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.