Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 1, 1996)
The Battalion Thursday February 1, 1996 * Opinion Page 11 Equality means doing away with all exclusion I have been wandering the hallowed halls of this proud Universi ty for almost two years. Granted, that is not nearly enough time to understand all the quirks and intricacies of A&M, but it is enough time no tice one or two interesting things. Last week, two things came to my attention: the Miss Black and Gold pageant and the desire ! of several of my acquaintances that A&M should hire more black professors. There is nothing new about either of these items. The Miss Black and Gold pageant is held every year, and the award is giv en to the most talented, intelli gent and well-rounded African- American woman. The desire to hire more African-American pro fessors also seems an ongoing af fair. But both of these two hap penings seem self-defeating. The people behind both of these events designed them to bring harmony and equality to A&M. I hate to be the bearer of bad tid ings, but it isn’t working. Before many people throw down their copy of The Batt in disgust, I am not a member of the KKK, and I do not want A&M to be a completely white university. What I would like, however, would be for the people who originate these ideas to be honest with themselves and the public. Any event or idea that designates itself to be an effort at unity cannot, as one of its ba sic principles, espouse division by only letting one part of hu manity participate. It seems the drive behind these events is that to cure racism or inequality, one must sink to the level of a racist. The idea is that if one segment of the population has it too good, the only way to bring bal ance back is to com pletely ignore them and only congratu late, hire or pro mote a member of the offended seg ment. For those who don’t live in a fantasy world, this will ring false. It would be unthinkable if a disgruntled girl who could not participate in a pageant because of her skin color decided to orga nize her own racial pageant, the Miss White and Blue, or the Miss Yellow and Purple. How long would it be until the deaf ening roar of “This is yet anoth er indicator of the inherent racism at A&M” would rise fropi the very people who organized the Miss Black and Gold event? If an organization sprang up whose main purpose in life was to get more white, Hispanic or Mongolian professors hired at A&M, how long do you think it would take for the “More Black Professors at A&M’ contingent to demonize them? I am not target ing any one section of the Univer sity, but supporters of the Miss Black and Gold pageant and any one who wants to hire only a cer tain racial group should wake up. In the short run, what they are doing may sound fair, but in the long run it only serves to worsen the problems in society. For equality to be estab lished, equality must be prac ticed. Quotas and divisional ac tivities aren’t equality. For equality to work, it must be demonstrated repeatedly that everyone is equal. Every one cannot be equal when orga nizations and events that ex clude other cultures and races are still functioning. Kieran Watson is a sophomore finance major Kieran Watson Columnist Chirac adds French twist to hypocrisy W hat happened to France? It was the country that once spawned Voltaire, Rousseau and the Enlightenment. It was the country that once served as a postwar hideout for Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso and other Lost Generation-ites. It was the country where artists once went to lick the wounds modernity had given them. But now France has emerged with a con servative, nationalist president and has be come fond of detonating nuclear weapons. And thinking people are apparently nowhere in sight. Last June, French President Jacques Chirac caused a stir when he announced that France was intending to conduct a test of its nuclear stockpile by detonating eight weapons in the South Pacific. Naturally, environmental and peace organizations protested, but some of the tests were still carried out. Chirac announced Monday that the most recent test, the sixth, would be the last. In preparation for his imminent visit to the Unit ed States — and to help repair his damaged image and France’s international reputation — he has suddenly begun clamoring for a worldwide ban on nuclear testing and is even calling for disarmament. In Chirac’s case, though, this attitude adjustment is too little, too late and too insincere. Chirac and his administration may indeed be committed to peace, but it appears they’re also very prepared for war. If Chirac had not chosen to defiantly shake his fist in the face of global, unanimous oppo sition and conduct the nuclear tests, his call for disarmament would be more believable. By sending this double message, Chirac is implic itly saying: “Yes, we have nuclear weapons. Yes, we’d love to take part in disarmament. But first we want to make sure we can blow you away.” In calling for disarmament just after France finished its own tests, he is also show ing definite self-centeredness. If France has the right to conduct nuclear tests, then every other country with nuclear capability should have the same right. With that logic, China, North Korea, the United States, Russia and everyone else should be permitted to fire away. But we can’t allow ourselves to think like