Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 10, 1996)
'1 k The Battalion s ms WEDNESDAY July 10, 1996 OPINION Page 5 1 then catching i hut why have est with a tal- e only skill in- derwater for a ps the greatest : out of control, es physical ex- ipic sport, might as well event of the 'gy, skill, and ■ the wind out ids to put its ot down and op the flood new events, The Olympics mbolize the ca- araderie and uty between e nations of e world. This what the an- mt Greeks uted when the Ties began, The intent « to not lit r erenc@i in w ion, creed or or interfere, e is there to >n. come a spec- cram into a •burdened by s about. Who andball? mittee needs to evaluate ted into the dght step by eds to go one t traditional me, my sug- »ort. rebate Roquirrf EED TO JSTIN RY & GIFTS i ^ your 12th With v the Media, major parties dismiss ideal candidate W ere all doomed to watch anoth er presidential elec tion end in disaster. This fall, each and every one of us will have ringside seats to watch two of our nation’s premier professional politi cians do battle. But it doesn’t matter who wins. Long ago, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole sold their souls to special interests. Both have had the chance to cut government expen ditures. Both have had a chance to overhaul welfare. And both have failed — miserably. They worship at the altar of big government. Neither can relate to a single moth er with three children. Or the factory worker whose job was exported to Mexico in the name of “free trade.” They may claim to “feel your pain,” but don’t be so easily fooled. So, where is the alternative? There is always the Libertarian Party lurking in the corner. Don’t laugh. It may be a viable al ternative this year. Its nominee, Harry Browne, is rather progressive. He’s managed to avoid catering to the anarchic fringe in his party and is offering some at tractive ideas. Browne is eager to trim the federal government in accordance with a strict interpretation of the Constitu tion. That means a smaller bureau cracy and lower taxes. But we can count on the media to ig nore the Libertarians completely, forc ing them into even greater obscurity. It will be difficult for the media to ignore Ross Perot and his Reform Party, though. The Texas zillionaire has put together an organizational masterpiece with the remnants of his 1992 independent campaign and United We Stand America. Perot and his new party are deter mined to shake up the establishment in 1996. Yesterday, the former Democratic governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm, announced he is seeking the Reform Party nomination. Perot indicated he will nun if tapped at the convention later this summer. But things are off to a slow start at America’s new third party head quarters. That’s unfortunate. Because the Reform Party needs to get busy drawing new pie charts if it plans on catapulting a candidate into the White House. I don’t know if they can pull it off, though. But I do know one thing. The United States needs a presi dent who can stand on his own two feet. Someone who isn’t a marionette being puppetted by lobbyists and out- of-touch elites. Someone who knows the difference between special inter ests and the interests of ordinary Americans like that single mother and the unemployed factory worker. We need a president who won’t sell us out — again. One who is tough on illegal immigration. And one who is not afraid to stand up to big business. In short, we need a president who isn’t afraid to put America first. His name: Pat Buchanan. But oT Pat, despite his widespread populist appeal, was rebuked as a radical by the elites. This “radical” won several pri maries and straw polls, though, and secured the support of rational Amer icans across the country — both Re publicans and Democrats. But as punishment for his popu larity, the GOP may refuse to allow Buchanan speaking time at its San Diego convention in August. I’m not surprised. The established parties are afraid of anyone who is willing to disclose the truth — expos ing the hypocrisy, waste and corrup tion Washington insiders have bred. But Pat Buchanan has promised to fight. And I hope he does, because nothing will change if Bill Clinton or Bob Dole is elected. It will be busi ness as usual in our nation’s capital. And the real losers in November’s presidential election will be you and me. Michael Heinroth is a Class of ’96 political science major MICHAEL HEINROTH Columnist Textbook triumvirate takes advantage of students’ needs E very semester, when our wal lets empty, it becomes painfully clear that textbooks are expensive. Yet no one can really pin point why. The answer to the colossal expense in volved can be traced directly to those who stand to make a prof it — namely the au thors, the publishing companies and the bookstores. Yet asking them why textbooks are so expensive is some what like a Family Circus cartoon. Not only is it not funny, but ask who is responsible, and like Billy, Dolly and PJ, each points to someone else. However, each one is right. All three play a crucial role in why textbooks cost more than the course itself. The textbooks used on a majority of college campuses are, not surprisingly, written by college professors them selves. In fact, in many cases, the pro fessor of a particular course assigns his or her own textbook. Publicly, pro fessors argue that this merely rein forces what he or she teaches in class. But privately, many will admit that not only does it look good on a resume, but it also provides another source of guaranteed income. Just as dubious is the practice of new editions. Authors “update” on a regular basis, some as often as every year. It’s understandable that things change and progress is made in these fields, but if the information in these books is so out-of-date, then why are We learning from them in the first place? I understand that things may change, but why does a math book need to be updated? Has there been some dramatic change to the Pythagorean Theorem? Ask any college textbook author why the cost is so high, however, and all will unanimous ly blame the publishing companies. Obviously, publishing companies do play a significant role in the exorbi tant expense. Textbooks are published by the scholar division of the same companies that produce regular novels and books for the masses. These nov els sell for around $25 new and the publishing companies make money off of them, even after paying six- and seven-figure advances to the authors. Yet college textbooks, sold