Page 13 • Tuesday, January 26, 1999
e Other Education
trades can suffer due to extra-curricular pursuits
^■iday marks the first meeting
Hit the semester for many stu-
Hlcnt organizations. Aggies
:sa campus will flood the MSC
1 K< Idus buildings and resume
ir “other education.”
Coinciden-
lNIK
ROBERT HYNECEK/T’m: Battalion
tally, today also
marks the first
day many Ag
gies begin their
neglect of acad
emics for the
pride and glory
of extra-curric
ular activities.
A terrible
demic has engulfed campus. For
ny, the “other education” has
ome their only priority.
Fhe Texas A&M Undergraduate
alog states, “The Department
)tldent Activities knows that the first priority of
dents is to study so that they may be academi-
ty successful.”
With a wink and a nod, this warning is thrown
the door the first day of Fish Camp. Counselors
o are not able to sell their individual organiza-
is begin to harp on the paramount value of the
her education.”
Fhe Fish Camp hard sell is quickly followed by
■SC’s Open House extravaganza. Every orga-
ation seeks new members to get involved and
Hues. As students walk by the woodcarvings
trning the walls of the MSC, the student activi-
carving is placed on an equal pedestal with
Corps and academic carvings. Students are
he message by the carving: “A good Aggie is
an involved Aggie.”
Many students take advantage of co-curricular
and pre-professional organizations corresponding to
their majors. However, a great number are drawn
into the abysmal network of MSC committees and
the student government bureaucracy.
What do the “other education” minions gain?
Some argue invaluable communication skills, a vi
brant social network, opportunities to help the com
munity and a sense of achievement. For many this is
true. The “other education” completes their uniyer-
sity experience and readies them for a successful
professional life. i
However, due to excessive “other education,”
many Aggies suffer.
All Aggies know of a friend, roommate or class
mate who is succeeding in the “other education”
and struggling in their acad
emic education. This sum
mer, scores of recent Aggie
graduates were forced to
walk across the graduation
stage and straight into tem
porary jobs.
This phenomenon is ap
parent in statistics available
from Texas A&M’s Office of
Professional School Advising.
For Aggies reporting admis
sions into the top five law schools in Texas for 1998,
less than 20% had GPR’s below 3.00. The news for
medical school admissions is more alarming. Less
than five-percent of Aggies who reported acceptance
into medical school in 1997 had science GPR’s be
low a 3.00.
These statistics cast serious doubt on those who
say activities can make up for a low GPR. A poor
GPR slams the door shut to many Aggies seeking ad
mission into professional school.
Unfortunately, many poor GPR’s are a direct re
sult of over-involvement in the other education. A
mentality has developed on this campus in which a
2.5 GPR, due to excessive involvement, is not only
acceptable but laudable.
Is anyone acting to solve this epidemic?
One solution would be to increase the minimum
GPR for involvement in activities from a 2.0 to
something reflecting a higher level of academic ex
cellence. However, the current trend over-pro-
motes participation in extra-curricular activities at
the expense of academics; obviously, A&M is mov
ing in the wrong direction.The “other education”
elite in the so-called Student Senate are pushing for
an extra Q-drop. Armed with an extra chance to quit
a class, there is little doubt Aggies will have a greater
opportunity to neglect their studies in the name of
the “other education.”
The University experience is the last time many
Aggies will read Shakespeare, perform science ex
periments and work equations for the pure joy of
gaining knowledge. These activities are astronomi
cally more important to the human mind and hu
man condition than sitting on some obscure sub
committee or judging a meaningless election.
Perhaps students saddled with over-involvement
and poor GPR’s will awaken and reconsider their
priorities. Perhaps Dr. Bowen will maintain the acad
emic integrity of A&M and quash the proposal clam
oring for an extra Q-drop.
Unfortunately the trend will probably continue.
Texas A&M will become a school of students over
educated in the “other education” and under-edu
cated in real education.
Glenn Janik is a senior political science major.
torporate sponsorship of sports, national
andmarks harmful to country’s identity
■ ate last
■ night the
H Texas
■ Athletic
partment
■2 2 st Man
mdation
I mnced
I Kyle Field Zach
II now be
HALL
other
o vn as —
u "fy Stadium.
