The Ba
le Battalion
11
iptlave a heart
Money for donated organs
loes not cheapen value of life
O PINION
Page 5 • Monday, June 7, 1999
r
he story
of the
man
io wakes up
a hotel
am bathtub,
vered in ice
.di lissing,
itlne, but
r o, of his kid-
H is one of
BEVERLY
MIRELES
e more popular urban myths of
elarly ’90s. The myth, like most
^nr stories, serves to illustrate
2l|igs of societal helplessness.
^Bever, taken at face value, the
<,prj comes to one basic conclu-
■— organs are in high demand.
^Bom the moment transplant
■nology became a viable surgi-
11 procedure, the availability of or-
^ to transplant became an is
le.
|i order to make transplantation
ire democratic process, organ
Implant lists were created to cat-
1 the order in which a patient
* v jt; iiujd receive a life-giving kidney,
? jSt or other organ. But for many,
^.e lists were more of a pipe dream
an actual solution, as the gap
tween the number of organs
ail able and people waiting for
fin continued to widen.
Years later, organs are still
ewed as legally priceless. Dreams
genetically engineered organs
S - Mave not been realized yet, which,
»imbined with the fact that there
^Bnore people on the waiting list
kiow than there were 10 years ago,
J'las only served to to fuel a black
r/th.- b«' narket for organs. This year
iventadohe, nearly 60,000 people are on
Qk cor he [organ donor list, and concur-
the it; ently, black-market kidneys can
fl, 1S } ; etch up to $20,000 a piece.
In view of all of these problems,
;'' one state has come up with a plan
^ a increase organ donations. Penn-
,^pyania will become the first state
11 P propose a policy of monetary
"‘r ompensation for organ donors,
i ■he plan, which will be formal-
f presented June 9, states that for
very cadaver with organ-trans-
lant potential, the state would
ay up to $3,000 in medical or fu-
eral costs for the deceased donor.
he bioethics behind the plan
re definitely controversial.
Opponents of the plan have ac-
Iffld used the state of putting a mone-
„ jry value on human life. As life is
:l a,,c ;Ue ethical gold standard, any at-
loreoll , mpt to devalue it is not only so-
, ally wrong but criminal as well.
I’vegot. | 6
liller si
.-15
d 1 tlii
»e morer.
It
However, this plan would do
the exact opposite. By offering to
pay some of the expenses of the
donor, Pennsylvania is not putting
a price on life but giving value to
life-saving. Doctors, nurses and
even pharmaceutical companies
are paid for their life-giving ser
vices. It seems that the donors
themselves are the only ones not
benefiting.
What many people are over
looking is that the money is more
of a goodwill offering than a pay
ment. Funerals and medical bills
are rarely only $3,000; the money
is more a thanks than an incentive.
Besides, the plan only covers or
gan donations of the deceased. It
does not even mention or make a
supportive case for live-donor
transplants, which are often de
scribed as fearsome and Gestapo-
like, even though eggs, sperm,
blood and plasma are harvested
and paid for every day.
By offering a small compensa
tion for cadaver organs, the possi
bility of increased donation is
promising. People often need just a
little extra incentive to do the right
thing, even if it is only a symbolic
one. With 60,000 people waiting
for organs, the plan is definitely
worth a shot, especially when the
odds of getting an organ donation
are not incredibly optimistic.
In 1996, according to a Health
Resources and Services Adminis
tration report to Congress, only 32
percent of possible organ donors
actually gave away their hearts and
kidneys. So, for the 8,000 to 15,000
possible organ donors each year,
only about 5,000 donations actual
ly take place.
For people waiting patiently for
organs, this means that unless they
can manage to outlive their trans
plant expectations, many of them
will die.
Depressing as those numbers
may be, people should take heart
in the fact that because of this
plan, organ donations could soon
be on the rise.
At this point, anything that can
be done to help the thousands of
people unable to do anything but
wait for decent citizens to grant
permission for donation would be
a step in the right direction.
Beverly Mireles is a junior
microbiology major.
