The Battalion
Opinion
Tuesday
November 28, 1995
11
Needed: Old-fashioned discipline
Pamela
Benson
Columnist
I f my parents were raising
my brother and me in the
’90s, they would definitely
be in jail. What use to be con
sidered standard discipline —
or old school discipline — is
now considered child abuse.
The lack of respect that
children have for their par
ents has left America to
wonder, “What in the heck is wrong with
these kids today?”
The new philosophy pf rearing children is
more laid-back. It has swept over the nation
as the ’90s answer to parenting. The child ba
sically takes on the role of the parent.
If these children don’t get that Sega Gene
sis or the latest toy, they do the next best
thing: let their fingers do the walking. Any
parent that teaches their child how to use the
Yellow Pages could end up regretting it. One
phone call could have the authorities beating
at your door hauling you off in handcuffs.
The charge? Child abuse.
Had my brother and I known it was so
easy to do, my parents would have been
handcuffed on a daily basis. My mom would
have been called from across the house to
turn the channel on the television. My fa
ther would have been forced to give us piggy
back rides on demand.
No corny family pictures, no boring Sun
day school, no kissing Aunt Thelma at
Thanksgiving either. No retrieving a belt so
that our father could spank us.
If we had only known this strategy, we
would have been living better than those
kids on Different Strokes.
The truth is that my brother and I were
raised in an environment in which we were
continuously reminded of what was right
and wrong. We never questioned our parents
because questioning them usually brought
on a more painful consequence.
We never thought our spankings were war
ranted but regardless of our offenses, our
penalty made us remember that doing it again
was not worth the pain to our backsides.
My brother and I have come to the real
ization that the reason we
didn’t end up dropping out of
school or becoming criminals
was because we were remind
ed everyday that right was
right and wrong was wrong.
There is a name that we give
for the type of discipline my par
ents used: Old-School Discipline.
O.S.D. is the kind of discipline
that puts the parents in control of every as
pect of their child’s life until the child is able
to think for himself.
It’s the kind discipline that gets children
familiar with the word “no,” and makes them
appreciate the word “yes.”
The modernized version of O.S.D. is
called N.S.D., or New-School Discipline.
This type of discipline puts the child in
power. Parents then must deal with un
manageable brats who end up running the
parents’ lives.
When these two types of disciplines col
lide, it’s not pretty.
In the winter of ’94,
a collision took place
when my little
cousin tried to
bum our
house down
with matches.
This child,
obviously in
doctrinated in
N. S.D., was about
to meet his match.
My parents tolerated a
few minor instances of misbehavior. When he
threw a tantrum about eating pizza instead of
spaghetti, my parents simply adjusted to
make him happy.
The small fit over watching his favorite
show, despite the fact that the adults were
watching a movie, was overlooked.
However, when he took a book of matches
to the home my parents had worked hard for,
the founders of O.S.D. had to take action.
O. S.D. was about to take the driver’s seat, and
our little cousin was about to be locked down
into a car seat while my parents navigated.
My parents debated about what action to
take. Afterall, this wasn’t their child. How
ever, when personal property became an is
sue, it was time for the O.S.D. tag team to
start regulating.
My father cleared his throat and attempt
ed to tell my little cousin to calm down.
Those words had never been spoken to him,
and he disregarded the statement.
It was when my mother stepped in and
grabbed him that he was a bit shaken.
She went on to give her lecture — keep in
mind she grasped him like a turkey about to
be scalped for Thanksgiving — and ex
plained that in her home people under 18
years of age followed certain rules or else
were asked to leave.
From that moment on, he thought be
fore he spoke or acted and looked at my
mom before any sudden moves. It was that
degree of respect that was all too familiar
to my brother and me.
Needless to say, our little cousin has not
been back to visit. Perhaps he learned some
thing that day, or maybe his parents did.
With 90 percent of today’s par
ents using N.S.D., America
|k| will soon be filled with
LiiilElSf'
children who
have missed out on being well-
rounded and stable individuals.
My brother and I often joke about how
our parents raised us. In all seriousness, we
owe our parents a lot. Their O.S.D. is what
made us who we are today.
We’ve already decided that no matter
what happens, our children too will be
products of this same style of child-rearing.
If more parents don’t adopt the O.S.D.
style, the question won’t be “What in the hell
is wrong with these kids?”
The question will be “What in the heck is
wrong with the parents?”
