The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, February 01, 1996, Image 11

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    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