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