Jeff Smith/The Battalion
University streets in desperate need of immediate repair
CHRIS
HUFFINES
T he saying goes that
one has to walk a
mile in another per
son’s shoes to really un
derstand them. Unfortu
nately, most students will
begin to test this theory
as the roads around the
Texas A&M campus have
gone from merely annoy
ing, past unhealthy and
straight to hazardous for all vehicles.
The roads around A&M need serious at
tention, and they need it now.
The primary concern is that bad lines of
sight and poor drivers make driving on cam
pus the vehicular equivalent of Russian
roulette with a bazooka.
Not only are drivers unlikely to make it
back alive, but there will almost always be a
mess left behind.
However, that is a result of poor planning
and stupid students, two things with which
the University is perennially plagued. A&M
really cannot be held accountable for them.
However, the roads are in such disrepair
that portions look like they have barely sur
vived a bombing. This is unacceptable and
the University can and should do something
about it.
Moving around campus, Ross Street, run
ning between Reed McDonald and the chem
istry buildings, is sinking into the ground.
The parts that aren’t actively forming a fault
line are graced with more potholes than
Brooklyn. The half-circle portion of Bizzell
Street running in front of the Jack K.
Williams Administration Building is no
longer pavement but more like a series of
rumble strips. These are two of the worst of
fenders, but every student could catalog a list
of less-than-desirable streets.
The. administration’s excuse (and it is a
pretty good one) is that there simply is not
enough money currently budgeted to take
care of these problems. Without the cash,
they cannot fix the problem.
Of course, this is the same administration
that just built Reed Arena, is remodeling and
repainting buildings right and left and is con
stantly increasing student fees. It makes one
curious as to where all the money is going
and if priorities are entirely straight.
What can be done about this?
The American way would be to vote the
offending members of the administration out
of office and vote in members who would re
spond to what the students want. Except for
the fact that the University is not a democra
cy, that plan would work fairly well.
Dropping to the level of action in the Third
World would mean firing squads or a coup
are in order. However, that probably will not
work either. Pity — fresh blood might be
helpful in making A&M a top-10 university.
Two things can be done by students and
staff alike, however.
The first is to try to drive as little as possi
ble on campus. While this will mean that
fewer of the obnoxious bicyclists will be
weeded out in the most satisfying way possi
ble, fewer drivers on the roads will result in
less wear on the roads until they get fixed.
The second thing that can be done is to
use the off-campus shuttle system. Again,
this will result in fewer drivers, which will
lead to less Wear.
However, both of these are stopgap, des
peration measures.
What really needs to occur is a thoughtful
consideration of what the University needs
from its road system.
Is A&M going to be a campus open to cars
or will the recent trend of closed streets and
pedestrian malls evolve into an automobile-
free campus? If the former is the case, then
the current roadways are simply inadequate
for the amount of traffic that passes over
them.
If the future holds the latter in store, then
the current street system needs to be demol
ished immediately, as it is both an eyesore
and a source of significant wear to any car
driving over it.
In the beginning days of the University, no
one could foresee how common cars would
become at A&M. Now that the problem is
here, it needs to be aggressively solved. The
passive approach that has been taken lately
is unacceptable to the students, and should
be unacceptable to the administration.
Chris Huffines is a senior
speech communications major.
Mike policies still sound sneaky
EDITORIAL
-1 robably every chief execu-
rdayn$-^tive officer of every major
ide arai| corporation in the world
l seconiinced last May when Philip H.
tight, founder and CEO of
till updke, admitted in a public an-
ficial teuncement, “The Nike product
ig (herds become synonymous with
owed iiaye wages, forced overtime and caleb
came bitrary abuse. ”
2Johns 1 * Ouch.
MCDANIEL
After years of immense international pressure,
ike had caved in under the evidence against them,
bird T fhat evidence included stories of violent abuse
i the foreign floor supervisors in Nike’s Vietnamese
put ants; some factory workers were slapped in the
ce with rubber sneaker soles or made to lick the
tree-potitory floor as punishment for errors. There were
I bashvironmental hazards; some female employ-
mrthM reported birth defects from breath
head g harmful vapors without a face
\ to gf ask at work. There were rumors
were at Nike had found ways to cir-
j na l qulmvent minimum wage laws
(Vietnam. Sadly, the list
cut Jes on.
