1997
y October 3, 1997
O The Battalion
PINION
hen a stranger is watching...
litically correct stalking laws must be reformed to protect privacy of victims
n ex
pro
hose
s de-
dttle-
ssion
irstu-
arilyn Mnces
for
:nt af-
ionat
stin.
)art of
heac-
i it a
istitu-
need
rofes-
ie Col-
Hous-
tsville,
it part
ed the
s
he
D
)/i/
e, or
3 for
:ment
[rights of
e, liberty and
icpursuit of
ess—these
atic princi-
thefounda-
American
IVhen ap-
ider normal
Mandy
Cater
assistant
opinion editor
tedoms are
ake America
rful country
lito live,
it, when
ghts infringe
eof another citizen, the actions
longer be considered lawful,
iding to Survivors of Stalking, Inc.,
jots resource center for stalking
"an estimated 1.5 million men,
and children are stalked in the
States.” The majority of these vic-
women.
axaShaeffer had it all — beauty,
id a starring role on the popular
My Sister Sam.” For two years,
ihad been tormented by an ob-
.The nightmare for Shaeffer
ated when the perpetrator shot
ledher in the doorway of her
me.
yother celebrities have also fallen
stalkers, including Jodie Foster,
dterman and Madonna, who was
otestify against her stalkef in
brhe threatened her at home. The
ipexfor stalking, of course, came
rale Brown’s fearful 9-1-1 calls for
distance.
fiemost part, though, stalking vic-
not celebrities, but rather, ordi-
ople with otherwise ordinary lives,
also come in many forms —
is, jilted lovers and even family
rs, In fact, some battered womens’
les estimate that 80 percent of
poccur in a domestic context.
1992, antistalking legislation
menacted in 27 states. These
eimportant markers, but are of-
vague or have too many loop-
ibe truly effective,
xas, antistalking laws were enact-
94.The initial law took a fairly
ie stance against stalkers, citing an
as"intent to harass, annoy, alarm,
abuse, torment or embarrass.”
The guidelines required that said cir
cumstances occur on more than one oc
casion, with at least one including a
threat of bodily harm to the victim or a
member of his or her family. The law de
creed that this threat could come via spo
ken words or actions.
The Texas law took a more victim-
friendly stance than many similar laws
which require that threats be verbal or
actual physical abuse must be present.
The Texas law even goes so far as to in
clude threats to victims’ families and per
sonal property. In many states, the lack of
adequate legislation leads to a wait-until-
there-are-bruises attitude, in which a
person must wait until there is an actual
attack before they can take action.
The 1994 law was appealed, however,
and the 1997 Texas Senate revised the
stalking legislation. In order to alleviate
the vagueness of the earlier version, the
Senate enacted the reasonable person
standard in prosecution of stalking. In
other words, if the actions “would cause a
reasonable person to fear bodily injury or
death to himself or herself or that person’s
family or household member or an of
fense against that person’s property,” then
the stalking law can be considered. The
new law also requires that the actor must
reasonably believe that the other person
will regard the actions as threatening to
themselves, their family or their property.
The Senate is taking important steps to
protect the interests of stalking victims,
but the laws are still too soft on stalkers.
Under both the 1994 and current laws,
stalking is only a misdemeanor offense,
unless there is a previous stalking convic
tion. This results in many cases being
paroled or sentences that simply tap per
petrators on the wrists and tell them to
stay away from victims.
Where stalking is concerned, society, it
seems, wants to keep it a personal matter.
Perhaps due to the mostly domestic con
text of the crime, most people rely on the
out of sight, out of mind approach where
stalking episodes are concerned. Cases
are viewed as “lover’s quarrels” or “per
sonal matters,” and other people (often
including law enforcement officials)
choose to turn a blind eye — usually until
it is too late to help.
Citizens and law enforcement officials
alike have a responsibility to take action
when obvious cases of stalking arise.
As attitudes change, laws will become
more powerful and victims will feel more
comfortable in coming forward. As the
laws stand now, even a conviction does
nothing for victims, short of probably en
suring that their stalkers are angrier than
they had been previously.
Stalking is a crime and should be seen
for what it truly is — a continued violation
of personal freedom and peace of mind.
Stalking victims are followed, harassed
with phone calls and letters and threat
ened physically.
The Stalking Victim’s Sanctuary, an In
ternet service for victims, calls stalking “a
rape that goes on and on,” and this defini
tion is fairly adequate.
Stalking is bothersome at best, and at
worst, terrifying. Victims lose a sense of
control in their lives and are plagued by
self-blame, fear and a lack of self-esteem.
Their privacy is destroyed, and they are
constantly looking over their shoulders.
In a country that proclaims that citi
zens’ rights include life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, there appears to be a
conflict. Innocent citizens are being vic
timized by criminals who abuse their free
doms. Rather than constantly reforming
laws to be stalker-friendly, the focus
should center on stamping out stalking.
After all, Americans should be able to pur
sue their happiness without constantly
wondering who is lurking in the bushes.
Mandy Cater is a senior
psychology major.
sting focus sells Texas students short in education
Chris
Huffines
columnist
Texas public educa
tion is in a slow spi
ral to Hell. The quali-
fteachers, funding and
)stof other factors in
cation have all im-
red, however, TAAS is
g our state’s chil
li to a future lower than
it people’s opinion of
iBattalion’s columnists.
For those of you who do
tknow what TAAS is
or respective deity has
in very kind to you), let me explain. TAAS
nds for the Texas Assessment of Academic
.As the name implies, this is basically a
lofthe absolute minimum high school se
ts must know to be able to graduate with
prospects better than street performer or
ive digger.
the TAAS would be nothing more than a mi-
annoyance for most students if it weren’t for
ifar-reaching impact. At the district level, the
TAAS is a major component of what are eu
phemistically called “Accountability Ratings.”
These ratings basically determine if a school
district is doing its job. Most schools weigh in at
the acceptable level.
However, at the campus level, at individual
schools, the euphemism starts the echo of
“sleeps with the Fishes.” An individual campus
with a low accountability rating for three years
in a row can be dissolved under the reasoning
that the school has been churning out poorly-
educated students for three years now, and so
“something just ain’t right.” This is the equiva
lent of completely changing out the staff of
Texas A&M simply because a single student
body class brought down everyone’s test scores
several years running (stupid freshmen).
And, of course, there is the ever-so-popular
exit-level TAAS test, administered to high
school sophomores and, as necessary, juniors
and seniors.
This one can keep students from graduating.
It is a waste, but a necessary waste.
The problem comes about because of this
accountability rating bit. The problem is that
people do not want to have their school or dis
trict labeled as substandard. Therefore, the cur
riculum has began to lean heavily toward be
coming simply a TAAS preparation course. This
would be acceptable, except that the TAAS does
not really test students on valuable life skills. It
is a little more basic than that.
Suzanne Phelps, Director of Curriculum for
Bryan Independent School District, stated that
the TAAS is a good test, but if students are just
taught TAAS subject matter, then the schools
are not doing their jobs.
The solution here is two-fold. Texas must do
away with the TAAS. The tests should be burned,
the computer files erased and its creators should
be dealt with accordingly, their yearly test-score
reports mounted on spears on the Texas state
capitol grounds as a warning to all others. The
TAAS is useless. A more accurate test of what the
students have learned is the combined opinions
of the more than 50 teachers who have spent day
after day with them. As Phelps said, teachers can
predict, “with great accuracy,” which students
will pass and which students will fail the TAAS.
The second part of this solution is for a na
tional curriculum to be installed. Traditionally,
those nations with national curriculums have
smarter students on average. A nationally man
dated curriculum that teachers could focus on
would eliminate the slow suffocation that the
TAAS is creating now.
In addition, grades within the classes them
selves could be used to compare students. Yet
another irritating test could be eliminated from
students’ lives.
The TAAS is a good idea that has begun to
backfire dramatically. It is the responsibility of
citizens to change the system before it is too
late and before the spark of life dies from edu
cation as we know it.
Otherwise, the next generation, our chil
dren’s generation, will grow up having their
lives dominated by a curriculum designed to
pass one, single test.
Chris Huffines is a sophomore speech
communications major.
9<
lATTALI
f
on-
rs
r
5
Dre-
ifer-
ited
of
ad-
DUt
elp
Llb-
,isi-
iu-
aat
on
ow
)o-
:rs,
T>-
in-
tn.
!n-
Sht
8.
M A I I. C ALL
Task force acts as
overbearing parent
In response to John Lemons’ Sept.
29 column, “Acknowledging the
Problem:”
Well Lemons, I believe your re
port has broken the proverbial
camel’s back. We are all adults
here, and the last thing we need is
Dr. J. Malon Southerland looking
over our shoulders and insuring
we keep our hands in our pockets
and our livers clean.
Task Force be damned — if I
want to get a little loopy on a slow
Tuesday afternoon, I have the
right. This is the same right stu
dents have to make complete fools
of themselves at social functions
(i.e. Midnight Yell).
Repercussions (i.e. the lovely
Brazos Valley Drunk Tank and so
cial leprosy) are things the in
volved parties must consider as
real after effects, but the arrogant
notion that the corporation we call
A&M has not only the ability, but
the obligation to dictate our social
behavior is absurd.
I agree that idiots are a problem
(and a vast minority), but do not
screw up my good tome to prove
your point. We can all get along if
you’ll leave me alone, and I will re
turn the favor.
If you truly don’t understand
the infringements involved, I’d
love to explain them to you some
time at Duddley’s.
Heck, I’ll buy.
Clint Van Horn
Class of'97
Todd Prewitt
Class of’95
Football opinion
proves too liberal
In response to Michelle Voss’Sept.
26 column, “Parsing the pigskin:”
I want to respond to the root of
Voss’ argument — that being, her
liberal stance. I assign the “liberal”
tag to Voss only because of things I
observe, not because I know her
personally. If I am wrong in my as
sumption, I stand sufficiently cor
rected. But as she is a liberal arts
major, her past column material
and the remarks contained in this
cun ent column, I feel justified in
my assigning the “liberal” tag to her.
As an intelligent football fan, I
can take the “turn the other cheek”
approach in relation to her com
ments. In a country founded on
choice, we each have to under
stand that we are not going to
agree all the time.
Didn’t this summer see the in
auguration of the Women’s Nation
al Basketball Association? And
anyone who says that basketball is
not a contact sport has never
watched a game.
As a conservative, I will not
deny that I am opinionated on
many subjects, many of which
would be considered hard-line
opinions. But the main difference
between liberals and conservatives
is that conservatives are open
about the fact that we are closed-
minded about some things. It is
the hypocritical nature of liberal
ism that has caused me to re
spond, not Voss’ opinion. For as
they say, everyone is entitled to his
or her own opinion.
Keith Gatewood
Class of’99
00 N