The Battalion
997
londay - June 16, 1997
SI
aces in a crowd
lomen in history n°t given due acknowledgment
Bm
Columnist
Then Roman soldiers invaded
J Celtic Britain many tribes were
i pillaged on their way. Bodaicea,
icqueen, witnessed the raping and
mg of her daughters. In response,
lisedan army of 80,000 tribesmen,
jpting to hold her attackers at bay
preserve the integrity of her land,
erthan granting the Romans the
iyof her capture, she sipped a poi-
akingher own life,
lonot be surprised if you have
[heard the story. It is called
toryfor a reason.
koughout the ages, women have been
(forces in changing eras. They have
poets, religious leaders and revolu-
iries. Women have been monarchs,
iers and healers. No matter what
isdistinguished women across
ihough, one common trait has
idthem: their erasure from die
sofhistory books,
istory, as most people rec-
2e,isa very subjective con-
tHistory is interpreted; it
necessarily fact. Many
ms, including ethnocen-
tand chauvinism,
(been defining forces
beway history is
ndedand taught,
fetem history is
liouslybiased. It
#ily male-cen
tal Euro-
fridnher es-
Jmrda
m-Cen-
iUniversity,
me Rich said
i-centered uni-
jtf common today
ithes‘facts’ generated by a
itintellectual tradition.” In
itrwords, actual events are often
Ijsdinorder to glorify particular groups.
mare spoken of only in passing. Educa-
sieach of Elizabeth I, Cleopatra and Betsy Ross,
teen these are treated as token figures,
alesofhistory are taught without even a whis-
nale existence. It can be assured that for
Kptnan spoken of in mainstream history
j Iwtere are dozens of others whose contri-
iiisare just as noteworthy,
tespoken of are .the likes of Victoria Wood-
lie first female presidential candidate who
iKi'thFrederick Douglass on the Equal Rights
la Also invisible is Hypatia of Alexandria, one-
stChair of Platonic Philosophy at the ancient
Mandy Cater
rrmr r
University of Alexandria. Her govern
mental influence and paganism so in
timidated the Bishop of Alexandria
that he encouraged fanatical monks to
hack and burn her body.
Herein lies the predicament. In or
der for the experiences of women to
be accurately portrayed, some un
pleasant periods warrant evaluation.
There are the witch hunts of Europe in
which thousands of women were mas
sacred for deviating from gender
norms." Also deserving mention would be the
Tailhook scandal. One might even have to men
tion the innumerable women who died or had
permanent health damage due to unwanted
pregnancy in the days before Margaret Sanger
and her pioneering for birth control.
So to answer any lingering questions one might
have as to why women’s experiences are virtually ab
sent from history texts and lectures, here goes. The
history of women is not as easy to stomach as main
stream history. It does not often involve the glories of
war and political power. Women were denied the
right to vote and banned from realms of academia.
Women were the ones who were prostituted, raped,
captured and burned at the stake. In order to accu
rately chronicle women’s experiences, then, one
would be forced to face centuries of misogyny.
Instead, women’s history is accounted in bits and
pieces. Douglas Carlson, author of “Discovering
their heritage: Women and the American past,” said,
since “the male world is the point of
reference for traditional history...
females become peripheral.”
This fragmentation of
women’s history has nu
merous repercussions
for females today. With
out history, a group has no
sense of community and co
hesion. Feminists and scholars
alike have noted this need for
common female experience.
Since the 1960s, a surge has been
underway to rediscover women’s col
lective pasts. This “new” subject is often
referred to as “herstory.” Many main
stream classes and texts keep their doors
and minds shut to the acceptance of herstory.
To compensate, a number of deconstructionist
history books have been written and campuses
across the nation, including Texas A&M, have cre
ated Women’s Studies programs.
Acceptance of herstory is not without road
blocks, though. Texts and classes chronicling
women’s lives are often accused of brainwashing
students and having “feminist agendas.” Once
women were worshiped and revered as goddesses,
today students who seek to discover their female
heritage often face derision, being called “radi
cals,” “dykes” or “feminazis.”
