Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 14, 1997)
The Battalion !0\ Page 7 Monday • April 14, 1997 Jniversity eparates tudents I ecent rankings and reviews in U.S. News and World Report, Ll'exas Monthly and other publi- btions have given Texas A&M quite r\e gold star. Jealous students and fac- jlty in Austin, however, are quick to oint out the Columnist Travis Chow Computer science graduate student bntinA&M’s tiny new Iputation. Is seas A&M as yet to led its noto- ety for being backward, icistcom- iimity apped in a odiuik town. A recent sit to two |air: impetitors, te University ofWashington and Ito eorgia Institute ofTechnology, brings jiel) imecredibility to U.T.’s accusations, efore A&M can be a “world-class" uni- irsity, Aggies have to free themselves om the stilling conservative culture. Complaints of racism and stereo- hjr pes are not unique to this campus, oundess opinion columns and letters ithe editor in The Battalion fuss bout racial relations. The same com- laints surface in the The Technique, |ai ieorgia Tech’s campus newspaper. bpics include affirmative action, dis- | m spect for certain cultures and in- ensitivity toward minorities’ needs. Janfl astissues of The Technique have fea- 1® ired headlines which read “The racial 11! dsis 1 ' and “Wlien die melting pot nelts.’’ Racial conflicts are as wide- idsl pread as sex and rock ‘n’ roll on col- 1 i ege campuses across the nation. The key difference between these Imfi ionflicts is the unusually strong pres- |ai! Sitesofconformity at A&M. Although he student body is no longer segregat- , idalonglines of race, A&M's emphasis munity, traditions and conservative 'aluesdivides the campus along lines 0> ifupbringing. 1 Jnfortunately, differ- JniiS mces between ethnicity and upbring- agoften coincide. Through the eyes of ritics, this form of segregation is just a l,il lisguised form of institutional racism. :a5 Lookaround campus. A&M's diver- |to« itystagnates in the comers of engi- eering buildings and scholarship orms, where international students nd minorities are segregated from M’s conservative leviathan. These kets of diversity are analogous to Jiettos of the nineteenth century, when rial forces bound unassimilated indi- fiduals within the confines of a subvert- iculture. The only difference is die ducated’’ title Aggies proudly wear. The University ofWashington and orgiaTech, on the other hand, foster gtioreopen and truly diverse campus tltnre. Their claim to diversity goes yond statistics. Both of these univer ities are research-oriented and have a ieen climbing the U.S. News and torld Report rankings, much like exas A&M. One important difference, lowever, is the absence of an all-en- plfing culture. On Friday afternoons, their cam- uses are alive with a myriad of differ- nt people who parade around with lifferent interests and beliefs. Local mbs and hangouts go beyond College Nation’s only theme: country tavern. «meof the people inside these places ictually speak with a foreign accent. On the weekends, spectators at Tool-sponsored events (such as base- >all games) reflect the statistical diversi- y. People in the stands, ranging from i-cut Caucasians to body-piercing tians and Dennis Rodman look-alikes, ill cheer wildly for their team. On the weekdays, various hair- 'tyles and fashions adorn the cam- s, while different types of music >lare from parking lots. Conformity s not forced these students to ‘bandon their preferences. But the A&M campus tells a differ- Uttale. Dissenting individuals are told 0 either conform or get out of the way. The transformation begins as early 5 s Fish Camp and peaks during the bst spring semester, when freshmen Ume back with a “burning desfre" to Uj bin. For those who choose to remain | [ 15 they are, be it homosexual, atheist, pieign or un-WAS.R, the ghettos offer -only shelter. This segregation is A&M’s sore spot, s obstacle to "world-class” status, hough it may not be true racism, will never shed its backward im- ‘ge unless the campus changes its 'lute, racist town perception. Earl Rudder made a bold move in ( be ’60s when he admitted females ‘ud African-Americans. It’s time to Pke the next step and shed A&M’s seg- pgation and racist image. False advertising Gay, lesbian, bisexual newsletter shades truth in print Columnist smm. Donny Ferguson Sophomore political science major T homas Jefferson once said, "To compel a man to fur nish funds for the propaga tion of something he finds repre hensible is perhaps the ultimate form of tyranny.” The Department of Student Life ob viously slept through History 105. Student Life and Special Stu dent Services, a division of Stu dent Life serving homosexual students, publishes The Spirit, a newsletter for “gay, lesbian and bisexual students.” According to Student Life, this obscure University publi cation is funded through their student ser vice fee account at a cost of $20 per month’s worth of newsletters. While The Spirit is both misinformative and derisive of Christ ian morality, perhaps its crowning achieve ment is the fact it has managed to be print ed at students’ expense with relatively few knowing about it. For one, The Spirit is about as factual as a supermarket tabloid. A feature in the Feb. 1997 issue mentioning the homosexual population on campus said, “a conservative estimate would be at least 2,000 students.” According to The Spirit, homosexuals make up 5 percent of the student body. Scien tific studies give far different numbers. According to the Kinsey Report on Hu man Sexuality, the most thorough and reli able study on the subject, homosexuals make up fewer than 2 percent of the popula tion. Based on statistical fact, gays on cam pus number a little over 800,1,200 fewer than Student Life estimated. Factor in the fact Texas A&M isn’t exactly a magnet for gays and lesbians and the number plum mets even further. Clearly, the purpose of The Spirit is not to report fact, but to spread pro-homosexual propaganda. While The Spirit calls for students to “view gays/lesbians with genuine affection and delight, (Feb. 1997) ” it hardly extends the same courtesy to those with differing opinions on virtue. A Feb. 1997 feature on “coming out” criticize°s people who "view social issues in clear terms of good/bad or holy/sinful,” and show “a degree of flexibility when deal ing with...societal matters.” A “Homopho bia Scale” in the Dec. 1996 issue places stu dents who see homosexuality as unnatural and therefore oppose it for religious rea sons under the category “Repulsion.” It goes on to say those opposed to homosex uality feel “anything is justified to change them (homosexuals): prison, hospitalization, negative behavior therapy, violence, etc.” Student Life has yet to learn the difference between genuine prejudice and Judeo-Christian morality. Hating someone for what they are (such as skin color or religion) is cruel and wrong. Disapproving of someone because you believe what they do is im- mation and attacks mainstream religious views. True, the monetary figure may seem in significant. However, the fact a University de partment is using student fees to promote an opinion based on misinformation, bordering on hatred and serving a trivial minority by mar keting it as truth should create no small amount of moral outrage. At a cost of only $20 a month, using student fees is unnecessary. If The Spirit is going to publish biased information, it should at least state so (the word “Opinion” is inten tionally emblazoned on this page in two-inch letters). The Spirit is misleading and has no business being published at students’ expense. For the University to take money out of the pockets of students and taxpayers and use it to promote homosexuality eats away the very ideals of freedom and fairness for which forefathers shed their blood over 200 years ago. moral (such as homo sexual behavior or pornography) is proper behavior. The First Amend ment to the Constitution guarantees the right to voice whatever opinion one feels. However, both the founding fathers and legal precedent did not intend for Texas A&M stu dents to cough up cash so others could do so. A Wisconsin Federal District court recently ruled college stu dents could not be forced to provide funds for publi cations and or ganizations they do not support. This philosophy is the reason why The Battal ion relies upon advertisers and why College Re publicans, Aggie Democrats, Ea gle Forum Colle gians and other po litical and religious groups do not receive University funds. Student Life and Special Student Services should not force students to fund a publication which serves few, spreads false infor- — Students' pockets debate fees, half-full or half-empty? W ith more reg istration around the corner, students all over campus are scrambling to make sure they get the classes required for graduation. More importantly, students are checking their income sources to make sure they can cover the itemized fee slip from the Fiscal Department. Worries like these are quite familiar to students at any uni versity, particularly one that feels justified in squeezing mon ey out of financially strapped students to pay for a fancy exer cise center. Not to mention the other mandatory fees, such as Columnist Stephen Llano Senior history major computer usage fees, that rip dollars from students pockets with out benefit of individ ual choice. As a collective, stu dents benefit from these fees. The Student Recreation Center is the envy of Big 12 schools, and the cam pus has some of the finest computing labs in the nation. As a result, Aggie graduates perform exceptionally well in the business world. But the University is gouging every student regardless of in dividual decisions. Forcing people to pay for un necessary fees is morally unjus tifiable, and somewhat contra dictory to the foundation of free enterprise. When A&M began forcing students to shell out $100 a year for the Student Recreation Cen ter, local gyms could not com pete. A business based on free dom of choice cannot compete against a business that forces customers to pay. There is only one element of choice in this matter — don’t go to A&M, and don’t pay. Hardly a fitting attitude for “the best pub lic university in Texas.” As for mandatory degree au dits or mandatory classes, these serve only one purpose: to con vey the basics. In any number of required classes, essays and dis cussion topics are pushed to the back burner in exchange for Scantrons and deep discussions on what type of curve the pro fessor will use. Required classes take from students the option to pursue courses in fields interesting to them. Students come out of ele mentary classes with skeletal knowledge at best — not to men tion the added cost of tuition. Just because the majority of students benefit from mandato ry computer fees or the Student Recreation Center, the minority has the right to spend hard- earned money on services which will be actually used. But at A&M Machiavelli holds his ground with an iron fist — “The end justifies the means.” At an all-inclusive university, the rights of the consumer are nonexistent. More often than not, the only action students can take is to get on Highway 6 and drive the oth er way. A&M could corner the mar ket of university systems if more choice was given to indi vidual students instead of a university committee. The University should open up to the community and allow stu dents to pick from different providers for the services those students want. An occasional student may get burned by a bad deal, but that’s the way things work in the real world. If the University is truly committed to the benefit of the collective, it should stop imposing mandatory courses and fees and let the consumers choose what is best for them. R\)^,U!kKN6 E us^ &Wr mm L u Levant MK I^EO ^ HEW UM>ER- V" Mail A/flV (Mtelija an Ancient Biblical law clouds gay debate In Response to Bryan Hager’s April 11 Mail Call Hager quoted Leviticus (18:22) as proof that the Bible “explicitly” con demns homosexuality. This passage also prohibits such things as planting two different kinds of seeds in the same field, wearing garments with two differ ent kinds of yam, tattoos, eating raw meat and having sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period. We must remember that St. Paul (in Romansl:27 and Corinthians 6:9-10) was written in response to a Greco-Ro man culture that represented a secular sensuality that did not coincide with his Jewish-Christian idealism. To declare that these passages say homosexuality is evil because homo sexuals are tempted to do bad things is to maintain that heterosexuals are evil because they are equally tempted. Hager is correct when he points out that the Bible says nothing about Jesus sexuality, but is it so wrong to believe that he could’ve been homosexual? Would that make him less of a man? I believe Jesus came to free us from an archaic social code that was passed off as religion. Christians must follow Jesus’ example of love. Alex Walters said Christ said homo sexuality is a sin; I can’t find anywhere that Christ condemns homosexuality. Jesus came to free us of our hatreds and prejudices. He would be very upset to see that so many of his followers are loathing bigots. Ryan Rozich Class of'00