend of mine was in a car accident the other day. The im pact was severe enough that it destroyed the left side of her huge Chevy blazer, knocked it over the curb, and set off the air bags in the other car. She thought she was ok — no cuts, no broken bones — but she still wanted to see a doctor. Emergency rooms are expen sive, plus we pay our student fees for when we need an inex pensive medical opinion. So, she want to Beutel. The doctors’ response was startling. “Hold your hand in front of your mouth.” My friend shakily complied. “Do you feel your breath? If so, you can go.” Seem ingly without a choice, she left. It turned out to be nothing se rious, but that doesn’t change anything. She could have rup tured her spleen, been bleeding to death, and showed few signs, unless someone saw them. This is what we pay our fees for? To see if we’re breathing? Is this out of the ordinary for our health center or merely par for the course? I honestly don’t know and I don’t want to find out. Marcum V. Brooks Class of ’95 Bus Ops rains on students' parade This past Thursday, a little after 5 p.m., I stood in front of the MSC in the rain with ap proximately 75 other students for over half an hour. In all this time, not one bus came by. Strangely enough there were nine buses parked across Simp son Drill Field. A group went over to see what was going on. What we found was our route buses with most of the nine dri vers sitting on one bus talking. The dry bus drivers then in formed us umbrella-carrying, shoe-soaked, wet people that ser vice had been suspended indefi nitely due to road conditions. When I inquired as to why the people waiting were not told, it was rudely explained to me that none of the drivers were allowed to leave the bus for “safety reasons.” They also had no intention of telling any waiting passengers at the MSC of the delay, even though more were gathering over as we spoke. I am all for the routes being suspended due to the weather, but it is ridiculous that waiting passengers were not informed. This is another fine example of this University’s administra tion bucking the idea that stu dents are customers and de serve good customer service. Generally, Bus Operations provides adequate service, but instances of poor service occur more often than they would in a well run business. I used to be an A&M bus driver and this was a blatant display of incon sideration, irresponsibility, and total lack of customer service. Scott Emery Class of ’95 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor and will print as many as space al lows. 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, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed McDon ald. A valid student ID is required. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Fax: Texas A&M University (409) 845-2647 College Station, TX E-mail: 77843-1111 Batt@tamvm1.tamu.edu VltfiS OxjLD /TKoclC MUSIC sir wel Ltrs gufli W oEfcR r p w wm ' caught?... x ! <^ESS Lessil aKU. 66 BRlBSHfi The Battalion Editorials Board 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. Rob Clark Editor in Chief Sterling Hayman Managing Editor Kyle Littlefield Opinion Editor Elizabeth Preston Assistant Opinion Editor Good Years A&M should continue to grow positively as it has in the past. The more things change, the more they stay the same. As Texas A&M celebrates its birthday, a look back to the University 119 years ago re veals some remarkable similar ities between the struggles A&M confronts today and those A&M faced in 1876. According to Henry Dethlof- f’s “A Centennial History of Texas A&M University,” A&M “incurred the enmity of politi cians, the derision of the press and the rejection of classical and religious educators.” Not only has Texas A&M al ways incurred hostility from the outside, but internal conflicts 119 years ago also bear a resem blance to those we face now. Money shortage was a prob lem, and departments fought over what little existed. Faculty and administrators argued over curriculum; some thought the emphasis should have been on the new concept of vocational education. Others thought that A&M should focus on the arts and sciences like a traditional public university. Meanwhile, administrators and parents worried about the excessive drinking among the student body. Today, money shortages, drinking and the curriculum are still hot topics at A&M. However, the University has changed — for the better. What was a provincial col lege with six students now is an internationally renowned University of over 40,000 men and women from various back grounds, cultures and races. Riding the information su perhighway into the 21st centu ry, A&M no longer limits itself to teaching students how to manage the family farm, but how to compete in virtually every field all over the world. Still, Gov. Richard Coke’s vision of providing a quality education at a low cost, as he expressed at A&M’s inaugura tion on October 4, 1876, re mains intact. Over the past 119 years, Texas A&M University has weathered many storms, but commitment and resolve have made this University a stronger, better institution. Hopefully, the next 119 years will see the same kind of growth at the University. Happy birthday, Texas A&M. €>\<x?Z tub f&W J\n\hU,nj@ao\cMti