It is time that women are included in our
discussions of the past. Though their pres
ence may not have always been that of
prominence or power, it is important to
realise that they Were actually present.
Herstory may be uncomfortable, but
it is essential in giving students a
reference point. Only then can we
see how far we have come, and
Graphic: Brad Graeber how far we still have to go.
hen
The Battalion
Established in 1893
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of
the editorials board members. They do not necessarily re
flect the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the
Texas A&M student body, regents, administration, facul
ty or staff. Columns, guest columns, cartoons and letters
express the opinions of the authors.
Contact the opinion editor for information on submitting
guest columns.
Editorials Board
Stew Milne
Editor in Chief
Helen Clancy
Managing Editor
James Francis
Opinion Editor
John LeBas
City Editor
ad Publicity, Not Students, Motivates A&M
8)'reversing the cancellation of “continuing passes” to the Student
leation Center, Texas A&M has proven how easy it is for such an enor-
Usentity to escape the fallout of poor decision-making unscathed.
Hie University has emerged from this fiasco smelling like arose. Stu
lls will likely forget how the Rec Center silently withdrew continuing
Is without their input. Students only will care that the pass policy
'restored, thanks to the “compassion” of the administration.
iutA&M deserves no credit for responding to the needs of students,
'(sponsive — or rather, responsible — administration would have
isnlted students before canceling the passes. Reversing this decision
dimply a good public relations move. The administration only seems
Clinton-Jones trial
reveals true face
of political agendas
General Franklin
Columnist,
history
major
to consider student opinion when burned by the fire of bad publicity.
Both A&M and continuing students win; Aerofit and Gold’s Gym are
the real losers. These businesses, rightly trying to retain a fair share of
the fitness market, were unfortunately trapped between the interests of
fee-burdened students and an administration quick to succumb to pub
lic pressures. The University will stay afloat, regardless of whether the
Rec Center profits. Local gyms do not have the luxury of such financial
security, especially during the summer.
Continuing students should have access to the Rec Center during the
summer. Students, however, should question the intentions of leaders
who make snap decisions based on outside pressures.
T he Paula Jones episode has re
vealed two distinct ideas. In
nuendo can be elevated to
substance with the right political al
lies and the aid of the Supreme
Court. Secondly, Clinton’s lack of
courage and candor has extended
this charade while entrenching the
public and the presidency in contro
versy irrelevant to the momentous
issues facing the country and world.
Paula Corbin Jones is an ordinary
woman, bearing the potential of over
shadowing the presidency and its du
ties for the next few years. This entire
saga has demonstrated how the explo
sive mix of enemies, money and sala
cious rumor can legitimize the most
defamatory and baseless accusations.
According to Jones, during a May
1991 conference, then-governor Clin
ton summoned her to a hotel room
where he exposed himself, making a
“blunt sexual proposition.” Following
the incident, she immediately in
formed four witnesses including her
sister Charlotte Brown and her broth
er-in-law Richard Brown. Do not let
these events fool you, the case’s credi
bility ends here and rumor pervades.
Instead of notifying the police of
this incident, Jones sat on these
charges until it became financially
viable for herself and politically vi
able for her allies.
In May 1994, Jones first emerged
with charges of harassment against
the president, three years after the
supposed incident at a Washington,
D.C. meeting of the Conservative
Political Action Committee. When
challenged about her delay in com
ing forward, Jones claimed fear of
Clinton retaliation since he was in a
powerful position as governor. The
falsity of this claim is obvious since
no signs of Clinton intimidation oc
curred as Jones received several
merit raises and promotions in the
time between the “incident” and the
leveling of the charges.
Another blow to her harass
ment claim came from one of the
four witnesses with whom she
confided after the incident with
Clinton. Jones’ older sister said in a
June 1994 New Yorker article how
Jones was motivated by money to
pursue litigation against the presi
dent in May 1994. Furthermore,
Brown maintains how Jones said
she was “flattered” by the flirtation
and believed the incident, as Jones
put it “smelled of money.”
Further tearing her case apart
are the people Jones aligned her
self with to bolster her charges.