Pam Benson is a senior
journalism major
You cWt
I'm he Helr//
THIS V^SNT
TH fAY /\U-0VMT
C^T^I. THE
UMM5 n,
KooThts U!
Common ground not
found in cultures course
Lydia
Percival
Columnist
W hile all
the stu
dents
were eating
their turkey and
dressing, I hope
they gave
thanks for the
small miracle
that occurred
last ’Tuesday when Dr. Ray
Bowen, president of Texas
A&M, decided not to sign on to
‘required’ political correctness.
Personally, I did a little
happy dance.
This six hours of multicul-
turalism was unnecessary, and
one couldn’t help but notice
that for an issue that was sup
posed to help students under
stand one another, it polarized
the campus more than any oth
er issue in recent memory.
I have a feeling the resent
ment the campus witnessed
was only a small sampling of r
the resentment that would
have occurred had Bowen ap
proved the requirement.
Bowen said that this was a
well-thought out proposal. But
he was wrong. It was a well-
manipulated proposal. Let us
not forget that this require
ment began in the College of
Liberal Arts with a combined
number of 51 classes which
met the six hour requirement.
A liberal arts student could
choose from 32 classes for the
‘international’ requirement
and from 19 classes for the
‘U.S. gender, racial and ethnic
issues’ requirement.
These classes are the absolute
epitome of political correctness.
The College Republicans and the
Young Conservatives of Texas
had a field day, and suddenly the
list was broadened.
Suddenly there were close to
200 courses from which to
choose. However, the liberal
arts requirement was forever
labeled as political correctness.
The Faculty Senate learned
from that mistake when they
later made their proposal. They
ensured there was a larger num
ber of classes so that political
groups couldn’t say anything.
However, they underestimated
some groups on campus.
Many saw straight through
the proposal and directly to the
flaws. The argument that these
classes could be sliced down
with each department quickly
arose against the proposal.
Consider for a minute your
humanities requirement. There
are hundreds and hundreds of
courses allowed. However, each
college pares the list down a lit
tle, and then each department
cuts it down until you do not
have the exact same list that
you had in the beginning.
In fact, the College of Engi
neering has a proposal for a di
rected elective: Students are told
that one of their humanities will
be filled with one certain class
called ‘Ethics of Engineering.’
Originally, students in engi
neering had many courses they
could use to fill a humanities
requirement. Now, if the pro
posal were to pass, they can
choose between Ethics of Engi
neering or Ethics
of Engineering for
the three hours of
their humanities
requirement.
Most of them will
choose Ethics of
Engineering.
There is noth
ing wrong with
this requirement, but it illus
trates the point that it is a
bunch of bad bull to claim a re
quirement is harmless just be
cause there are big lists of
course offerings.
It is a prime example of
manipulation and skillful
press relations.
Bowen understood the ac
cepted curriculum could change
over time. There are some ra
tional courses on the list. I
doubt they would stay there for
too long.
Bowen said that he could not
ensure the long lists would be
there in the future. In this, he
was correct. The list could be
down to 51 courses with little
more than a stroke from the
Core Curriculum Oversight
Committee’s pen and a “yea”
from the Faculty Senate.
The bottom line is that we
do not need these classes. This
is not to say that we do not
need to get along better with
our neighbors, because we do,
but these courses will not help.
There are better ways to
find common ground with one
another than through forced
feeding. Texas A&M must focus
on real solutions.
While required multicultur-
alism classes are dead for now
this idea of stupidity in the
name of diversity is not dead.
I have just recently seen a
draft from the Diversity Task
Force of Texas A&M. It recom
mends that we no longer use
the word minority because it is
incorrect. The recommenda
tions suggest using the word
“AHANA” (African Hispanic
Asian Native Americans).
It recommends changing
some insensitive traditions,
such as use of the phrase “High
way six runs both ways.”
The draft recommends that
no students be selected for lead
ership, including those from the
Corps and MSC groups, unless
those students have demon
strated a commitment to diver
sity.
I can only hope those who
developed this strategy will
now turn to something that
might actually work rather
than constantly disguising
whining for innovative ideas.
The classes, the most divi
sive issue in the multicultural-
ism debate, are no longer rele
vant to the discussion of race
relations at Texas A&M.
The debate will continue, and
if progress is to be made, those
pushing a politically correct
agenda must understand one
thing: Nonsense will not fly, and
lunacy must not be tolerated in
an academy of learning.
