iyNovember 3, 1997
O The Battalion
PINION
589
nor
the'
lencing Webster
ing racial slur from dictionary keeps people from learning about the past
din
thuij
nar
I'tid-'-iias
Istoisome
5011 about
I lllt-ji
dOPji
om-jj
f)03. ; dic-
^ or ]ues-
atest
Mam
jigger
ttio-
‘imore
the
its
Ir
|Vbl
leni
olle-
mry
initio n
Robby
Ray
columnist
lienr lu SB er
iiarr ictbegan last March
^man by the name of Del-
| atoJ :liaiTiofYpsilanti, Michi-
fdher dictionary looking
reS i.and discovered she dis-
jfoiithe definition given for
|! the Kger."
l^Midecided she* elid not want
i re- 'ving up in a worlei where'
tookiexisteei, so she started a
heiiconvince the publisher to
(heiieivord from the dictionary.
which has netted over 2,000
I iirslind caused the publisher to
br. ihas caused a nationwide
ent-ein favor of censorship to
sur-rightof people who are not
'P ei anyword in the English lan-
l h e dashed with those who fool-
1 tur Tklessly believe a word wide-
P^ n ':eprevious century in both
'■by’jdeveryday discourse should
edictionary.
titis foolish and irresponsi-
"suggest the word be re
actionary of the English lan
guage has a responsibility to provide de
finitions for all words a speaker of the
language is likely to encounter. This in
cludes words which are offensive, ob
scene or even downright useless.
As long as people are likely to come in
contact with a word and possibly need to
know what it means or how to spell it, it
should remain in the dictionary.
This situation shows the lengths peo
ple will go to in order to protect them
selves against anything that might be
offensive or uncomfortable. The reality
of the world is that it is still an offensive
place, and its inhabitants still have to
deal with things which might be offen
sive or might make us uncomfortable.
The word “nigger” is one of these
unpleasant things. It was once a com
mon noun with none of the stigma
that now weighs it down like so much
sticky mud. It has been used as an in
sult and a symbol of degradation for so
many years that it can never recover its
former innocence. But it is still a part
of our language.
It is widely used in many great works
of American literature, some of which
were written before the modern conno
tation existed, and some which used it
precisely because of its offensive nature.
This usage is either to make a point
about the evils of racism or to accurately
portray the deplorable conditions that
actually existed in this country.
The crime toeing perpetrated here is
not by the publisher of the dictionary.
In a carefully worded statement, the
publisher stated “... the use of this
word is abhorrent to us, but it is never
theless part of the language.”
\~J/A
Vi
There also was a paragraph added to
the most recent edition (published be
fore the petition drive), stating that “nig
ger” ranks as perhaps the most offensive
and inflammatory racial slur in all of the
English language.
The publisher is living up to the re
sponsibility to provide an accurate dic
tionary. The real crime here is some
people would wish to censor a scholar
ly work in order to keep themselves
^VVv,,
from feeling uncomfortable.
If Americans want to be truly seri
ous about eliminating racism and its
accompanying slurs and epithets,
there must be a concerted effort
among all people to stop using such
offensive and divisive words as “nig
ger,” including those who use it among
friends as something akin to a term of
endearment. It is hard to convince oth
ers of a word’s offensiveness if it is
known to be widely used among those
whom it is supposed to offend.
The bottom line is this: racial slurs
are offensive and should be avoided,
but if we remove them from our dictio
naries, it will be impossible for future
generations to learn from the mistakes
of the past.
Robby Ray is a senior speech
communications major.
(o tolerance ignores personal responsibility to tame drinking
not do this. Do not
sthat. Does it ever
sm to end?
Mitlyitdoes not
stnot until an in-
lias reached the
At 21, it seems an
alis given an in-
ghtof passage and
ioexercise more
werthe intimate
fhis or her life.
%,the state of
ssed a “zero toler-
concerning minors and alcohol. It is
Me Bill 35.
Ugh the new legislation is admirable, it
ie mark.
atecontends, because it is illegal for
- purchase, consume, possess or have
rinteraction with alcohol, then the
ficial position should be to not tolerate
action with alcohol,
ausly, minors caught with alcohol or
h
Len
Callaway
columnist
those driving under the influence of alcohol
were given citations fjpr simple possession or
DYVTs for actually driving while intoxicated.
The new legislation makes it illegal for mi
nors to operate a motor vehicle with any de
tectable amount of alcohol in their systems.
This is regarded as a class C misdemeanor, pun
ishable by a fine and temporary suspension of a
person’s drivers license. Repeat offenders face
jail time, community service work hours and al
cohol awareness classes.
The worst part of SB 35 is, if caught with any
measurable amount of alcohol in one’s system,
this is now an arrestable offense, and minors
may be “detained” at an officer’s discretion for a
blood or breath analysis.
Officers also have been given the ability to
issue a citation to minors in violation if they
do not appear to be suffering “actual or ap
parent impairment of their driving fagulties
and reactions.”
The state does not seem to make a lot of
sense at times, but at least it is finally consis
tent with something. If an act is illegal, then let
it be illegal and enforce the law befitting. This,
however, does not mean the law is good, justi
fied or otherwise appropriate. The only factor
making alcohol worse than tobacco is the fact
that it intoxicates. What would the state do if a
17-year-old had a wreck and confessed to being
temporarily unable to drive due to a wicked
Marlboro buzz.
Our lawmakers have decided at age 18, young
people should be responsible enough to vote,
smoke cigarettes, dip snuff and buy pornography.
Young people are not responsible enough, howev
er, to have a couple of drinks, make their way
home and continue with their evenings.