Her chief counsel are two Republi
can attorneys, Joseph Cammarata
and Gilbert Davis, the latter of
which is a candidate forVirginia
attorney general.
Also, Jones made her first charges
against the president at a partisan
event hosted by the conservative Le
gal Affairs Council whose leader,
Ronald Deglardio, hopes this inci
dent will lead to the impeachment of
Clinton. Unabashed about their in
tentions to destroy the president and
perhaps the institution along with it,
the shady motives of other Jones ad
vocates like Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell is to exploit the lies and slan
der of Jones’ claim to advance their
own power and influence.
Shortly after the filing of the law
suit, three years following the inci
dent, militant anti-abortionist Patrick
Mahoney, leader of Operation Res
cue, established the Paula Jones Legal
Defense Fund, whose donor list reads
like Clinton’s enemy list. Obviously,
the political entanglements of Jones
have evaporated whatever thin layer
of credibility her charges of harass
ment had. Presently, the entire spec
tacle is just an attempt to use slander
to weaken and paralyze the presi
dent’s agenda and influence in the fi
nal years of his t enure.
In a world where everything and
everyone has his price, Jones has
demonstrated a willingness to profit
at the cost of her self-respect, the in
stitution of the presidency and,
above all, at the cost of the American
people, on whose time this entire fi
asco seems determined to unfold.
Apart from these dubious politi
cal alliances and fading truths, Jones’
claim has won legitimacy by virtue of
the Supreme Court. Earlier this
month, the Court ruled the president
was not immune to civil actions un
related to presidential duties. Their
mistake was to rule for precedent
rather than examining the specific
details of this claim to make a more
narrow ruling. Frankly, the Supreme
Court should have decided that only
important matters of presidential
power and duties are worthy of liti
gation during a president’s term.
Everything else should be postponed
until Clinton’s exit from the national
and global political arena.
Basically, private conduct and its
litigious consequences should be
setded on Clinton’s time, not the
public’s, as he has pledged to repre
sent the United States in affairs of
national and global significance.
Unfortunately, the high court’s de
liberations must have included a
perusal through "Hard Copy”
archives, because there is hardly any
credible justification for their deci
sion. In fact, the decision threatens
to undermine Clinton and future
presidents as political opportunists
see litigation as a vindictive, but ef
fective way to reap financial rewards
while limiting the influence and
scope of presidential power.
Clinton’s lack of candor and
courage has allowed the scintillating
rumor to churn and build without
any clarifications. Only truth can
tackle lies and thus far Clinton has
proven incapable of shedding light
on this incident because he is more
concerned with pride and favorabil-
ity ratings, rather than the prospect
of a publicized legal proceeding.
Ultimately, Clinton must decide
whether his ego is worth damaging
American prestige and the presi
dency, as the most powerful man
on the globe may face questions
about harsh rumors, bereft of truth.
He, not his lawyers, must set the
record straight and now.
4ail Call
and ownership
'moralizes America
tyonse to Chris Brooks’article on
Mean property ownership woes:
Itis my opinion that the gov-
lient is finally coming
Ind to the realization of pri-
!f property (which is an oxy
gon in a free country) abuses.
; 'think Brooks misses the
'tit of why private property
fewere mentioned in the
Wtitution. It was a safeguard
kep the government in the
jf % of the rich. To be able to
Jin our country, you could
J hold property and by
“•ng those amendments, it
,llr ed the rich, white, male
property owners the privilege to
set laws in our country ... not to
protect individual freedom.
A truly free country is one
without fences and without
property owners holding shot
guns, ready to shoot a trespasser
(or legally fine the person). By
selling and fencing off land to
anyone with money, we are slow
ly losing every inch of America.
The government must now pro
tect natural wonders from devel
opers trying to make a buck by
sub-divisioning it. It is only now
correcting past wrongs.
Johnny Line
Graduate Student
HE COMES WITH
k RIFLE, HELMET AMD
PENMN& SEXUAL
Misconduct ,
ftLRsiKcMisrmmtfei
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in
clude 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 Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also
be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu