Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 27, 1995)
The Battalion calls it “a cloud of petty complaints.” Major papers call it FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The College Republicans at Texas A&M University are in trouble. The A&M admin istration is investigating the group to decide if its political speech violated school poli cy. The College Republicans had written a fund-raising letter attacking the A&M multi- culturalism proposal. The administration then declared that the letter contained “mis information: and scheduled an investigative hearing. As William Kibler, A&M’s assistant vice president for student affairs, told The Associated Press, “Student groups have every right to express opinions, but that is dif ferent than printing falsehoods. The question is whether they knowingly printed false information or were just careless.” No, that is not the question at all. State officials do not have the constitutional authority to punish citizens for engaging in pure political speech, even if the speech is inaccurate or misleading... The Aggie administrators criticized in the College Republicans’ letter can influence or even control the disciplinary hearing. That is a blatant conflict of interest and raises serious 14th Amendment questions about the due process of the A&M disciplinary system. But a more fundamental constitutional problem exists. What the A&M administrator blithely assert is that government officials criticized by citizens can determine the “falsi ty” of the citizens’ speech and then punish them. That is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. Aggie adminis trators are violating the free speech rights of the A&M College Republicans. If they continue to do so, the College Republicans should file suit. The First Amendment still applies—even in College Station. — The Daily Texan, Editorial September 22, 1995 The A&M College Republicans, an official student organization of Texas A&M University, recently mailed letters soliciting donations and making questionable state ments about the university's policies on multiculturalism. Not content with publicly correcting the inaccuracies, A&M administrators have brought official - and inappro priate - charges against the group. The College Republicans have been charged with failing to inform the Department of Student Affairs before mailing their letter. The A&M administration may well be curi ous about the messages sent by student organizations, but the power of the state to compel prior review of expression is strictly denied by the First Amendment. A&M Assistant Vice President William Kibler says student organizations must submit to the rule or be denied official status. However, a state university stands on weak ground when it requires associations of students to trade their constitutional rights for campus recognition. Kibler also says the rule is not meant to discourage or prevent any student expression. So why have it? The College Republicans are also charged with knowingly misrepresenting the univer sity’s intentions regarding classes in multiculturalism, but even false speech enjoys the protection of the Constitution. Kibler says any politician or citizen or individual stu dent can stand up on the A&M campus and lie his head off with impunity, but associ ations of students do not enjoy the same right. Oh? The university cannot rightly force students who exercise their constitutional right to free association to fork over the equally important right to free expression. Kibler insists he and other A&M officials are well aware of the existence of the First Amendment, but they do not seem to grasp its breadth and scope. If A&M officials are uncertain of the spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees to all persons and the limits it places on official power, the many respected historians and political scientists in residence on the A&M campus surely could set them straight. - Houston Chronicle, Editorial September 24, 1995 mmrn ** & assae vxmtm The current Battalion calls it “being prepared for the 21st century.” Major papers call it POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. nMMMtt&MMMMN Some on the Texas A&M faculty seem hellbent on forcing politically correct mulitculturalism on the Aggies. So far they are getting away with it. Fashionable academic faddism is alive and well on the campuses of the state. While university administrators may be struggling to contain the outbreak, it is a fair question to ask: Where are the regents? Why aren’t those charged with setting university policies on behalf of the taxpayers letting it be known, in whatever manner, that their campuses are not going to be plagues by this nonsense? It will be far less painful and embarrassing to nip in the bud this rush to political correctness than to let it build to a huge public uproar later. The University of Texas at Austin managed to beat off political correctness. A&M has not yet been so lucky. First it was the liberal arts students who were forced into that mold earlier in the year. Now the Aggie facul ty senate has voted to extend the same to all A&M stu dents. The administration is considering that. What makes all this nonsense and faddism is that it has nothing to do with multiculturalism and every thing to do with political correctness. Multiculturalism is already there; every university has more such courses than a student can take. Everyone — including this newspaper — encourages students to take one or two. Many students do. The only dispute is the frantic insis tence of the guilt-stricken politically correct that stu dents must be made to take the courses. Which, obvi ously, is indoctrination rather than education. And which, also obviously, is the motivating force behind the whole fad, no matter how much it is denied. These are public universities. The people are not fur nishing hundreds of millions of dollars annually in tax money so that their children can be indoctrinated at the mandate of the politically correct among the facul ties. If the university administrations cannot or will not take the matter in hand, the regents should. If the regents do not, the legislature surely will. - Houston Chronicle, Editorial November 14, 1993 To put it bluntly, such a policy (six hours of cultural diversity) is simply another attempt at the politicization of education and has no place at Texas A&M. — The Battalion, Editorial June 14, 1993 While cultural diversity is an admirable goal, forcing it down the throats of students may lead to resentment. In addition, this proposal also increases the student course load and forces the University to hire more pro fessors. Many students see the requirement as “mandatory political correctness indoctrination.” If the current cur riculum does not adequately reflect the contributions of minorities or other cultures, then the current classes should be redesigned to include these contributions. To ensure that students receive the cultural diversity, A&M doesn’t need to force students to take more class es. Instead, the required classes just need to be revamped. And if minority and ethnic studies must remain specialized departments, then enrollment in these classes must remain a matter of choice. — The Battalion, Editorial May 5, 1993 Boss: So, you want to work here at Houston Expensive Medicine, Inc.? Potential Employee: Yes. I’m told the pay and benefits are great. Boss: They are. Where did you go to college? PE: Texas A&M, Sir. Boss: Excellent. And your major? PE: Liberal arts. Boss: What did you take? PE: Let’s see. American Ethnic Literature, Foundations of Education in Multicultural Society, and, of course, Sociology of Gender. Boss: Did you study medical economics, or maybe salesmanship? PE: They weren’t on the list. Boss: I see. Next. PE: But I have a broad knowledge of multiculturally and politically correct awareness. It’s required by the College of Liberal Arts, and might be made a universi tywide requirement. Boss: Next. Hello, personnel? Don’t send me anymore liberal arts Aggies. I’ve got a business to run. What is going on at Texas A&M? One of the world’s finest centers of learning, maintained at enormous expense by the people of Texas, is going to change, and not for the better. The dean and supporters argue that it is not a “politi cally correct” agenda. Beans. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck . . . These courses are not in-addition-to but instead-of. So what courses are the are the Aggies not taking? What are they learning? At a time when college graduates are finding it extremely difficult to get a job, when competition is tough, Texas A&M is not doing its stu dents any favors. — The Houston Post, Editorial June 13, 1993 w-;>x.<A mmm RESOLVED, That the Republican Party of Texas petition the Board of Regents of Texas A&M University to immediately suspend action against the College republicans with appropriate apologies and to initiate an investigation to determine why such a basic effort to abridge the rights to free speech and assembly has been initiated and supported by the Administration of Texas A&M. - Republican Party of Texas This is another case of the imposition of liberal political correctness on college campuses. All views that do not fit into left-wing ideology are suppressed. — Tom Pauken, Chairman, Republican Party of Texas RESOLVED, That the right of free speech and assembly of the College Republicans and all student organizations at Texas A&M be rec ognized and reaffirmed. — Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Texas Phis College Republicans chapter truly represents the Aggie Spirit. Their dedication and commitment is a tribute to all Aggies. - Congressman Jack Fields Paid For By College Republicans