Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 17, 1998)
The Battalion lesday • February 17, 1998 AMPUS CONNECTION Ring dance 'raduate students not afforded same tradition privileges as undergraduates ei 1 k Adam Collett columnist J The Association of Former Students (AFS) Ring Office . determines the policies for leringand distribution of rings, trendy, undergraduates order ir rings upon completion of 95 nester hours. Graduate stu nts may apply for their rings af- their degrees have posted. The practical interpretation of se policies is undergraduates order their rings in sufficient ne to have them in hand (or on nd), for graduation, job inter- 1 wsand other end-of-college traditions. Graduate students, on the other hand, are general- precluded from enjoying that privilege because ey will not receive the rings until well after they ive left campus. Porter Garner, the associate executive director of AFS states that the goal of those policies is to aintain the integrity of the ring.” IQ Each Aggie has the right to walk across the grad- ie tion stage wearing his or her Aggie ring. The em it policy can be changed to permit that while still aintaining the integrity the AFS, and indeed all [gfes, value. Doctoral students should be permitted to order eir rings upon reaching degree candidacy, and aster’s and professional students should be permit- dto order their rings after applying for graduation. Tying doctoral-student ring eligibility to attain- ent of degree candidacy is perhaps the most obvi- Isly needed change due to the similarity in the ligths of time undergraduates and doctoral stu nts spend at an institution. In fact, this change has iterated the only formal proposals made, in the rm of resolutions from Graduate Student Council id Student Government. Undergraduates traditionally spend four to five ars on campus. Compare that figure to doctoral udents. Some can theoretically finish in two to ree years, but due to the length, rigors and setbacks the dissertation research process, more commonly ERSPECTIVES te I stay four or more years. Attaining candidacy (by completing course work and having one’s research plan accepted) typically oc curs sometime in the third year. Thus, granting ring-ordering privileges to students who have made that cut is roughly compa rable to the standard for undergradu ates. Allowing master’s and profes sional students to order their rings just after applying for graduation is the toughest sell of the three. Although the current policy indicates these students are enti tled to a ring eventually, even adjusting the tim- jg ing slightly requires sev eral misconceptions be cleared up. First, awarding an Aggie ring after only a year or two at the University is always inappropriate. This would be poor poli cy for a non-transfer undergraduate, who would still have two to three years re maining at the Univer sity. However, if graduate students were awarded their Aggie ings in their last semesters, that would sometimes entail the ring being ordered after a year-and-a- half at the University or (more rarely) after just under a calendar year. Those timelines are based on the fact although a typical master’s program consists of at least three years of work, a few only last one-and-a-half or two years. Another misconception is the different lengths and difficulties of graduate programs will make any new system of ring-granting inherently unequal. Admittedly, there is great variance in program length for master’s and professional programs (at least compared with undergraduate programs). But given that graduation applications are submitted the se mester in which one graduates, the application requirement affects all programs equally. For example, under the current pol icy, Master’s Student A completes her degree in seven semesters, Master’s Student B completes her degree in five semesters; and each orders her ring two months after each graduates. With the pro posed change, each would be eli gible to order the ring an equal six months earlier: Stu dent A at the begin ning of her seventh semester, and Student B at the beginning of her fifth. Although this proposed change does not enhance the fairness of the policy, it at least does not detract from it. The final misconception is the integrity of the ring will be diminished by allowing graduate students to have their rings just before graduation. Again keeping in mind it is already accepted practice these students are entitled to rings after they graduate, then in order for the in tegrity of the ring to be affected, it would have to be likely these people would not actually graduate. It is ridiculous to suppose there is a large popula tion of evil-minded graduate students who will invest time and money in several years of graduate studies, get their Aggie rings, and then suddenly leave A&M before completing degree requirements. All this be- GENDERSCOPE cause they are consoled by the thought, “Hey, at least I beat the system and got my ring.” A longitudinal study by the Office of Graduate Studies showed a retention (graduation) rate for grad uate students of over 80 percent. That keeps pace with the latest reported rates for undergraduates. The truth is, on a level consistent with undergrad uates, graduate students finish what they start, meaning that pre-graduation ring granting is equally risky for both groups. Even Garner admits there would be no actual loss in the integrity. And if there is no actual loss of integrity of the ring, then there can only be a symbolic loss. Garner fears this perceived loss will cause undergraduates to col lectively respond with sentiments such as “If I have to wait nearly three years to get my Aggie ring, then everyone should have to.” Such a view sells undergraduates short. 1 know and trust most students will sympathetically under stand that allowing all Aggies to graduate with rings is worth overcoming those initial selfish reactions. The University’s Vision 2020 plan includes enhanc ing the institution’s reputation for graduate study. Opening up the ring experience to hard-working grad uate students will be a proud but long overdue step in the right direction. By making this leap of faith and changing the policy now, even on a trial basis, the Asso ciation may ultimately benefit from more involved and supportive former graduate students. The AFS is currently holding committee meetings to consider changes to the Ring policy. The time for transfer, graduate student and supportive undergrad uate Aggies to act is right now. They can seize this window of opportunity by communicating their views en masse to Student Government, the Graduate Stu dent Council and the Association of Former Students. Graduate Aggies may not fit the traditional picture of a recent high-school graduate, first-time-at-college Aggie, but they work hard and are a valued part of the community. It’s about time we started treating them as such. Adam Collett is an educational administration | graduate student. \ DS research raises questions ibout origins, myths of illness Stewart Patton columnist N ews-pa pers around te globe last /eek reported tat the first Down HIV- irus has been iscovered in a ilood sample iken from a tan in 1959. This discov- ry is another episode in the chain of vents which former Harvard pro- tssor of biochemistry Charles Ttomas calls "the most morally de tractive fraud that has ever been lerpetrated on young men and vomen of the Western world.” To date, there is still no concrete 'vidence that HIV causes AIDS, and ^searchers continue to ignore the tossibility that AIDS may in fact be a toninfectious disease. What exactly is AIDS? University TCalifornia-Berkeley professor of rtolecular biology Peter Duesberg aid HIV is now named as the new :ause of thirty previously known diseases, including Kaposi’s sarco ma, tuberculosis, dementia, pneu monia, weight loss, diarrhea and eukemia. If any of these previously known liseases now occurs in a patient who las antibodies against HIV (but rarely any HIV), then his or her dis ease is diagnosed as AIDS and is blamed on HIV. With all of the AIDS rhetoric of the past decade, this simple truth may shock you: there are no cita tions in any medical journals or hooks for the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg’s statistical evidence and verifiable data have never been refuted; rather a media ready to pounce on “sex equals death” stories has ignored him. Duesberg shows HIV cannot cause AIDS because HIV does not destroy T-cells in laboratory petri dishes even at thousands of times the concentration found in hu mans. Additionally, none of the 150 c himpanzees injected with HIV have ^DS—some approaching two decades of exposure —- while chimps injected with other known human viral diseases contract the disease in 24 to 36 hours. While the medical science es tablishment cannot conclusively prove that AIDS has an infectious cause, Duesberg shows the many possible noninfectious causes of the grab-bag of diseases now known as AIDS. Using standard statistics, he shows that nearly all people who die of AIDS have been users of heroin, cocaine, AZT (developed for cancer chemotherapy but aban doned as too toxic), or amyl and butyl nitrates (popular among ho mosexuals in tlie disco era). Duesberg shows that AIDS does not meet even one of the classical accepted criteria of an in fectious disease. Unlike conventional infectious diseases, AIDS is nonrandomly re stricted to males, which constitute 95 percent of those infected; there is no active microbe common to all AIDS patients; no common group of target cells tire rendered nonfunc tional; and there is no common, predictable pattern of AIDS symp toms in patients of different risk groups. How, then, have scientists come to accept the notion that HIV caus es AIDS? Bryan Ellison, co-author of Inventing the AIDS Virus with Duesberg claims the Center for Disease Control, a $2 billion a year government agency, has a bias to wards epidemics of contagious diseases because of its “great ad miration and respect for the germ theory.” The germ theory of the late 19th century ended the era of infectious diseases, which now account for less than one percent of all mortality in the Western world. Because of the great success of virus hunters in curing infectious diseases, Big Sci ence has a bias towards microbial causes of disease. Big death tolls and big funding lead to what Steven Epstein in Im pure Science calls a science-in haste. AIDS research is research driven by exigency and in-your- face tactics from AIDS activists, all of which causes the Center for Dis ease Control to fall back on what it knows best. Is AIDS an isolated incident of mistakenly attributing infectious causes to a noninfectious disease? Certainly not. Scurvy, which scien tists now know is a result of a vita- min-C deficiency, was once thought to be spread by rats and unsanitary conditions aboard ships. The disease was completely eradicated, however, once sailors were given daily doses of limes (hence the sailors’ nickname “limey”). Hidden in the annals of forgot ten bad science is an epidemic that anticipated the AIDS epidemic. SMON, a frightening disease that caused nerve damage and paralysis, raged through Japan in the 1950s. After near ly 20 year's of ineffective virus-hunting, scientists finally found that SMON is caused by the drugclioquinol, a medication that was prescribed for stomach cramps. The epidemic’s toll officially ended in 1973 with 11,007 victims, includ ing thousands of fatalities. The Center for Disease Control, which is now a main player in AIDS research, predicted in 1976 that “swine flu” would devastate the country. This announcement led to the immunization of 50 million Ameri cans with a vaccine known to have toxic side effects. No flu epidemic materialized in the rest of the population, but thou sands of people had nerve damage and paralysis, and dozens died from the toxic effects of the vaccine. Over six billion dollars a year is being spent to fight AIDS. People who test positive for HIV are given death sentences, and junior-high girls are taught how to put con doms on bananas. Will AIDS be a repeat of the SMON fiasco? For the sake of the 10,000 AIDS patients that are ex pected to die in the next year, sci entists should learn from the past and abandon the unproven HIV- AIDS hypothesis. It is time to find the lime or the clioquinol instead of fruitlessly chasing HIV. The Rules II offers another dose of tips for man-catching Jennifer Jones columnist Stewart Patton is a junior sociology major. A ll right women; it has been three years since The Rules, the modern woman’s how-to guide to achiev ing wedded bliss, first burst onto the dating scene. What? You haven’t snagged a man yet? And you’ve been fol lowing the golden Rules'? Well, not to fear. Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider, the gals who brought us such invaluable advice as "don’t leave the house without wearing makeup” and “don’t ac cept a Saturday night date after Wednesday,” have now published more sure-fire tips for dragging Mr. Right down the aisle. But how do these new Rules apply to me, you ask. They seem so archaic, so antifeminist. Not true. The Rules II apply to any 90’s collegiate woman pursuing her MRS degree. The sequel to the original Rules examines some of the aspects of dating Fein and Schneider failed to in clude in their original manual. These are serious topics that any single, marriage-minded female should study, memorize and take to heart. The vital, relationship-sav ing information in this book includes: RULES FOR TURNING A FRIEND INTO A BOYFRIEND An important topic for so many women. Fein and Schneider have laid out a step-by-step procedure that will no doubt land you in a Rachel-Ross-esque relationship. 1. Make sure he has always been interested in you as more than a friend. This is very important for Rules girls to remember because the.crucial element in any Rules-based rela tionship is animal attraction. After all, Rules girls un derstand that men are not attracted to women’s per sonalities or minds. Definite signs that he is interested in more than friendship include him making excuses to be near you (“My toilet is broken. Can I use yours?”); asking lots of questions about your love life (“If you and your boyfriend aren’t going to use those tickets tonight can I have them?”); and trying to help you out by doing little things around your house (“Sorry about the grease fire. Do you want me to clean that up?”) And teasing is cru cial. Think fourth grade. Now think college. Realize that men never change. 2. Once you have established that he is interested, mention you are not dating anyone. Hint, hint. With any luck, he’ll pick up on this oh-so- casual hint and ask you out. And once he does, imme diately start following the original Rules (i.e. Never call him back, never pay for dinner, etc. — definite ways to endear yourself to a man.) So what if he thinks you’ve gone Jekyll and Hyde on him? You are a Rules girl. It could be fatal to your new Rules relationship if you continue to be your old self, the woman he always felt comfortable just hanging out with. Instead, be feminine, graceful, mysterious. And flip your hair. A lot. GETTING BACKWITH AN EX Generally speaking, not the best idea. But you’ve gone out with several bozos since your breakup with the ex and realized that his minor personality flaws were nothing compared to the foot odor and back hair you have encountered since. So what’s the first step? 1. Leave a message on his answering machine. No, not 20 saying how much you miss him, how sor ry you are, how many children you’d like to bear him. Just something short, sweet and nondescript. If he does not call back or files a restraining order against you, the relationship is over, end of story. 2. (If he calls back and you set up a date,) try to be the girl he fell in love with. It doesn’t matter that you have grown, matured, changed. This is about getting a ring. ON-LINE DATING You are love struck. Surfing the ‘Net one night, you drop into a chat room and lo and behold you discover your soul mate, screen-name Studmuff33. Realizing that he is The One, you know you must put The Rules into im mediate action or risk losing him. But how? How does one radiate animal magnetism over modem lines? Send a photograph. After all, there is no point in continuing an Internet relationship if the person thinks you look like Uma Thurman if instead you resemble Janet Reno. OFFICE ROMANCE Once again, Fein and Schneider have identified a true concern of modern women: what to do if you fall for a guy you work with. Tips for a successful catch: 1. Don’t hover near his work station. This is important for several reasons. One: You don’t want him to catch you making puppy eyes at him. He should notice you because he finds you attractive, not because every time he looks up he meets your love- glazed eyes. Two: It is hard to get your work done if you are constantly hanging around his area. Neglecting your own work will just get you fired and then where would you be? Three: It just isn’t cool if you, in your haste to have him notice you, trip and dump an entire tray of drinks on yourself. It tends to shatter that graceful and myste rious image you’ve been trying to cultivate. 2. Don’t kiss or hold hands at work. This definitely rules out any steamy rendezvous in the storeroom. 3. Always look cute and fashionable. Once again, Rules girls understand that relationships based solely on physical attraction are the only ones that really last. You should dress in trendy outfits, look sexy and, most importantly, dress to impress. Granted, this can be difficult in a McDonald’s uniform. But not to worry. By wearing makeup and spraying on the per fume you too can become the object of your crush’s de sire. Remember, as Fein and Schneider point out, “Do all of this for yourself, but also because you could run into him... at the office.” As you can see, Fein and Schneider offer a wealth of information to single, independent women in their new book, The Rules II. Their insight into men, women and relationships is truly astounding. No woman who has marriage on her mind should be without a copy of this liberating, intriguing text. Jennifer Jones is a senior psychology major.