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