Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 5, 1996)
ch 5,1996 The Battalion Tuesday MarchS, 1996 Opinion Page 11 ; •eform and il reforms, ?rams and d by other i the GOP h Clinton, ng modest sr we get a be able to ■ich said, is for Dole, rry in the a to Dole, ical of Dole, s Buchanan n, but most cal so that ; do not dis- imself. ave to look who has a a defensive Emory Uni- !eds to look ierge as the confident, tter leader 1 be a much didate,” the 3 said of the ponent.” iday he ex- to testify in vyers prefer pe. No deci- dfe say they nvestors in d no irregu- McDougals’ Savings & st taxpayers jfb <s oiU': Sarcasm finds a home Chris Miller Columnist T here’s an ugly monster that rears its head on the Opinion page, Ags, and it ain’t my mug. No, it’s something much more deadly and one million times more frightening. It’s sarcasm, and to be honest, it gives me the willies. Webster’s defines it as “a taunting or caustic remark, generally ironical.” It’s that irony stuff that usually con fuses the poop out of me. I’ve heard that irony can be so mean that it has pushed old ladies over in the middle of crowded streets and then taunted them while stomping on their heads. But it can even be worse than that. Sarcasm creeps up on you, makes you mad, and some times causes you to miss the point of a column entirely. I say it should be stopped. Some columnists use it a lot, and those guys are proba bly the most evil. Chris Stid- vent once wrote about com munism permeating our cam pus — particularly in our newspaper. He said, “We should be demanding that [The Battalion] quit publish ing its socialist rot before we dynamite its printing presses and end its threat to the American way.” Well, you can bet your mother’s good name that I ran out of The Battal- ionnewsroom lickety-split af- Iterreading that; I actually thought he was going to blow [i/pthe place. After avoiding the office (and especially Chris) for an entire week, I eventually had to face him. He told me that he had no intention of dyna miting the printing presses, and that in all honesty he en joyed working for The Battal ion. “That was sarcasm, Chris,” he told me as he put his arm around my shoulder for reassurance and handed me a box of tissues. I slept well that night for the first time in seven days. But alas, sarcasm would prove to dupe me once again. In Shannon Halbrook’s col umn about that new and enigmatic desk at the front of the library, he wrote, “The desk, usable for a huge vari ety of money-making pur suits, brings a lot of honor and prestige to Evans Li brary, and finally makes our library worth visiting.” Until I read this, I had no idea that the desk was so im portant. I became reverent of the library desk, oftentimes neglecting studying, friends, sleep and evening meals to look at it. I would stand in the li brary, alone, and contem plate why it was that Texas A&M was blessed with such a remarkable piece of furni ture — one that not only had the potential for “money making,” but provided “honor and prestige” as well. Days later, after losing 20 pounds and forgoing sleep each night, Shannon took me aside. “It was only sarcasm, Chris. I really don’t think that this desk is special at all,” he said. He suggested that I take a nap, and afterwards he took me out to dinner to put a few pounds back on me. He vowed to let me know in the future if he ever planned on using sarcasm again, so I could be prepared. I’ve only cited a couple ex amples in this column, but other columnists use it regu larly as well. I’ve even fooled myself by Using it a couple of times. That’s why we should all keep our heads up when reading the Opinion page. It’s a tricky, devilish page, filled with sarcasm and irony that can lead you to miss the point of a column entirely. Chris Miller is a sophomore English major ( ]{uins of a romance Media’s affair with royals should also end O K everybody, take a big breath. Grab a drink. Smoke ’em if you got ’em. We can all relax now, be cause the biggest controversy in the history of the world has finally come to an end. Yes, the royal family is heading to divorce court, breaking up a 15-year love affair. Not between Prince Charles and Princess Diana, but between the mindless masses of America and the constant bar rage of tabloid gossip on the princely pair. Coverage of the couple’s turbulent rela tionship has bordered on insane, as each ridiculous step toward the divorce decision has been monitored, examined and ana lyzed by the media. Human beings should be more intelli gent than this. For example. President Clinton pro posed amending a bill to allow late-term abortions if a woman is in danger of dying because of the pregnancy. This newswor thy story was buried on page 7A of Thurs day’s issue of The Dallas Morning News. And what made the top story on the front page? “Princess Diana agrees to di vorce Prince Charles.” There’s something wrong here. The attention given to the royal family is completely unwarranted. They don’t DO anything. Their role as figureheads is per haps the greatest paradox in history — loads of attention and wealth, but no real political responsibility. Their worth is com parable to, oh, maybe a lottery winner. Diana owns more than $20 million in jewels. She’s been on more covers of People Weekly than anyone else. Maybe I should be used to this by now. On July 29, 1981,1 was awakened early in the morn ing to my mother’s call, announcing that “THE wedding” was on. I groggily watched the royal processions, wondering what the big deal was. Even worse was the package that ar rived at our door from some British friends, which containing coffee mugs bearing the lovely faces of Charles and Diana. My mother cooed, my father rolled his eyes, and I just wondered how Charles’ nose was so big. They’re just two people with fancy ti tles and even fancier riches. They serve no purpose as role models or political leaders! Just take a look at how involved the royal family has been in the at tempts for peace in Northern Ireland. With the Feb. 9 explosion of an Irish Re publican Army bomb in London, it seems logical to believe any Brits with some in fluence would absorb themselves in help ing with the upcoming elections in Northern