Paj
• November IS 2;.
ition
Zaii-
jii r **v The Battalion
I IP!\IA A
yj r 1111U11
Page 11
Tuesday • November 19, 1996
is met
the
l
hting
WOO
>e their
tut
ived in
m
Vhites reap benefits
rom similar programs
r h(
b;
st
Equality hindered by
race-based treatment
Routes of the
refugees
Goma ■
lirpc
?•
Gisenyi
Lake
Kivu
e first affirmative action de
bates concerned white college
students who were
y G tting draft deferments Columnist
JiH'ig die civil wars in
dochina in the ’60s.
^ Minorities were over-
Go-pn sented in Asia —
^ nt abroad while main-
white college youth
ere going to school un-
•itoterrupted and making
eir way to successful
ireers. Many of these
ime professionals who
iok advantage of affir-
HMi
wt
Aja Henderson
Senior political
science major
rwan:
lative action back then are op-
yangugu
DSed to it now, especially if they
e desperate politicians who need
wedge issue to win. Hence
reposition 209, which eliminates
En native action in California.
BURUK °^ ten l * ie ar g ument is
lade that there is no longer a
Bujumbura eed for affirmative action, that
• © (eare all equal now and this
olicy has gone too far and is
ictimizing white males.
But how could white males
ossibly be victims? As a group,
hat Rwanda bite males comprise 33 percent
mnent bouj: fthe population. However, they
million w Dm prise 80 percent of the
l‘)9 1 Irom i; jnured professors, 80 percent of
pany, Mi(d;\( g Representatives, 90 percent of
N. embaif;() g Senators, 92 percent of the
l so mam j r L es 4 qq p ercen t 0 f school
wandan aur • * j ; r>r> r. + *
.. .. ipenntendents, 99.9 percent of
in QPnnmp r
recessional athletic team owners,
lo do vvhai ^ 100 percent of U.S. presidents.
, Vlwesigwa ^ professional woman
intelligence ^ a college degree earns only the
lational for itfvalent of a white male with just
r. The chain t high school diploma, and in 1993
s is broken hfte males continued to earn a
ilary that was 33 percent higher
lan their counterparts of other
±mic groups. Just because the
assrooms at this University are
lied with women doesn’t mean
\ese women will be treated equally
t the workplace. Women today
earn around 73 cents on the dollar
for every dollar a white male coun
terpart makes.
So if white males are
victims, just call me Mol
ly Foo-Foo. This debate
really isn’t about affirma
tive action at all. It is
about affirmative action
for minorities — a mi
nuscule part of the pref
erential policies in our
country. Why aren’t pref
erential programs for
white males ever
brought up? Let’s see...
there are tax breaks for corpora
tions, subsidies for middle-class
homeowners, price supports for
corporate farmers, scholarships for
second-generation college students
and mass transit subsidies for white
suburban neighborhoods.
Don’t forget the $500 billion
federal bailout for the savings and
loan fiasco, the biggest set-aside
in history. Our federal treasury
gives about $46 billion per year to
homeowners, primarily benefit
ing people who have incomes
over $50,000— a category that is
overwhelming
This debate really
isn’t about affir
mative action at
all. It is about
affirmative action
for minorities.
ier refugees
irn home.”
ly white.
But this
huge network
of special bene
fits is ignored,
and the finger is*
pointed at pro
grams that help
minorities. I’m
not saying all
these programs are wrong and
should be abolished, but I do think
the twisted psychology that the
Rush Limbaughs and Pete Wilsons
are using is evil. These people take
advantage of all sorts of affirmative
action for themselves, but want to
deny it to the most oppressed
groups in society. How greedy.
It is a weird argument to abolish
affirmative action because it insults
minorities’ intelligence. Corporate
America is not stigmatized by its
subsidies. The idiots involved in the
savings and loan scheme aren’t
holding their heads in shame. Veter
ans reaping the benefits of the GI
bill aren’t sobbing and feeling
worthless. When people of color are
involved, certain white males be
come conveniently “frightened and
sensitive” about some supposed
stigma on self -esteem.