Lydia Percival is a senior
journalism and political
science major
Mail
Oll
Bowen's decision
sound, appropriate
I support President Bowen’s
decision not to enforce the multi-
culturalism requirement. The
University is a place for higher
learning, not sensitivity training.
If cultural sensitivity recog
nizes that each culture is capa
ble of fulfilling our higher needs,
this requirement contradicts
this by implying that course
work based on one culture and
history is somehow deficient.
Any liberal arts course work,
if properly taught, should be rel
evant to everyone, regardless of
the culture it represents. The
fact that “dead white men,” — a
term I find extremely offensive
— are prominent in Western civ
ilization does not mean that
none of their contributions were
of universal value.
Intercultural understanding
should be a fringe benefit facili
tated by the environment, not
forced by the curriculum.
The freedom of the students to
choose courses in liberal arts
should not be compromised by the
behavior of a few hardcore bigots.
Antonio Chaves
graduate student
Baxter's scientific
source unreliable
I am writing to # respond to
H.L. Baxter’s column which pit
ted “scientific evidence,” based
on a recent study by Dean
Hamer, of the genetic basis for
homosexuality against the “blind
faith” of the Bible which forbids
the practice of homosexuality.
First, Baxter failed to men
tion that the first phase of
Hamer’s study, published in
1993, is being investigated for
alleged fraud by the Department
of Health and Human Services’
office of research integrity.
A co-author of that study has
charged that Hamer, a homosex
ual-rights activist, selectively re
ported data in ways that en
hanced the study’s thesis.
Dr. George Rice, a neurologist
in Toronto, has tried unsuccess
fully to replicate Hamer’s study,
reporting, “It is not a phenome
non that appears to be present in
gay males in Canada.”
David Faulker, a co-author of
the second study, admits that
the results of the second study
are even weaker than those of
the first study, since fully 22
percent of the non-homosexual
brothers had the same markers
to which Hamer is attributing
homosexuality.
As a colleague of mine once
said, “If you torture data suffi
ciently with statistics, you can
get it to confess anything.”
Baxter alludes to a “myriad of
studies” supporting what he
knows to be true, that sexual ori
entation and all psychological
phenomena” have biological links.
There are indeed a “myriad of
studies” taking place currently,
but they are not giving politically
correct answers, which is why
such a weak study by a researcher
being investigated for fraud is giv
en such media attention.
If Baxter does indeed believe
that all behavior has biological
links, then maybe he can ex
cuse those of us who reject ho
mosexuality behavior, since our
response must also be due to a
genetic defect.
Second, Baxter’s caricature
of Christianity as being based
on “blind faith” is a poor straw
man argument.
The entire appeal to Christ
ian faith in the gospels and the
book of Acts is based on the suf
ficiency of the evidence to war
rant belief in Jesus Christ and
his teaching.
The person who has made
this reasonable step of faith now
has a very rational basis to have
hope for the future, which is un
certain from a human point of
view, because of one’s warranted
confidence in the one who con
trols the future.
I greatly prefer my faith,
based on the abundant evidence
for God’s existence seen in na
ture through eyes to science and
historical evidence for the deity
of Christ and His resurrection,
to the blind faith Baxter puts in
shoddy science that happens to
support his preconceived beliefs.
Walter Bradley
professor of
mechanical engineering
Abstinence: The
other 'safe sex'
I read with interest “Beutel of
fers suggestions for AIDS preven
tion,” written by Emily Pruitt of
the A.P.Beutel Health Center.
In the article, Pruitt offered
four suggestions to help protect
against the HIV/AIDS virus.
Among the suggestions were “Get
tested” and “Never share needles
of any kind with anyone.”
Why did Pruitt avoid suggest
ing “Abstain from premarital
sex” or “Abstain from intra
venous drug use?”
Why are people unwilling to
encourage others to avoid con
duct that may ultimately lead to
death. That’s what premarital
sex with a carrier and intra
venous drug may do.
I continuously hear, “Well,
high school and college students
are going to have sex, so they
should at least use a condom.”
My reply is simple — not all stu
dents have sex.
Admittedly, most do. But
those who choose not to engage
in premarital sex are assured of
not contracting HIV/AIDS
through that means.
Call me old-fashioned — I’ll
claim that label any day. But I’m
alive and I play on staying that
way for a long time.
How about you? I challenge
all A&M students to take a
stand for their lives.
Mark Shomaker
College Station
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