Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 16, 1997)
Wednesday 'July 16, 1997 O The Battalion PINION EWlthout honorable mention i-3 Women’s plight for great achievements ignored by Capitol Rotunda, Texas A&M t Texas A&M, women trying to find a figure to identify with would be hard-pressed to do so. Walking [round this campus, visitors quickly dis- overthat none of the University’s many ndmarks are dedicated to women. Sure ere’s Sully, Rudder and even some guy ho ran on the football field to save the [biggame,” but as far as females go, ere aren’t any to mention. Absent are the early female graduates ifthe University dating back to the early ars of this century (yes, there were women earn- ggraduation credit before the school was offi- ally co-educational). Absent are the first females the Corps of Cadets. In fact, a person touring fj ampus would have difficulty finding any proof hat women have had any influence or even been iresent on this campus. The University clearly made its opinion on the alue of women recently. The end of the 1997 term ifthe A&M Board of Regents saw the end of Mary th (an West’s reign as chair of the Board. West was itinra he first female chair and has been a key fund-rais- wallt ngfigure over the years. Under her leadership, the i&M System expanded to eight schools and her eadership of the San Antonio Livestock Show Jielped generate funds for 261 scholarships to be P® ssued to A&M students. Historically, Regents have been bestowed with feat honors such as buildings being renamed af- terthem or other grand recognition. West’s retire- Jiaent looked like the perfect opportunity for the University to make a statement. Certainly a female eaderwith credentials such as hers has been ground breaking enough to deserve some large- e woffle, formal honor. Apparently, the answer to that question is no, she does not. A staff member of the Board of Re gents’ office said that West’s honors already had been decided. He said that West had been hon- otedwith the title Chairman Emerita via a formal resolution of the Board. The Emeritus/Emerita honor entitles recipients to keep their phone and 0, th mail privileges at A&M, and “in some cases, even egoha an office.” While the Emerita recognition is well-deserved ontt and is regarded as an honor, it is merely ceremoni- alhoopla. West’s merits deserve more than an un limited supply of stamps, a nice desk and phone privileges. The “honor” of these rewards is ques Columnist Mandy Cater Senior psychology major jes (AP; lots 6 or Con In on I rece.: as« k df tionable; even prisoners get phone privi leges. In regard to this question, the Re gents’ staffer replied that “a nice dinner” had been held for West. Well, everybody does love a good meal. The University has spoken, but this is sue also takes on a national focus. Congress has long been an elite boys’ club, whose doors barely budged for fe males. Standing in the Capitol Rotunda is a 13-ton marble statue which symbolizes women’s struggle for acceptance, visibility and respect; a battle that still is being waged on our campus, as well. The time has come for the suppression of women’s achievements to end. In 1921, the National Women’s Party presented Congress a marble statue commemorating the fight for women’s suffrage. The sculpture, known as The Woman Suffrage Statue, depicts suffragists Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton breaking out of a huge block of white marble. The group donated the work under the premise that it would be displayed for the Ameri can public in the Capitol Rotunda. The Rotunda houses 11 statues of America’s most significant leaders. Those Americans commemorat ed include Roger Williams, Martin Luther King Jr. and nine other men. The Rotunda hosts approxi mately four million visitors annually. The Women’s Party proudly gave Congress what they believed would be a greatly appreciated gift, one that would fairly depict the tribulations of the early women’s movement. One day after the Ro tunda dedication, however, Congress officially moved the statue to an area of the Capitol often re ferred to as the “Crypt.” The statue sat in this area for over 75 years, invisible to the public until 1961 when the “Crypt” was made public. For the past 30 years, women’s groups have been campaigning to return the statue to its origi nal esteemed position. Finally, in 1995 their fight earned bipartisan support, passing easily in the Senate. In the House, however, Republican opposi tion almost stonewalled the statue’s move. Newt Gingrich even rejected a petition to approve fund ing for the transport, demanding that the pro posed $75,000 be raised by groups wanting the statue’s place restored. The Woman Suffrage Statue Campaign (WSSC) was formed, and it soon raised the necessary dol lars for the move. The statue was returned to the Rotunda and rededicated a couple of weeks ago. The victory, although important, is only a par tial step forward for American women. Congress is currently attempting to find another location to permanently house the statue, suggesting that it is not worthy of a permanent seat in the boys’ club. Sadly, this phenomenon is not limited to the Capitol Rotunda. A recent survey of the National Parks Service said only five percent of the na tion’s 2,200 National Historic Landmarks are dedicated to women. The most visible “female” landmarks are the Statue of Freedom atop the Capitol and the Statue of Liberty. Karen Staser, co-chair of the WSSC, said these figures are “icons, not real women that girls and women can look up to.” No matter how far women have come, the glass ceiling is firmly in place. Visibility is a sign of re spect, power and equality, and the lack of repre sentation of women both at A&M and the Capitol Rotunda sends the clear message that these insti tutions continue to be boys’ clubs. The three suffragists’ torsos emerging from the white stone in the Woman Suffrage Statue are sym bolic of the fight American women still wage for equality and respect. They are still breaking through, and they are far from being completely free from the bonds of discrimination. In other words, don’t expect to be seeing a Twelfth Woman statue any time soon. / ens Prepaid tuition law discriminates against lower class Ihe American Associa tion of State Colleges and Universities re- l conducted a study igbafutiich unearthed a disturb- ingtrend in higher public ed ition. The study indicates aywliclass bias in state programs lly, ti designed to boost college en- geme 1 pllment in 13 states which be a prepaid tuition plan. Ion ft The plan allows for par- r lei ents or relatives to pay for future col- ;e tuition at current costs. The problem with the prepaid tu- ® ition plan is that it effectively limits ac cess to higher education for poor fami- Wi» lies. Only those capable of paying seaS tuition years in advance are eligible. Furthermore, the study concludes how