In a story run in today's is-
e of Bryan-College Station
lizard, who have exclusive
ihts to the late-breaking story,
zal businessman Joe Q. Snuffy
nated $6.2 billion to the ath-
ic department. This generous
I ion prompted the athletic
[meat and powers that be
University to change the
that has stood for more
7 0 years.
? did consider A&P’s
history of tradition and
jerence that the name
an Field has represented
long;’’ athletic director
Cleaver said, “however, in
if the substantial donation
Snuffy we felt that he de-
[ a recognition equal to his
ion. Besides, we were
\id he might rescind his gift if
lid not do something for him
’turn. ”
fhis move will certainly stir up
nuch controversy as did the
ision last year to change the
pol colors to purple and gold.
Hiat decision was made after
\Snike Corporation threatened
withdraw its $3.5 billion
tnsorship if the A&P football
team refused to change its old
maroon and white colors.
Football coach Pepsi Smith re
fused to talk to The Battalion
about the renaming. It appears
that his corporate sponsors do
not like the refusal by The Bat
talion to accept corporate spon-
sorshipi
However, Jane Q. Aggie, a se
nior history major, who would
speak to The Battalion, said
“There was a time when base
ball and football stadiums were
named for individuals based on
the merit and sacrifices those in
dividuals made in the form of
time, energy and love for their
school or team. Now we see
sponsorships given to the highest
bidder with very little considera
tion for commitment and love of
school or team.”
While the above story is
false, in a true story. The Hous
ton Chronicle reported the
new Houston Astros baseball
park may soon be known as
Enron Park.
The Enron Corporation, a na
tional energy giant, is among 13
other companies in a partner
ship with first naming rights to
the new stadium. These 14 com
panies make up the Sports Facil
ity Limited Partnership, which
bought the land where the ball
park stands and donated the
land to the Harris County-Hous-
ton Sports Authority.
The members of the partner
ship will negotiate with the As
tros, probably through a pricing
war, and then a bid will be sent
to the Astros for a final name
for the stadium.
Hopefully, the Astros will not
fall prey to the corporate trophy
hunters, as have other sports fa
cilities such as The Summit,
Jack Murphy Stadium and Can
dlestick Park.
This is not to say corpora
tions do not benefit sports enti
ties or venues.
The Shell Corporation,which
sponsors the Shell Houston
Open, is testament to that.
They are the largest donor to
charities of all the corporate
sponsor on the PGA Tour. How
ever, tournaments and charita
ble events need corporate
sponsorship and public dona
tions to survive; sports facili
ties do not.
The Houston Astros can
show their gratitude to the
companies that donated land
and money to them in other
ways than the near-permanent
move of naming a stadium after
the highest bidder.
In 15 to 30 years, when the
naming contract has ended, the
stadium could face a new name
if the Astros are unhappy with
their current moniker.
If Enron, Texaco or any other
member of the partnership
wants to have a stadium named
after their company, then they
should buy the property and
stadium outright and name it
what they wish.
However, the Astros’ stadium
project was not funded solely by
these partners. In fact, a majori
ty of the money is coming from
public funds.
The Astros owe it to the
Houston public to either con
duct a public-naming campaign
or give the stadium a name with
some relevance to the Houston
Astros. The current name it has
been given is The Ballpark at
Union Station.
This name has more nostalgic
and relevant appeal than Enron
or Texaco Field. Another Chroni
cle article reported that Enron
was interested in financing a
deal for a new ballpark in San
Francisco. Will the name of that
stadium be Enron Park II?
The Battalion has just been
informed that Joe Snuffy has
been accused of paying athletes
to come to A&P. To avoid public
controversy Todd & Black
Health Clinic officials have noti
fied the media that they will do
nate a large amount of money
to the athletic department and
21st Man Foundation for spon
sorship rights.
The Battalion staff has been
notified that they will no longer
have access to A&P athletic events
at Todd & Black Stadium.