Ireland to ensure peace. British Prime Minister John Major is doing his part by negotiating with Irish Prime Minister John Bruton. But Charles and Diana? Well, they’re just too busy haggling over Di ana’s title of “Her Royal High ness” after the divorce. Priorities, you see. Then there’s the matter of liv ing arrangements and the status of their children, William and Har ry. These issues, no doubt, will keep them in the news for months longer. The title of “most eligible former princess” is sure to be thrown around, and any encounter with a man will prompt “Diana finds love with door man!” headlines. But perhaps Diana will shun the spotlight and disappear into obscurity. Not likely. The next step? I can just see it on the news. “The former Princess Di ana was seen entering a Los Angeles nightclub with O.J. Simp son Friday night. The couple was seen dirty dancing to 2Pac’s ‘Cali fornia Love’ and left arm-in-arm. Diana also caddied for Simpson dur ing his round of golf Saturday morning and announced she would release a video detailing the true story behind her divorce with Prince Charles.” This pairing is only logical. A match made in the media. Roh Clark is a senior journalism major Illegal activities do not merit clubs I have decided to start a club. Perhaps Shannon Halbrook and H.L. Baxter would like to join, or at least give their approval. My club is called “The Association for Students with Violent and Homi cidal Tendencies.” Basically it’s a club for people who are either murderers or considering com mitting violent crimes. , Think of it. You’re a new freshman at A&M, a long way from home, and a little uncom fortable about the fact that you like to kill people. You want to talk to people who are in similar situation and find out how they are dealing with their homicidal tendencies. My club would be an open forum. No murders would actually take place there, nor would any be planned. We would also be careful not to spread the homicidal “lifestyle,” as some tend to call it. In fact, the stated purpose of this club would be “to provide support to the local murdering community and to combat homocidophobia.” I was a little uncertain about starting a club at a state institution where murder is il legal, but I was reassured by Halbrook’s statement that even though an institution allows a club, it is not necessarily con doning it. Wait, let’s have a reality check. There Eire two reasons why there will never be a club for murderers at Texas A&M: be cause murder is wrong and be cause murder is illegal. Now Hal brook and Baxter may have a dif ferent concept of right and wrong than 1 do. That’s OK. The fact is, however, that murder is illegal in the state of Texas, just like sodomy is illegal in the states of Utah and Alabama. That is why gay and lesbian clubs should be banned at public institutions in these two states. Or maybe The Association for Students with Violent and Homi cidal Tendencies does have a fu ture at A&M. Robert Kimmel Class of ’9.9 Unexercised rights also need protection In response to the column in Friday’s Batt, I feel the need to voice a feminine objection to the idea of University interfer ence with the Playboy issue. I have no desire to pose for Play boy, but I do not want my right to do so infringed upon. I be lieve that soft-porn does have a negative influence on society. However, posing for Playboy is Mail not illegal and could end up be ing very lucrative for the women involved. I applaud all the women daring enough to do as they please, despite the guaranteed harassment from their less open-minded peers. Living in the United States and attending Texas A&M Uni versity, I am thankful for every right that I am guaranteed, and every opportunity that I am offered, regardless of whether I choose to employ it. Jenesta Nettles Class of ’98 Students should give PITS their feedback I am a student. I am not inde pendently wealthy. I have not come into a large sum of money. I am going out on a limb here when I propose that I am not the only student on this campus who is in this situation. I have a prob lem with some of the services that we continually fund over and above what we pay on our fee statements each semester. One is particularly annoying. What privileges do our parking permits afford us? A spot in the proposed pay parking lots by the Rec center? A spot in the pay-to- park lot next to Wehner? Or, as a real treat do we get to fight for the other spots that aren’t ever available during the peak hours? (Zachry & West Campus Dirt/ Mud Lot) Why can’t we have an informa tive symposium for new PTTS abuses like other University offi cials provide when implementing new policy that affects the stu dents in a potentially adverse manner? When do we get a voice in this sort of flawed, self-serving policy making? Do we have no ef ficient recourse against the peo ple that are being paid to run this efficient service? I vehemently urge everyone call the always friendly & prompt “service” PTTS hotline to demand an explanation for the total disregard that they have for student interests. Ben Krieger Class of ’97 Accompanied by 7 signatures Violence against son disturbs Aggie Mom As a concerned Aggie parent I am writing this letter to in form students and the Univer sity of an incident that hap pened to my son on Dec. 13 at a local college hangout. My son was brutally beaten by six members of a fraternity. He had to undergo emergency surgery on Dec. 20 in Baton Rouge to place a permanent steel plate and three screws in the right side of his face. The doctor who performed the surgery in formed us afterwards that if he would have been hit or kicked only an inch higher on his tem ple, he would have been killed. Various letters and phone calls to the administration of stu dent affairs have fallen on deaf ears. The response given was that since it did not happen on campus the administration can take no action. The Bryan Police originally told my son they could not do anything and he would have to pay his own doctor bills. When I wrote to the Chief of Po lice, he turned it over to his as sistant and a detective who made a weak attempt to help, but now states that my son has to find the culprits before they can go any