There is also the argument that
affirmative action should be
based on class, not race. This is
just a sneaky way to give it all to
whites. Why? Because the poor in
this country are mainly white.
Blacks who come from homes
with a family income of over
$70,000 still do slightly worse on
the SAT than whites with a family
income under $10,000. If affirma
tive action is based on class rather
than race, whites will reap more
benefits than they already get.
Don’t believe the hype. People
don’t get jobs based on merit
alone. If that were the case, net
working and nice resumes
would be completely
unnecessary.
The person with
the best creden
tials would get the
job, hands down. But
only a fool believes
this is how the job
market in Ameri
ca works. These
phony arguments are
just a cover-up for greediness.
The politicians spewing dumb
myths neglect to tell the public
that affirmative action for privi
leged white males will continue.
Funny how when affirmative ac
tion is applied to minorities, it’s
“reverse racism,” but when the
so-called angry white males are
benefiting, it’s “entitlements.”
H opwood. Proposition
209. Affirmative action.
These three
phrases have ignited
a national debate
concerning an execu
tive order issued by
President Lyndon
Johnson nearly 30
years ago in an at
tempt to make up for
racial discrimination.
What Hopwood and
Proposition 209 — a
measure passed by
California voters to
outlaw affirmative ac
tion in their state — show is the
increasing backlash and animosi
ty towards affirmative action.
Why is there such opposi
tion to affirmative action? Be
cause affirmative action is
deeply flawed.
Affirmative action in theory
sounds great.
Minorities are at a disadvantage
in terms of pre-college educational
opportunities, and helping them
overcome these obstacles is a noble
cause.However, affirma
tive action targets the
wrong areas.
Educational op
portunities are terrible
for inner-city mi
norities, and those
who attend these
schools often have an
inferior education and
are not prepared for
the rigors of college.
When minorities are admitted
to college under lower standards,
they are then expected to suc
ceed during four years at a uni
versity and emerge with a degree.
If they manage to graduate,
they most likely will not have
the best of grades because of
their inadequate preparation
Columnist
Jon Apgar
Sophomore
journalism major
for college.
However, affirmative action
will see that they get jobs. With a
less-than-adequate
college preparation,
the chance of them
succeeding in their
jobs is minimal.
It is in this way that
affirmative action can
actually hurt a minority.
Moreover, affirma
tive action breeds a
new type of animosity
among whites to-
wards minorities.
Many whites are an
gered by the fact that minori
ties do not have to meet equal
standards for college admis
sions and are given the benefit
of the doubt when applying for
jobs for which they may not be
completely qualified.
Affirmative action is a blan
ket policy that targets all mi
norities, regardless of their so
cioeconomic status.
As a result, some minorities
from middle- and upper-class
neighborhoods and good
schools are
still given
benefits they
don’t need.
Suppose
two individu
als, one white
and one
African-Amer
ican, apply for
a job. Both have
the same qualifications and at
tended good colleges.
If the white person is given
the job based solely on the fact
he is white, it is called racism,
and the employer can expect
lawsuits from the NAACP, the
ACLU and Jesse Jackson.
If the African-American is
given the job based solely on
Scholarships for
blacks are fine,
but a scholarship
for whites would
be denounced
as racism.
skin color, it is called affirma
tive action.
Scholarships for minorities are
fine, but a scholarship for whites
would be denounced as racism.
It is the same for all-black
versus all-white fraternities.
Although I hate to throw the
term “reverse discrimination”
around, it is obvious there is a
double standard, and the goal
of equality is not being met.
Equality, after all, is what
we’re all striving for.
But equality does not in
clude discriminating based on
skin color, whether that color
be white, black, brown or red.
Moreover, Johnson’s reason for
implementing affirmative action
was to make up for past discrimi
nation against minorities.
However, affirmative action
is not benefiting those who
were discriminated against.
