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