further. This is all unacceptable and seems to be the attitude that now prevails in this country: “Don’t get involved.” My father, who was a member of the class of 1945, and I cannot believe this could happen at Texas A&M. Times have changed the school that we both knew and remember as a great university with which to be associated. Renee S. Hill President of Baton Rouge Aggie Moms’ Club Hazing has positive effects on the willing I was once a frog in the Corps, and I went through what the University would consider haz ing: humiliation, sleep depriva tion and even near starvation, if you’ve ever heard how frogs or fish eat in Duncan. However, my remedy was not to let the Univer sity save the day, but to simply leave. The rules should change to allow for consent by those being hazed, and people should have enough self-reliance to arrive at a choice. Inconveniences viewed as hazing gives organizations like the Corps cohesiveness and bind participants to one another. If the University takes this away by en forcing its regulations, these pop ular groups will become lame, with less commitment from their active members. If people can’t take the heat, they really should just get out of the kitchen. Art Fowler Class of’96 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 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: Batt@tamvm1 .tamu.edu Glass ceiling still keeps women from the top D on’t be fooled by the Texas A&M business school’s recent an nouncement that fe male graduates of the college are earn ing higher starting salaries than male graduates. Starting salaries do not a career make. . This will come as no surprise to the women of corporate America, a new study by Catalyst, a nonprofit New York-based research group, finds the “glass ceiling” is alive and well. The Wall Street Journal re ported the results of the compre hensive study last week. Sepa rate surveys of 461 senior female managers and 325 male chief ex ecutives at the nation’s biggest companies found that women face major barriers, which ac count for their continued under representation in high-level management positions. To those female Aggies plan ning on throwing themselves into the corporate ring after gradua tion, this study has important im plications. And to those male Ag gies planning on accompanying them, it would be best to go with a bit of knowledge. Male CEOs and female man agers disagreed on how far women have come in the rela tively short time they have been competing with men in the tra ditionally male-dominated cor porate world. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Nearly half of the CEOs said opportuni ties for women to advance to se nior leadership in their compa nies have ‘greatly improved’ dur ing the past five years, com pared with just 23 percent of the female executives.” Although many of the female managers participating in the study do report directly to the CEO or to someone just one level down, “more than 60 percent hold staff support positions such as in human resources and pub lic relations.” This point hits at the root of the problem — the lack of women in “line” positions. When women are promoted, it is often to trea sury or general counsel positions — not to positions supervising other employees. These supervi sory positions are called line posi tions and are the main pool from which upper-level management positions are chosen. Women cannot put themselves in a line job, however. Someone has to promote them to one. The respondents differed on the causes for why women are not pro moted to line positions. Female ex ecutives placed the blame on “male stereotyping of women and women’s exclusion from informal communications networks.” Male CEOs, on the other hand, listed women’s general lack of manage ment experience and their scarcity in the “pipe line” as keeping them from advancing. Often the fact that women are rel ative newcom ers to corporate America is used as an argument by persons who want to deny that women still face structural barriers in the work force. The fe male managers studied, however, ranked the fact that women are newcomers last on their list of barriers to advancement. The study also examined rea sons why female executives have made it as far as they have. Ac cording to the women polled, con sistently exceeding performance expectations, including working longer hours, was overwhelmingly responsible for their break throughs. Other factors contribut ing positively to their success were learning to play by conventional male-established rules and devel oping a more masculine manage ment style. Some good news did come out of the study. Almost three-quarters of the female executives were mar ried and the majority of them had children, suggesting that it is pos sible to balance career and family. The female executives with fami lies share a common trait — hus bands willing to share domestic and family responsibilities. The notion that it is impossible to balance career and family is used as a scare tactic by persons opposed to women’s advance ments in the work force. The study confirms that this is a no tion, not a reality. Only a few women attributed their advancement to having in fluential mentors, and only one- third of the women believed that affirmative action policies affect ed their careers at all. The results of this study sug gest a four-pronged strategy for women who eventually want to make it to the top of the corpo rate ladder: 1. Seek promotions to jobs with supervision over other employees, even if the pay is not as great. 2. Learn more masculine man agement skills that may not come naturally (learning to talk sports and play golf could also be a plus). 3. Look for a partner willing to do his or her share at home. 4. Consistently outperform male counterparts enough so that it is obvious. Admittedly, something is very wrong with this picture. In an ideal world, success is blind to anything but performance. The corporate world, however, is far from ideal. Gender is still a barri er to advancement and will con tinue to be, until a time when so ciety values the sexes equally. Let’s hope for our generation’s sake that the time is near. Elaine Mejia is a senior political science major
