'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...”