The State believes young people, as a whole,
are not responsible enough to handle the re
sponsibility of drinking. They may be right, but
why is that?
Young people must realize if they ever want the
laws to change, they must begin to behave in a re
spectable manner. How many times can one see a
student being dragged out of a bar or party so
drunk that they are rendered a virtual waste of a
human for the night?
Everyone knows where there is a will there is
a way, and if one’s ultimate goal is to drink in a
bar,' this feat can certainly be accomplished
without too much trouble.
If minors wish to improve their position with
the government, they could do one of two
things. They could obey the law and be good lit
tle boys and girls, or become a little more re
sponsible with their actions.
If a person has a serious designated driver, it
is safe to assume, barring complete indiscretion
in excess drinking, one could live his or her life
the way he or she chooses in relative comfort.
It is the stupidity and naivete of certain actions
which make the situation appear worse than it
really is. Lawmakers never hear about kids who
do what they wish and go home. They do, howev
er, hear about kids who kill families and friends
due to sheer irresponsibility. Until minors exhibit
the dependability to properly handle themselves,
it is unreasonable to expect any other treatment
from the state than zero tolerance.
Len Callaway is a junior journalism major
it Call
nC column tricks
Jof research
-loJohn Burton’s Oct.
jeatdevil worship,
S- pi’column:
^ to begin by saying
■^Ve John Burton did
16)
PS v
li.SIOUttM
PinM-W
SEFftOV)?
^ gldbN-
his necessary research before
writing his column on the “evils
of Halloween.”
He mentioned something
about the public’s “... naivete
about the real meaning of Hal
loween ...” and I suddenly re
membered, while pursuing his
column, when and why Hal
loween got its start.
It began many years ago,
and its concept was an attempt
to scare or ward off evil spirits
(or “dark forces” as Burton
called them) from invading
homes, destroying crops and
occupying towns. Who’s naive
now, Burton?
Another holiday that Burton
labeled as “satanic” was Dia de
los Muertos. This Mexican tra
dition is familiar to me because
of my Mexican heritage. It is
not a holiday to celebrate evil,
but a celebration to remember
deceased relatives or loved
ones, and to take time out of
busy schedules to reminisce of
past fun.
Often, many participants
bring food or gifts for the dead
and often times, they also dress
as skeletons and such which Bur
ton referred to as “grotesque.”
Honestly, when was the last
time you saw an educational
documentary on Egyptian
mummies or discoveries of past
civilization skeletal remains
and said to yourself, “My, my,
my ... what an absolutely beau
tiful decaying corpse.”
mr
The costumes symbolize the
dead people are celebrating and
are not meant to be grotesque ...
well, not too grotesque.
Burton also brought up views
expressed by Pat Robertson,
such as “ ... children who accept
candy on Halloween will grow
up to be sexually promiscuous
drug dealers ...” I believe this
was way out of line.
I would have to conclude
that Robertson’s statement re
ceived about as much research
(or less) as did Burton’s column.
After all, I would estimate
roughly one-quarter of the
students on the Texas A&M
campus, including myself,
have trick or treated at one
time or another.
Although I have no concrete
evidence of these figures I re
ally do not think there are
10,000 crack-singing whores,
male or female, running
around College Station or on
the A&M campus. I think the
number of aforementioned in
dividuals is much lower than
that ... possibly 5,000.
Of course, I was merely try
ing to interject some humor
into this entire situation with
that last statement, but I also
was proving a point.
Burton’s column was full of
statements that had no statisti
cal backing, such as the one I
just made.
I know everyone is entitled to
his or her own opinion, and I am
overjoyed we live in a country
where this is possible.
All I am asking is if we are go
ing to make a statement some
people might deem as inane, be
prepared to back up the state
ment with some fact.
Kevin M. Woods
Class of’99
A&M football players
deserve better coach
In response to Len Callaway’s
Oct. 31 sports column:
I do agree with you when you
say we need to be positive
about the players. They put
their hearts and souls into Texas
A&M football.
I also want to apologize to
them for being promised a
shot at the national champi
onship and that not being ful
filled. The players have worked
long and hard all year for
gameday. What I do not agree
with is the way you make ex
cuses for R.C. Slocum.
When will Slocum win a big
game? If you call beating up on
Southwest Conference schools
a record, then you can have it. I
am tired of beating up on small
teams and getting “out-
coached” by mediocre teams.
I realize that last-minute
canceling had a say in our
schedule this year, but the
scheduling does not get any
better until the year 2000.
On another note, how many
offensive coordinators will
Slocum have to fire in order to
have an offense? We change co
ordinators every year, but the
offense still looks the same.
The point I am trying to
make is there already are a
number of excuses and there
does not need to be anymore.
A&M will never finish in the
top-five because our coach is
not a top-five coach.
I wish Slocum would return
part of his salary, because we all
have been short changed. We
have athletes who beat most
programs, but we are lacking
the major ingredient.
For the University’s sake, I
hope Slocum proves me wrong.
This way everyone can call me
an idiot, but I do not see this
happening too soon.
Mackovic may be a bad
coach, but at least he knew how
to win The Big 12.
It seems that the A&M Board
of Regents could care less about
sports and will not pressure
Bowen or Groff to do anything.
If you ask me, Slocum should
and Groff should be on the next
bus out of College Station.
Callaway, the next time you
write a column, please in
clude: Slocum’s record against
ranked teams, his bowl record
(before probation) and the
combined record of the teams
he has beaten.
If any of this changes, only
then will I listen to the excuses.
By the way, how many time
outs do we get to keep for the
next game?
Ross Brewer
Class of’97
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: T111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu
For more details on letter policy, please call
845-3313 and direct your question to the
opinion editor.