It seems since Todd & Black
sponsors both the local newspaper
and football stadium, the athletic
department is denying access by
all other media entities.
Note: the writer of this col
umn, in keeping with the nation
al trend, decided to sell his soul
and column rights to the Greed
Corporation and will no longer be
writing for The Battalion.
Zach Hall is a senior
philosophy major
Court should not hear
sexual harassment suit
Brandon
MULLEN
Wd? hon ‘
Davis told her
mother a boy in
her fifth grade
class was groping
and verbally as
saulting her, she
could not have
known it would
turn into a Supreme Court case.
However, Aurelia Davis,
LaShonda’s mother, is suing the
Monroe County (Georgia) School
Board for not taking action against
the young boy. If the Supreme
Court allows this, they could see a
flood of lawsuits against school
boards for students’ actions.
Aurelia Davis contends she
pleaded with the school system to
separate the two children. Davis
said her daughter’s grades fell and
that she was emotionally scarred
due to the boy’s harassment.
Yes, the school system should
have taken some action. The boy
should have been moved to an
other class, or at least the other
side of the room. But if the school
had taken these measures,
LaShonda still would have been
vulnerable. The school could not
have provided full-time supervi
sion for just these two children.
Unless the boy was removed
from the school completely, he
could still harass her when they
passed in the hall or on the play
ground. And removing one child
for harassment could lead to a
large number of expulsions —
one for every time a bully picks
on someone else.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra
Day O’Conner made a valid
point when she said, “Is every
one of these incidents going to
lead to a lawsuit?”
If Davis wins, the ruling might
prompt future cases against
school boards that are not related
to sexual harassment.
Every school has bullies and
every bully has his favorite tar
gets. It may be the boy with
glasses or the fat kid, and these
students could sue on the basis
of discrimination against the
physically challenged. Young
children are always going to
have to deal with teasing; it is
part of society.
And society has already dealt
with this incident. Davis’ mother
contacted the police and the boy
plead guilty to sexual battery. The
case should have ended there.
LaShonda is now 16 and the boy
does not go to her school any
more. But Davis said the school
system should shoulder some of
the guilt.
Davis has a couple of powerful
allies. The Department of Educa
tion and the National Education
Association are supporting her.
They believe if Davis loses, then
any future case of sexual harass
ment could be dismissed easily.
They base their argument on Title
IX, which keeps federally funded
schools from discriminating on
the basis of sex.
Davis’ attorneys said this covers
student on student sexual harassment.
This is a broad interpretation.
School systems can not be expect
ed to police hallways listening for
sexual innuendoes. They can
teach the students what sexual
harassment is, but afterwards it is
up to the parents to enforce soci
ety’s rules.
The school board’s position is
Title IX does not cover sexual ha
rassment. They said Title IX, ap
proved in 1972, was intended to
prevent sexual discrimination by
school systems and teachers, not
students. Realizing the historical
setting of 1972 this interpretation
makes sense. Passed during the
equal rights movement, Title IX
was intended to protect women
from people in power positions
who could oppress them.
Davis’ attorneys state sexual
harassment between students is
equally oppressive and they are
using another statute. Title VII,
to support their argument. Title
VII makes a company responsible
for harassment between workers.
While this may appear to be rel
evant, the workplace is a totally
different environment from a
school. In the workplace, the em
ployer has the power to demote
and terminate its employees, the
power of school administrators,
however, to punish students has
been weakened by the elimination
of corporal punishment. Now the
means of controlling students is se
verely limited.
The Supreme Court must rule
in favor of the school board. The
blame cannot be transferred like
this. The boy is responsible and
his parents should be accountable
for the way they raised him.
The only thing the school is
guilty of is being in a tough situa
tion. If they took action in this one
case, then they would be expected
to protect every child in a similar
manner. But because the school
system did not do anything, it is
facing a landmark lawsuit.
The School System should have
definitely taken decisive action.
The Supreme Court cannot allow
this lawsuit to go forth because it
would lead to more lawsuit against
many good school systems.
Brandon Mullen is a senior
history and English major