these programs make college ore viable for those who can afford college without the program. It does ’ nothing to address the escalating cost ofhigher education which keeps poor students out of college. Specifically, the Texas Legislature implemented its own prepaid tuition rogram, the Texas Tomorrow Fund, siwith the intent to boost access to higher education. Columnist General Franklin Junior history major |Ce: /e( Unfortunately, the program is flawed. Eligibility is based upon the financial ability to pay ahead of time rather than a student’s potential or ability. The Office of State Comp troller', which administers the program, defends its focus on the upper classes by suggest ing the necessary resources currently exist for poor stu dents, thereby not requiring any state action to heighten their access to college. Any informal poll reveals the emptiness of this argument. The in flated costs ofhigher education pro vide an obstacle to many poor attain ing an education. The tuition program perpetuates the exclusion of many deserving poor stu dents from college. It focuses on those with the means to pay for college, rather than assisting those who would benefit most from higher education. Also, the view of the comptroller’s office represents a terrible overstate ment. Most public grants allocated for college are scarce and insufficient be cause they do not grow with the ex penses of education. The decline of public resources is evident of the state’s unwillingness to increase fund ing for higher education. Education always has been heralded as a tremendous equalizing and stabi lizing force in America. It increases ca reer opportunities by providing the vi tal skills necessary in a highly technical and specialized society. Given the heavy emphasis, if not ne cessity for college education, it seems imperative for the state to formulate programs designed to benefit all stu dents, not just those with the financial clout to pre-purchase tuition. Also, from a financial standpoint, the program seems questionable since the prepaid tuition cost re flects today’s rate rather than the ac tual cost which must be dealt with in the future. Quite simply, the state and taxpayers will have to subsidize the difference between the cost of future tuition and the amount paid in advance. Because this will draw income from all taxpayers, it seems unfair for the poor to subsidize the education of those with greater wealth while simul taneously being excluded from any benefits of the program. As we approach the upcoming mil lennium, higher education has the po tential to bridge or widen the chasm between the rich and poor. The class bias evident in these tuition programs only serve to reserve access to higher education for the wealthy. This con cept establishes education as a privi lege of the elite, other than a sheer ne cessity, important for survival in a specialized economy. Moreover, the trend in inequity is symptomatic of the growing disparity between the resources of the “haves” versus the dwindling resources of the “have-nots.” The state should establish equilibrium through innovative pro grams designed to give all people the opportunity to mold their promise into something meaningful and beneficial to society and themselves. By favoring the well-off over the poor, the program establishes a dan gerous connection between class and intelligence, implying certain indi viduals by virtue of class are more valuable and worthy of education than others. The key to opening up college to the masses lies neither in class preference nor prepaid tuition. It lies in accessing the cost ofhigher education to deter mine whether the benefits are worth the costs. It also requires us to evaluate public spending at universities to en sure that taxpayer money is being spent wisely and efficiently. Although these measures can mate rialize a certain degree of savings, the cost of education will remain relatively high. Keeping up with the rapid progress of knowledge is expensive. Subsequently, taxpayers and politi cians alike must realize not only the importance of education, but the ex tensive commitment of resources re quired to provide it to all. This greater access, particularly for members of lower classes bear the enormous potential to improve com munities as well as lessen problems of low educational standards such as vio lence, crime, and poverty. Initially expensive, the long-term benefits of education far outweigh its costs in monetary terms. Society must decide whether an educated society is more viable than an incarcerated one. A deprivation of opportunity only serves to aggravate and perpetuate the worst elements of our culture. /A SCO' I I HEAR THOSE "TAMAGOTCHIS* ARE HOT WITH THE KIDS. IM LOOKING AT 6E.TTIM6 A PIECE OF THAT ACTION.... Maii^ Call PITS ticket revenue bewilders student In response to the news article and column written about PTTS: I propose that we utilize the ticket payment scheme (for merly?) in use at the University of Houston. Under their sys tem, if you received a parking ticket, the fine was cut in half, provided that you paid it within 10 days. The University’s officials ap parently realized that students were waiting and not paying at all, so they offered them an in centive to pay promptly. Amaz ingly enough, parking condi tions at the University were even worse than they are here, since it is more of a “commuter school.” Now let’s figure this “ticket bond” thing out. If 100 people appeal a week (as stated in The Battalion news article) at approximately $25 per violation, then Texas A&M must hold $2,500 a week pending the resolution of the appeal. In or der to make accurate calcula tions, we would need to know what percentage of appeals are successful, and the average length of the appeals process. Of course, A&M would only end up making out like a bandit (i.e., getting free interest) for those cases in which the ticket is dismissed. Consider the fact that A&M makes out like a ban dit on 100 percent of all Aggie Bucks purchased — that is, none of the interest generated goes to the purchaser (the stu dents). Unlike the “parking bond” float, this is a significant figure. Consider the total PTTS ticket revenue. If 10 percent of all tickets are appealed (as stated), and there are approximately 100 appeals a week (also stated), then, as suming the minimum $25 fine applies in all cases (a conserva tive estimate), approximately $1.3 million is generated per year from ticket revenue alone. And where does all this money go? Good question. Have you seen much, if any, new surface parking recently? Then again, PTTS did buy all those new ticketing computers. The students’ best option for eliminating parking woes is to hound administration officials and get them to pave the polo fields (after an appropriate cost and benefit study). Bradley Peikert Graduate Student 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 mi