The Battalion
THURSDAY
June 13, 1996
OPINION
Page 5 5
Regents’ behavior
T he ac
tions of
the
Board of Re
gents are
placed under a
surprising
amount of
scrutiny. It is,
after all, a
group whose
individual
members are
fairly un
known to students.
The regents aren’t presiden
tial candidates or Supreme
Court nominees. They aren’t
subjected to an endless round of
intrusive questions when they
are appointed to the Board. The
road to their position is relative
ly smooth, and their duties don’t
require them to declare war or
interpret the Constitution.
However, a trio of recent sto
ries involving the Board or its
agents has been a major source
of embarrassment for the Uni
versity. The three incidents sug
gest that the regents are deserv
ing of a watchful eye.
What exactly does A&M stand
for? The answer is being illus
trated daily here and in the na
tion’s homes and offices by stu
dents current and former. The
University’s vocation is to pro
vide students with a place to
learn the skills necessary for
building an examined life.
But when the conduct of the
Board is examined, there is evi
dence of misconduct and poor
judgment. These indications re
veal that the students and facul
ty should place renewed pres
sure on the regents to act pru
dently in an effort to avoid fu
ture scandal.
One of the best ways for the
Board — and all Aggies in gener
al — to hone judgment is to con
stantly consider the question an
swered above: What exactly does
A&M stand for?
A&M doesn’t stand for alcohol
and misappropriations. Last
week Vickie Running, the execu
tive secretary to the Board of Re
gents, pleaded no contest to a
records tampering charge. By
doing so, she helped to sweep an
uncomfortable little episode un
der the rug.
The regents were illegally us
ing state funds to purchase
liquor. Running falsified docu
ments by claiming that the
items purchased were “soft
drinks, food, cups and ice.” She
also tried to misrepresent the ac
count used to pay for liquor.
After Running was sen
tenced to probation with de
ferred adjudication, Regents
Chairman Mary Nan West and
Chancellor Barry Thompson is
sued a statement saying “The
Texas A&M University System
is pleased that after a very
short period of informal super
vision, all alleged charges
against Ms. Vickie Running ...
will be dismissed. We are glad
that this unfortunate episode is
at an end.”
And what a shame that it
ends there. Although Running’s
actions were undoubtedly crim
inal, it seems unfair that she
ultimately will absorb all of the
blame for her bosses’ actions.
The regents were bending their
elbows, but it is Vickie Running
who got bent over the barrel.
JEREMY
VALDEZ
Columnist
embarrasses A&M
A&M doesn’t stand for air
planes and Margraves. Former
Regents Chairman Ross Mar
graves Jr. was indicted on April
30 on charges of official miscon
duct. He is scheduled to attend
his first pretrial hearing on
June 25.
Margraves used an A&M air
plane to fly himself and his wife
to Baton Rouge on August 4,
1993. He justified his use of the
state-owned plane by claiming
that since he had been invited to
sit on the platform and address
the graduating class of Louisiana
State University, his trip amount
ed to official business.
The suspicion of misconduct
arises because Margraves’ son
was one of the graduating Tigers.
Prudence dictates that Mar
graves could have avoided the
appearance of impropriety by
traveling to Baton Rouge at his
own expense, since his son’s
graduation added a distinctly
personal interest in the trip.
A&M doesn’t stand for as
sumption and misunderstand
ing. Last month the Board of Re
gents Committee on Academic
Campuses voted three-to-one to
reject a proposal to create a Cen
ter for the Humanities.
The petitioning entity, the In
terdisciplinary Group for Histori
cal Literary Study (IGHLS), is a
nationally lauded collection of pro
fessors engaged in highly regard
ed humanities research projects.
Despite the fact that the pro
posed Center would require no
additional University funds and
would actually attract money
from outside sources, the regents
rejected the proposal, citing con
cern that the group might en
gage in “revisionist history”.
Nothing in the eight year his
tory of the IGHLS suggested re
visionist tendencies. But since
some similar organizations at
other universities have been ac
cused of trying to recreate histo
ry in a politically correct light,
the regents assumed that a
Center for the Humanities at
A&M might try to fictionalize
the past.
It is also difficult to under
stand why the Board dismissed
the proposal of a group that
has received praise from indi
vidual regents.
While the rejection involves
neither admitted nor alleged
misconduct, it is a judgment that
many feel is an affront to acade
mic freedom.
Furthermore, the rejection
has caused outside observers to
ask why the Board seems reluc
tant to award and encourage
some of the University’s most
motivated faculty.
In fairness to the regents,
some of these matters have yet
to be resolved. Also, public opin
ion is swayed more quickly by
bad news than good news.
But this is precisely why the
Board needs to exercise every
measure of caution to prevent
further accusations. The three
incidents that have been report
ed or remembered in the last
month are enough to shake any
one’s confidence in the Board of
Regents. It is time for the Board
to take positive action to reaf
firm what it — and A&M —
stands for.
Jeremy Valdez is a Class of ’96
chemical engineering major
(gaol. a>m
Chip competitors
can’t stop Chester f
I t should’ve
been obvi
ous some
thing was
wrong when
blood started
showing up on
the wheels of
Chester Chee
tah’s skate
board.
Two weeks
ago, the De
partment of
Justice began investigating
Frito-Lay in an attempt .to set
tle suspicions that the company
possesses too much of the
snack-foods market.
The company’s share of the
valuable market is bigger than
ever — 50 percent, according to
a recent Time article. Frito-Lay
has always brought standbys
like Doritos, Fritos, Lay’s and
Ruffles to barbecues and family
reunions nationwide. Now the
company has added low-fat,
baked chips to its line. My dad
chomps them by the bag.
After reading the article, I
wondered whether the govern
ment’s investigation was justi
fied. I couldn’t think of many
chips that weren’t made by
Frito-Lay, so, in an effort to
find out, I went to the store to
find a bag of chips without the
company’s name on it.
I focused on chips I’d never
heard of. First, I grabbed a bag of
Santitas Tortilla Chips, which by
the bag looked like they were
made in some poor pueblo in Chi
huahua. But on the back was the
Frito-Lay logo.
My next try was a bag of
sour cream-flavored Baken-Ets
Pork Skins. Surely they could
n’t be Frito-Lay, I thought. But
they were.
After I checked the entire
aisle, I eventually found only
three brands of chips not associat
ed with Frito-Lay — the store’s
generic brand, El Galindo tortilla
chips and a tiny row of Poore
Brothers potato chips.
This poor selection, coupled
with the fact that I had never
heard of any of Frito-Lay’s
“competitors,” convinced me
that the government’s investi
gation is justified.
In 1991, Frito-Lay shuffled
off its main competitor, An-
heuser-Busch’s Eagle Snacks,
by simply chomping it up. But
lots of independent, mostly re
gional snack companies have
been drummed completely out
of business by Frito-Lay. And
by the looks of things, some
others aren’t far behind.
The trouble with Frito-Lay’s
incredible popularity is that, in
essence, it has merely done what
a good business should — made >-
money and invested it shrewdly.
Because of its incredible prof- ;
its, Frito-Lay has the money to
develop more sophisticated pro
duction techniques. The company
is now improving the efficiency of d
its potato peeling operation; ex
periments are being done with L
microwaves and lasers. It’s obvi- [
ous by their family name that the
Poore Brothers don’t have the
cash for this kind of science-fic
tion experimentation.
Frito-Lay can also spend
some of its profits on advertis
ing. The only non-Frito-Lay
chip with ads on TV is Pringles ,
— which are good, but the com
mercials are so ridiculously ;
stupid they almost force you to 1
leave the chips on the shelf.
The trouble with completely
unrestricted capitalism, as indi
cated by Frito-Lay’s bout with the
Justice Department, is that some
body eventually wins. Competi
tion doesn’t last forever because
one company always gets ahead.
As a result, the company can do
what Frito-Lay has done — invest
in its own growth — and soon it’s
a behemoth, able to either buy all 3
its competitors or drive them into
bankruptcy. Frito-Lay, in fact, is
capable of bullying other snacks
by stocking up on grocers’ expen- —
sive shelf space. 7
Surprisingly, though, Frito- r
Lay seems to be fairly coopera
tive in the investigation. Sean
Orr, Frito-Lay’s senior vice
president and chief financial
advisor, told Time that the gov
ernment has the “right to in
vestigate us or anybody like us
anytime they want.” This is an '
admirable and rare attitude for
a company executive.
Unfortunately, what the gov
ernment should do is tough to
say. Frito-Lay is just flat-out bet
ter than its competitors. Its chips
are popular because they taste
good. That’s all there is to it. Con
sumers can’t be expected to stop
buying Frito-Lay’s chips because
of the company’s large share of
the market.
But if Frito-Lay’s share of the
market continues to increase, the
company might soon achieve
something dangerously close to a
monopoly of the entire snack-
foods industry, enabling them to
fix prices and block competition.
Already, Frito-Lay is literally
forcing other snack foods off the
shelf. Hit-and-runs by Chester
Cheetah may not be far behind.
Shannon Halbrook is a
Class of ’98 English major
SHANNON
HALBROOK
Asst. Opinion Editor
Physical Plant fails to
understand drought
Mail
Oll
A&M should drop
green fixation
In the article, “Physical Plant
cuts water use,” in the June 12
Battalion, Charles Sippial is
quoted as saying that “In
essence, from groundwater,
there is not a drought.” Is he
trying to convince the reader
that the drought has little or no
effect on the aquifer? How does
he believe the water gets into
the aquifer — leprechauns? He
is further quoted as saying, “The
only thing that has happened to
that aquifer is that the level has
been lowered.” Yes, that is the
point. The University pumps
water from the aquifer, and the
aquifer is recharged (hopefully)
by rainfall. When it doesn’t rain,
the aquifer level drops. If it
drops low enough, there is no
water. If you don’t believe that
droughts can affect areas that
rely on water from aquifers, just
talk to someone who lives in or
near San Antonio.
I sincerely hope this article is
not reflective of Sippial’s knowl
edge about or attitude regarding
this issue. If it is, at best Sippial
is grossly uninformed. At worst,
he is being disingenuous and
misleading.
Robin M. Walker
Graduate student
I must second everything
stated by Patrick Troy in his let
ter to the editor about the waste
fulness of the TAMU sprinkler
system. I have noted on many
occasions the sprinklers being on
at the same time as rainfall. It
seems that a school filled with
brainiac engineers can’t have an
efficient sprinkler system, which
seems pretty crazy to me. The
pursuit of green grass (and, I
guess, green streets and side
walks) is so ravenous. Why?
Surely Dr. Bowen realizes that
this is a problem.
Christine Kirk
Graduate student
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: BattOtamvml .tamu.edu