It is benefiting their chil
dren and grandchildren, who
are not subject to segregation
and Jim Crow laws.
The original purpose of af
firmative action is targeting the
wrong people.
The solution is to make col
lege admissions and job appli
cations colorblind.
A box for race or ethnicity
should not be included, so that
everyone is on the same play
ing field.
We need to get rid of affir
mative action and instead re
form education at the primary
and secondary levels.
When applying for college or
a job, it shouldn’t matter what
race you are, only that you
have acquired the skills neces
sary for success.
Getting a job or a college ed
ucation handed to you because
of your race is an ineffective at
tempt at equality.
ll.S. Army’s image goes AWOL
r he Army has an image problem. Nu
merous Army training supervisors,
apparently feeling they weren’t seeing
nough action on their tour of booty, are
||v facing charges of sexual misconduct.
g|rhe charges cover a wide range of of-
D es. At one end of the spectrum, an in-
^xtor was accused of writing a love let-
■irlto a trainee. At the other end, Staff Sgt.
■Hmar Simpson (apparently modeling
■piself after the famed running
■|ck/wife-murderer of the same last
■Kne) was charged not only with rape and
^dultery, but also with forcible sodomy.
Hfhese charges produce an image problem for the
^Mny above and beyond the usual money-wasting
&REC MEMB^ nd hair-loss issues. If the Army isn’t careful, people
By assume that these cases of sexual aggression
tem from the fact that anyone who sticks around
|| Army long enough to gain a position of authori-
|ls by definition a loser. And that just isn’t fair.
K3ut this rash of cases should not be considered a
Me. Courts-martial for such offenses are nothing new,
it the Army, knowing it now has a widespread prob-
Bi on its hands, has wisely chosen to take a proactive
tpproach. To avoid the look of impropriety and the
Bor resulting from accusations of a cover-up, it has giv-
ti every indication of weeding out the bad apples re-
Mrsible for these cases of sexual misconduct.
KBut are these cases just isolated instances of bad
jlople doing bad things? Or does it represent a pattern
n w hich certain types of people are attracted to the
=300 APPLlCW^ary and — as females become more fully integrat-
RBAD BUILD int0 the armed services — have more opportunity to
ibtise their power? More likely the latter.
Columnist
Mason Jackson
Senior marketing major
Also, how long has this been going on
and on how large a scale? When you con
sider the low rate at which civilians report
sexual abuse, it is a safe assumption that
an even lower percentage of cases is re
ported in the military, where people who
make waves are not looked upon kindly.
These are the types of issues the Army
must face if it wants to prevent this from
happening again as soon as the spotlight
shifts elsewhere. Simply purging the cur
rent perverts will only be a temporary fix.
The image problems created by such cas
es of sexual misconduct have far-ranging
implications. In a country trying to balance its budget
some time this millennium, defense spending may
prove an easy target for budget cuts.
Especially since defense has become a misnomer,
with all of our military actions now dealing with polic
ing other parts of the world. Sure, Canada seems to be
copping an attitude, but Mexico poses no imminent
threat to invade (at least not in an organized fashion).
In the world today, it is more likely that eco
nomic forces, rather than military forces, will de
termine a country’s future — just ask the former
U.S.S.R. Creating even more room for military
downsizing is the fact that technology has made
the armed services more potent. A few strategic
bombers can take the place of thousands of foot
soldiers, an effective “less can be more” situation.
These reasons almost ensure that defense spend
ing will continue to decrease. This leaves the Army,
Navy, Air Force and Marines in a competition to
avoid the largest cuts. And in the politics of funding
(as in journalism), image is everything.
Column should be
taken at face value
Regarding Aja Henderson’s Nov.
13 column, “Sail Ross rededication
sullies A&.M”:
I am disappointed with the
personal attacks on Henderson.
Yes, perhaps her earlier article on
“napping” was inappropriate for
a serious opinion page, but is this
sufficient grounds for me to take
Befort's advice and reject her ar
gument against Ross? The two is
sues are unrelated.