this. If disarmament is ever going to hap pen, we must resolve to do it — no pre-ban tests and no exceptions. Chirac is hypocritical ly advocating disarmament now, but his ac tions have spoken much clearer than his words. Chirac said the tests were carried out to ensure the ef fectiveness of France’s nu clear arsenal. The tests were successful, and France’s nu clear arsenal was indeed proven effective — to every nation that ever disagrees with France on any issue. Because of the high visibil ity of the tests, it’s very possible that — in ad dition to their stated scientific purpose — they also served as a kind of gratuitous flexing of France’s nuclear muscle. Surely the boldness that France showed by conducting its tests gave it a healthy dose of ego. It was as though France was trying to prove to the world that it’s gotten tougher since World War II. Another cause for concern is the environ ment. Before the tests began, the French government insisted to countries in its South Pacific testing area that the tests were envi ronmentally fe. Now, however, it admits there was indeed minimal damage and is forbidding independent researchers from conducting their own research. This makes the official stance impossible to verify and very suspicious. On Monday, Chirac declared that the tests had ensured the “security of our country and our children.” But nuclear weapons are nu clear weapons — weapons of destruction. They are not protectors of children. They can be slated for defense, but ultimately they are the tools of whoever runs the government. Nuclear weapons are like guns. We tell our selves that they’re for our own protection, but their existence threatens our safety more than any possible foe. The danger of countries stockpiling nuclear weapons is similar to the danger of individuals carrying concealed weapons — panic can cause them to backfire. Hoarding weapons only makes their misuse more likely. This is the case whether the as sailant is a paranoid Aggie with a handgun in his pocket or a paranoid nation with rows of nuclear missiles. Now, however, France’s testing is suppos edly over; perhaps the international pressure worked to help stop it. We can only naively hope that Chirac’s bluster has faded and he plans to actually follow through with his pledge for disarmament. Shannon Halbrook is a sophomore English major. Shannon Halbrook Columnist Editorials Board Sterling Hayman Editor in Chief Stacy Stanton Managing Editor Michael Landauer Opinion Editor Jason Brown Assistant Opinion Editor Give It a Rest The University should not commit to a retreat center for student organizations. The proposed student retreat center seems like a good idea. The only problem is that there is no need for one. • Dr. Carolyn Adair, director of student activi ties, points to the convenient and heavily wood ed location as a selling point for the proposed re treat. However, she makes a mistake in logic. “Part of the reason for needing this is because we use so many of the facilities in Texas,” she said. If there are already facilities that student or ganizations use regularly for retreats, there is not a need for an A&M retreat center. If organizations had nowhere to go for retreats, the center would be useful, but that simply isn’t the case. Adair says the location is what makes the proposed center worth it. Building retreat-like dormitories 10 minutes from campus — and con sequently, where students live — would cut down on transportation costs and still provide a getaway, she says. But other costs loom in the distance. Dr. William Kibler, associate vice president for student affairs, says initial resources will come from fund raising, but that “the reality is probably that funding will come from a combina tion of hand raising, user fees and a student fee.” That’s right — student fee. The door is wide open to tack yet another fee to student bills that will benefit another minori ty of students. At a time when student organizations are receiving cutbacks and student fees continue to rise, stricter money management is required before the University commits itself to a re treat center. Those who are pushing for this center are missing the forest (economic reality) for the trees (a frivolous retreat center). 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. Smokers deserve special treatment Imagine sitting through three or four consecutive classes with no food, water, or restroom breaks. Without these reliefs, few of us could make it through a long school day. Thus, it is difficult to understand why those of use who need to smoke are not allowed to do so while in class. This world class University has taken steps to facilitate learning for the handicapped and those JVIaii Oll needing child-care accommoda tions, but still shows blatant dis crimination against the nicotine- dependent. Often we have no choice but to leave up to three times during a single lecture, and labs can be even more stressful. Because of A&M’s oppressive poli cies, our notes are frequently in complete. Our CPAs have suf fered, and consequently so have our chances for graduate or pro fessional school. We respect the rights of non- smokers, so we ask that they con sider the following suggestions to improve the conditions for Smok ing-Americans: • Classrooms could be divided into smoking and non-smoking seating arrangements, as in most public