Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 3, 1998)
The Battalion Wednesday • June 3,1998 PINION td Jackson nether toj king m 1 would long, h to Derma l Dennis was ipt! gainst lm didii'i- "ig abc-l starting I tooedc'l Its. ve have* pennisH hiding! 1 said.* each an* 124 hcJ |to be rJ ned rf| [written i n't ioi ut, seriously ... —w , - |me st vegc ‘ I been haver Ihov Corps members should adhere to all policies, not just the ones they prefer 10? 1 C hisum Womack is required to wear a uniform, whip out to upperclassmen and attend forma tions. While in uniform, he cannot put his ■ids in his pockets or wear his hat indoors. He must Bclean-shaven, cannot wear ■earring and cannot smoke or ■nk in his dormitory even if His of legal age. ■He voluntarily adheres to Hse policies, as others do, as a Hmber of the Corps of Cadets. |However, he is pursuing a ^suit against Texas A&M be- jise he was denied the right to Iplay a Confederate flag stick- pnhis footlocker. This lawsuit ties clear despite a statement JlHhe policies in The Standard, H'l Corps' official manual, ]iv»ich states the Confederate flag "is excluded from out- pyer itfogos and signs of units in the Corps of Cadets." The [he IHicy states, "no inappropriate posters, signs or memo- [booViJia in accordance with Corps and University poli- sigfljs" are to be in a cadet's room, from f! I he argument here lies in the policy. Is the policy Bt?The policy's aim is to "enhance unit pride and es- DoMffh" The Confederate flag tends to create controver- Band divisiveness because of the history behind it. ledfosome, it is a symbol of their Southern heritage. To Iton Biers, it is a symbol that conveys an endorsement of a jersitBst that supported slavery and bigotry. The debate focwflag stirs is what can lead to disunity. Therefore, it hisl|es not enhance unit pride. Meredith Might columnist hf ; lEssentially, Womack disagrees with this policy. or tlifld that is what is driving the lawsuit. He is in the jnalspirps, but whether or not he agrees with a policy is )f no consequence. It also is of no consequence if the Icareiflicy concerns something as controversial as the a sAnfederate flag or something as trivial as the length a | cfHhair he must maintain. ■fidllhe fact is, when he joined the Corps, he relinquished Bneof his rights to his own individuality. The Corps apffis never been known as an organization to join if a stu- (inflnt wants to express himself or his viewpoints. Its em phasis is on the unity of the group, not necessarily the empowerment of the individual. The Corps has a unique status. It is not the mili tary, but it does model itself after the military. The Di vision of Student Affairs presides over the Corps and has jurisdiction, for the most part, over organizations without the kind of discipline and complexity found in the Corps of Cadets. Because of this ambiguous nature — not quite the military, and not quite an ordinary student organiza tion — it provides a cadet the ability to file a suit over any policy matter that is contrary to his or her liking. That is a sobering thought, considering the many poli cies, from rules on room inspection to the mandatory uniform in the Memorial Student Center, which could possibly be challenged in the future. A lawsuit is typically a financial and temporal drain for both sides. While Womack and his attorneys are not seeking monetary rewards, the sheer cost of legal defense against this lawsuit is money that could be well spent in other ways by the University. Womack has a right to sue, but in light of the fact that, as a member of the Corps of Cadets he voluntarily lives by its policies, it seems a bit frivolous that a lawsuit is pending over this matter. A 3 x 5 inch sticker of a Confederate flag on a footlock er has generated this lawsuit. In everyday America, where all are afforded the freedom of expression by the First Amendment, no one would think twice about al lowing this student to display a small Confederate flag on a trunk in his own room. In fact, this symbol is dis played throughout the nation and primarily in the South. But Womack does not play by the same rules as the rest of the people of the United States. While his First Amendment rights are not forfeited by being in the Corps, they are somewhat abridged by the addition of the policies in The Standard. Outside of the Corps, he is not bound by The Standard and, of course, retains his constitutional rights. So along with the uniform he must wear and the formations he must attend, Womack must comply with the Corps' policy on the Confederate flag. To do otherwise is to blatantly deny the authority of the Corps of Cadets and the policies it upholds. Meredith Might is a sophomore journalism major. Aggies for Dixie are not just whistlin’ Dixie, but their mission is far-fetched ./'i John Lemons columnist W hen people talk about cultural diversity at Texas A&M they do not usually think about Confed erate heritage. That is, of course, unless the people do ing the talk ing are members of Aggies for Dixie. The group, which is cur rently orga nizing itself, intends to promote A&M's Con federate heritage. And, as A&M is a place con stantly in search of cultural diver sity, Aggies for Dixie will be able to set up shop on campus this fall. The group's existence, though, is the most ironic application of multiculturalism ever conceived. After all. Southerners are the black sheep of the American family. It was their region that nearly wrecked the nation and consequently endured years of racial strife. Under the guise of multiculturalism, however, all cultures are to be celebrated, even those carrying politically incorrect baggage. Now, some of you more cyni cal readers are probably scoff ing at celebrating Southern cul ture. Who wants to celebrate some of the South's more ob noxious exports like moon shine, tractor pulls and Jeff Fox worthy? There are, however, people who take their southern heritage very seriously, and they are not just raving "Dukes of Hazzard" fans. Consider Thomas Chisum Womack, the cadet who is suing the University because the Corps of Cadets had him re move a Confederate battle flag sticker from the footlocker in his room. Womack's battle with the university is