Particularly disturbing is Be-
fort’s declaration that “if the end
purpose of her column is to start
a ruffle and make waves, then she
should stop.”
Is it so difficult to suppose
that Henderson might hold dif
ferent views than the majority at
Texas A&M? Should we really
censure her for those views? I
challenge Befort to write for The
Battalion next semester. Maybe
he will be able to write opinions
we can all agree with.
For his implicit comment re
garding Henderson’s lack of ma
turity, a subject he seems to un
derstand so well, I think Befort
owes Henderson an apology.
I think it is just dandy that
Sull Ross saved Texas A&M and
governed the state.
If, however, people are going
to declare he was a “Great Man”
perhaps they should add the
qualification “to white southern
men in the 19th century.”
I don’t know the facts. I don’t
know if Sullivan Ross was a
slaveowner.
If he was, I think we should
follow Andes’ advice and “come
out of the past."
If Ross was a slaveowner, his
statue belongs in a museum, not
in front of the Academic Building.
Jon S. Beeler
Class of’97
Columnists only
deserve respect
Regarding the Nov. 14 editorial,
“Thinking Smart”:
The editorial stated that “Stu
dents do not agree with her, but
they should respect her opinion.”
(referring to Aja Henderson).
This statement is wrong — we
are under no more obligation to
respect her opinion than we are
to respect the opinions of Nazis,
Communists, Creationists, De
mocrats or anything else, for
that matter. What we are obligat
ed to do is respect her right to
have an opinion.
I disagree with almost every
thing Henderson has said in her
columns. I find her arguments
simplistic, ignorant and, in fact,
rather insulting to women and
African-Americans. And I do not
respect the opinions she ex
presses anymore than I respect
the opinions of Nazis, Commu
nists, or Creationists.
That is my opinion and I am
just as justified in having it as
Henderson is in having hers.
The editorial seems to suggest
it is OK for her to express her
views, but not for us to express
ours. By all means, Henderson
can say what she wants — that is
her right in a free society and I
would never try to take that right
away from her.
But to quote Hubert
Humphrey, “The right to be
heard does not include the right
to be taken seriously.”
So, by all means, let Ms. Hen
derson say whatever she wants to
say, but don’t get upset if some of
us disagree with what she says.
Isn’t people disagreeing with
what she writes just as strong an
expression of freedom as her writ
ing it in the first place?
Brendan Guy
Class of’99
Revisionist history
teaches new lesson
Regarding James Hemene’s Nov.
15 Mail Call, “Sull Ross deserves
respect from Ags":
As graduate students of the
Department of History at Texas
A&M University, we find it ap
palling that students of this
“world class university,” contin
ue to perpetuate the myth that
the Civil War was “mainly fought
over states’ rights” and that slav
ery was “a minor part of the
whole picture.”
This myth was created by
Southern apologists following the
war to excuse the inexcusable
acts perpetrated by the South un
der slavery. It has been rejected
unilaterally by academics, histori
ans and anyone who has serious
ly studied the causes of the Civil
War in the last few decades.
The Civil War was not only an
issue of slavery, but also of racism.
Those are undeniable facts.
The South could never have
justified, nor continued slavery if
the group being enslaved was not
only easily identifiable but also
considered inferior.
Furthermore, it was not only
the continuation of slavery that the
South desired, but also its expan
sion into undeveloped territories.
Perhaps if people would con
sider the facts, rather than what
they want to believe, they would
understand why the Civil War and
issues of racism continue to di
vide this country.
Mark Klobas
Graduate Student
Accompanied by 16 signatures
The Battalion encourages letters to the
editor. Letters must be 300 words or fewer
and include the author’s name, class, and
phone number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to
edit letters for length, style, and accuracy.
Letters may be submitted in person at 013
Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Let
ters may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mall: 1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu
For more details on tetter policy, please caff
845-3313 and direct your question to the
opinion editor.