new, sell for at least $40 and, according to the textbook authors, the extra money cer tainly doesn’t go to their fee. No pub lishing company representative could point to a definitive reason for the ex tra expense, such as higher publishing cost or increased quality, but it is ob vious that it is not being used to de crease production costs. Bookstores bare the brunt of frus tration that should be directed at both publishing companies and authors, but they also contribute to the high cost of textbooks. In fact, bookstores abuse us at both ends. When we buy textbooks, publishing companies claim that it is the bookstores that tack on a large amount to increase their profit margin. And when we sell back our textbooks, we all know how badly we get screwed. The experience of buying some book for $40 and selling it back for $15 is something we have all gone through. Even worse is the fact that in the next week, at the beginning of the new se mester, the latest schmuck is going to buy that same book for $40 again. By now all of us have learned that crap runs downhill, but that doesn’t mean we have to drown in it. And though we cannot change everything, there are subtle ways to fight back. Look around campus. All those homemade fliers advertising books for sale aren’t just for decoration. The books are the same, and the only thing missing is the middleman. And when going to sell back one’s textbook, don’t accept a measly three dollars for each textbook. The more students realize that they don’t have to accept just enough for a Value Meal, the more stores will realize that they have to give more money for buybacks. Final ly, find out about professors. Just as everyone asks which professor gives the easiest tests, why not find out which ones require buying three of their books just so they finish off their house payment? Sure, textbooks, much like anything else required by the University, will never be cheap. But by knowing what causes the expense, we can start to figure out how to avoid it. Steven Gyeszly is a Class of’99 finance and sociology major STEVEN GYESZLY Columnist we P&e& Hopivood will not eliminate diversity A fter 30 years of special prefer ences to rectify past discrimination, the Supreme Court has said that it is time to move beyond racial division and ex tend equal treatment to all individuals. The recent Supreme Court deci sion not to review Hopwood vs. Texas marks the beginning of the end for race-based admission to colleges and universities. The decision let stand the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the University of Texas Law School’s admissions policy, which considered white and minority appli cations separately, discriminated against whites. The decision legally prohibits Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi from using race as a factor in admissions, financial aid and scholarships. When the Supreme Court hears a similar case, chances are good that their deci sion will make racial preferences ille gal nationwide. At one time, affirmative action was necessary to balance the scales to rec tify the poisonous effects of legal dis crimination. Today, it is no more than a divisive issue that has little to no benefit to minorities. Thirty years ago, highly qualified minorities were denied jobs by racist people in a society that was generally hostile to minorities. Today, qualified minorities are the most highly sought after job prospects and university re cruits because they fulfill two criteria — they are qualified, and they help the company or university promote their oft-stated goal of diversity. A commitment to diversity is con sidered positive by companies and universities in today’s culture, as it should be. In particular, universities promote diversity as a positive aspect of their schools. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that universities will suddenly stop re cruiting minorities because of the Hopwood decision. Curtis Childers, a student representative on the Texas A&M Admissions Advisory Commit tee, said, “The Hopwood decision will not change A&M’s mission of enhanc ing diversity on this campus.” Proponents of affirmative action have criticized the decision because they say it will cause minority enroll ment at Texas colleges and universi ties to decrease. Kevin Carreathers, director of the Texas A&M Depart ment of Multicultural Services, said, “If we can’t come up with ways to ef fectively recruit minority students in light of the Hopwood decision, our numbers will decrease.” Besides insulting minorities by im plying they need special treatment to be accept'd to top universities, falsely assumes colleges will lose their incen tive to attract minority students and continue to strive to maintain a di verse student body. No reputable university will sud denly change direction and aggres sively try to keep minorities out. This has been illegal for over 30 years. Schools that are truly committed to diversity, such as Texas A&M and the University of Texas, will not be “whitened” as a result of the Hop- wood decision. These schools can con tinue to recruit top minority stu dents. They just cannot give people extra scholarship money because of their skin color. It is true that race-based scholar ships might persuade highly qualified minorities to attend Texas A&M rather than somewhere else. Such scholarships promote diversity be cause they give minorities an incen tive to attend A&M — money. While a conservative, rural culture might tend to discourage minorities from attend ing A&M, a $2,500 per year Presiden t’s Achievement Award helps bring them in. The University’s inability to lure top minority students with money will be a hindrance to attracting these students in the short term. In the long term, however, the deci sion will benefit A&M. We will continue to seek and pro mote a diverse student body. Since we won’t be able to attract minorities with what essentially amounts to bribery, the school will be forced to seek other ways to convince minorities that A&M is their best choice. This effort will require and promote real change. The most obvious way to attract people of all colors is simply to contin ue to improve the quality of all acade mic programs. Good students will choose A&M because it is a good school, and a diverse campus of all races will naturally result. The desire for quality education transcends racial divisions. Jim Pawlikowski is a Class of’96 chemical engineering major JIM PAWLIKOWSKI Columnist i ^ 1 3 cl like to donate my free air time to Clinton...”