the spark that has ignited the Aggies for Dixie movement to appreciate Con federate heritage. Womack's mother, Syler Womack, said the group is an historically-minded organiza tion that will be completely student-run. "It's [Aggies for Dixie] based on an appreciation of Southern heritage," Womack said, "specifically, on how that her itage relates to Aggieland." The group appears to be seri ous about its mission. It already has a snazzy logo featuring a Gig 'em thumb emblazoned with a Confederate battle flag. Moreover, the group ain't just whistlin' Dixie. They do have a point. Like it or not, A&M does have a Confederate heritage, it just prefers not to advertise that fact. The first person offered the A&M presidency was former Confederate States President Jefferson Davis. A&M's most revered icon, Lawrence Sullivan Ross, was not only a soldier, statesman and knightly gentle man, but also a Confederate general and slave-owner. Furthermore, as most A&M students originate from the South, many Aggies have an an cestor or two who fought for the Confederacy in their lineage. But just because A&M has a Confederate heritage does not mean Aggies are proud of it. If asked about its Southern her itage, Aggies for Dixie would likely emphasize ideals of chivalry, honor, freedom and God-fearing religion. The ma jority of Aggies, however, if asked about the Confederacy, will think of only one thing — slavery. Proponents of Southern her itage say the Confederate battle flag, that ever-controversial icon, is a symbol of their proud heritage. Unfortunately, when most Americans look at that flag, they see something very different. They are reminded of slavery, Jim Crow laws and lynchings, atrocities that scar the United States even today. The problem with having a Confederate heritage is that it comes with some uncomfort able baggage. If Aggies for Dixie can en courage people to focus on the positives of Southern culture and to learn from its errors, then it will have accomplished something admirable. If, on the other hand, it spends its time crying over how the South only lost the "Second American Revolution" because it was out-spent and out gunned, then Aggies for Dixie will only polarize campus. In either case. Aggies for Dix ie has a right to exist, as it repre sents some Aggies' cultural her itage, albeit a cultural heritage that few view as legitimate. A South filled with gentlemen farmers and southern belles is about as realistic as the Land of Oz. But, if some people are intent on embracing that myth, it is their right to do so. Besides, any group whose very existence makes a mockery out of multi culturalism cannot be all bad. We have to take Aggies for Dixie. We do not necessarily have to take it seriously. john Lemons is a graduate si in electrical engine CHELSEA mi BE GETTING SERIOUS \NS1H her hew BOYFRIEND, m STW 3\)sr indicted Hito [ Affirmative action proves contradictory, allows for discrimination 'any people at the University of Texas would eto see the Hop- od ruling over- rned and are [eking to appeal js decision. The ling has re loved affirmative lion from admis- ns and scholar- ip selections at ! xas schools. However, affir- lative action has outlived its useful- fss. Perhaps 20 years ago it was neces- i|- y,but not today. Today, affirmative dion is contradictory as a form of anti- Joe Schumacher columnist discrimination. It allows for discrimina tion, depending on just who you are discriminating against. Let's look at some of the arguments from would-be defenders of affirmative ac tion. The Equal Opportunity Office of UT has posted five "affirmative action myths." Myth No. 1 is that "women and minorities no longer need affirmative action." However, myth No. 5 states, "If affir mative action is dismantled, diversity in the workplace will die, too." According to the Workforce 2000 report, women will account for 55 percent of new entrants to the labor force, minority men would ac count for seven percent and immigrants and persons with disabilities would ac count for 23 percent by the year 2000. White men will only account for 15 percent of new entrants into the labor field. Given these statistics, it looks like it may be somewhat difficult to hire an all male, all-white work force. But according to the EOO, women and minorities still need affirmative action. Myth No. 2 ("Affirmative action re wards gender and race at the expense of merit") is somewhat entertaining. It states the truth "is the most deserving candidates do not always get the job." And why not? Reasons such as "fa voritism, brown-nosing, bad luck, club ties and even discrimination," are given. "Merit is often a small part of who gets hired or promoted." Merit should be a large part of the hir ing process. But should race be more im portant? If it is, isn't that discrimination (affirmative action)? Perhaps this dis crimination is why "the most deserving candidates don't always get the job." Yet another argument in favor of affir mative action is it is some sort of repara tion for the way this country has treated minorities in the past. One problem with this is one is proba bly not going to find someone living who committed crimes 300 years ago, and it will probably be difficult to convince someone they should pay for a crime they committed 100 years ago. Addition ally, while things are hardly perfect in this country, things are a lot better, and continue to improve. The Hopwood decision is only one of several anti-affirmative action court cas es. In Houston, a judge ruled that the Metropolitan Transit Authority cannot award construction contracts on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin. The supreme court let California's Proposition 209 stand in November of 1997. Proposition 209 did away with race and gender preferences in hiring and school admissions. According to an Asso ciated Press release, the lower courts ruled that the anti-affirmative action measure violated no one's constitutional rights. Affirmative action's time is slowly drawing to a close. What began as an ef fort to level the playing field has turned into an unfair advantage, and it is past time that it be done away with. Equality is not injustice. ]oe Schumacher is a junior journalism major.