restaurants. • Improved ventilation in cam pus buildings. • Certain areas of buildings could be allotted for smoking, such as hallways and bathrooms. • Allowing students to vote on whether smoking will be permit ted in individual classrooms. • Placing ashtrays in hallways, classrooms, bathrooms and busses. • Designating sections of each course as smoking or non-smoking. We feel that the implementa tion of these simple suggestions will better accommodate the needs of all students, making a more re laxing and enjoyable environment at Texas A&M. Wendy Blair, Class of’96 Mendy Mays, Class of ’96 accompanied by 11 signatures Student Services Fee Allocation Committee resembles comedy of errors T alk about pride of author ship. After the Student Ser vices Fee Allo cation Commit tee’s (SSFAC) recommenda tions were re leased last week, one commit tee member called the commit tee “worthless.” Charged with allocating around $8 million in student services fees, the committee has enormous sway over the budgets of the Memorial Stu dent Center, Student Govern ment, Rec Sports and The Bat talion, to name a few. So what’s the problem? Well, students on the com mittee are thrust into the process of analyzing the bud gets of 20 departments in a short amount of time. Every year the committee screws up, and the administration radical ly alters the committee’s recom mendations. To be fair, the process de serves more blame than the stu dents. The problems start with the arbitrary selection of the committee, which does not guarantee the selection of quali fied members. One member I talked to said she was surprised to be selected because she did not feel quali fied. She told me that the com mittee was desperate for mem bers and basically accepted any one who applied. The committee meets, and budgets are divided among teams. Team members rarely know anything about the bud gets or organizations they are analyzing. As SSFAC member Jamie Duke admitted, “At the beginning, we were lost.” Without proper training, members do not know what to look for and what questions to ask. It showed in their recom mendations to the Student Senate. Jimmy Charney, MSC execu tive vice president for finance and administration, was sur prised that the committee asked only three questions about the MSC budget, which in cluded Si.6 mil lion in student services fees for 1996. He was even more surprised when the commit tee recommended a cut of over $100,000 in student services fees. In what the committee called “shady” budgeting, it noted the MSC budget should reflect a decrease of $60,000 in student service fees because of the removal of the Student Fi nance Center budget. It’s too bad the committee didn’t know the Student Finance Center ing a $6 increase in student services fees per person, in part to replenish reserves. However, even that is questionable. When I asked one committee member what was the purpose of replenishing the reserves, the member didn’t even know. Don’t get me wrong — I’m all for students having a say in where their money goes. But when they must, in a short pe riod of time, allocate $8 million to organizations they know nothing about, problems are guaranteed to arise. The track record of the SSFAC proves it. As one former member of SS FAC put it, “The decisions are not respectable ... and they are As one former member of SSFAC put it, "The decisions are not respectable ... and they are not respected [by the administration]/' budget was already removed last year. As for The Battalion, the committee recommended a 94% cut — from $73,800 to $4,050. It suggested that the Battalion staff work for free and receive class credit instead. Personally, I would be OK with that as long as someone could convince me that copy editing was a game, and that working for The Batt would get me credit for Econo metrics 463. Of course, the committee is recommending that some de partments get an increase. For example, the Student Counsel ing Service is slated to get $1,526,099, a $46,000 increase — just a year after it got a $300,000 increase. Seriously, how many psychologists does the University need? Still, these lapses of judg ment are not unusual for the SSFAC. Last year, the Univer sity administration (which is mysteriously absent in the process until after the recom mendations pass the Student Senate) had to take nearly $500,000 out of reserves to cor rect an overallocation error made by the committee. The committee is now recommend not respected [by the adminis tration].” There is hope, though. Stu dent Body President Toby Boenig said student govern ment will be implementing “changes that should have been made a long time ago” that will lengthen the process and ex pand the training. Committee members will be better in formed and have more time to do their jobs. However, the administration will not likely take the commit tee seriously because the stu dents still won’t have the neces sary background. To remedy the situation, the University administration should participate more active ly in the whole process. With experience and knowledge of the departments and their budgets, the administration can steer the committee in the right direction. Students could make better decisions, and the administra tion might respect them. After all, it’s pointless to have a voice in the government if the voice falls only on deaf ears. Jason Brown is a senior economics major