he foef In the tidal wave of interna-
1 64-6Dnal outrage occasioned by
3 ws " iese and other accounts, Nike
undered again with a Stalin-
,int p^Qne suppression of informa-
in Ellon about its practices.
iointpl ; I°r whatever reason, principled
on a'Practical, Nike has now begun to
, it piiake a show of straightening up.
||s evidenced by Knight’s chastened attitude in
ma nfUblic, Nike’s redemption began last year with an of-
hnutethal policy of perestroika. In keeping with a new
e gaiiiJblic openness, Nike recently released a circular to
bU ( fredia outlets in May pledging its commitment to im-
ie Rt'oved corporate behavior.
th a 1' “We a h recognize there is more work to be done
ad our teams in the field, with outside assistance,
t j ie lf?e; tackling issues such as workplace temperatures,
3_poi' ?a hh care and nutrition this year,” the release said.
t he li J They certainly sound penitent, but Nike’s public
j hy mouncements about its changes continue to have a
,34 htiturbing sense of surreptitiousness about them.
1 ie figures on wage increases in Nike’s circular, for
stance, are presented in Vietnamese currency, leav
ing the average American reader with no idea about
how much workers are actually paid. And even in
this latest release, Nike continues to argue that all
things considered, their workers do not have it so
bad, a gross rationalization if ever there was one.
Propagandistic interviews with workers who are
very happy with their jobs pepper the release, but
one is left to fear that these employees are the excep
tions rather than the rule.
Even so, Dara O’Rourke, an environmental re
searcher at Berkeley and long-time Nike critic, seems
convinced. According to a Los Angeles Times article
in April, he praised Nike for its improvements with
out dismissing its still-needed reforms.
Even the (few) statistics cited by O’Rourke, how
ever, smell suspiciously of chicanery. At one factory,
for instance, the number of workers reporting respi
ratory problems fell from 86% of the workforce in
1997 to 18% of the work force in 1998.
Aside from the fact that without
knowing the size of the work
force, these percentages could
mean anything, this figure
proves only that workers
are not talking about their
health problems not that
they are now free of them.
Nonetheless, in spite of
these concerns, Nike is at
least abandoning its former
stance, which is a good start.
Meanwhile, though, other
companies should take note.
Nike’s meekness, genuine or other
wise, is witness to the power moral suasion
still has in the market. After its dramatic fall from
grace, other shady operations who run to foreign
countries will not be able to hide there for long.
Unfortunately, Texas A&M University itself is no
stranger to these controversies. Allegations earlier in
the year about sweatshops used by collegiate licens
ing companies strike an unsettling chord at home. It
is time, like Nike, that we face the music as well.
Here’s hoping Nike — and others — will do a bet
ter job walking a mile in their workers’ shoes than
they have in the past.
Caleb McDaniel is a junior history major.
Editorials Board
KASIE BYERS
Editor in Chief
SALLIE TURNER
Managing Editor
VERONICA SERRANO
Executive Editor
CALEB MCDANIEL
Opinion Editor
NONI SRIDHARA
Campus Editor
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the edito
rials board members. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of other Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student body, re
gents, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, car
toons and letters express the opinions of the authors.
Sleeping Giants
Vision 2020 should combine insights with more student input
At Friday night’s official un
veiling of the Vision 2020 strate
gic planning report, the language
in the air was almost as apoca
lyptic as the coming of the mil
lennium itself.
In a keynote speech, Vision
2020 co-chair Jon L. Hagler de
scribed the project as Texas A&M
University’s “rendezvous with
destiny. ”
“The stars are aligned,” he
said.
These prophecies are impres
sive indeed, and the report they
refer to is no less impressive. Vi
sion 2020 is a powerful call to
action.
It features a refreshing focus
on academics, a clarion call for
more multicultural diversity on
campus, a vision for enriching
the University’s impoverished
arts community and many other
laudable goals.
Most encouraging of all. Vi
sion 2020 is characterized by a
sober understanding of where
the University is and how far it
still has to go. In his Friday
speech, Jon Hagler reminded the
assembly again and again, “We
have much to be proud of, but
we are still a sleeping giant.”
But hidden in the background
of Vision 2020 lurks a 40,000-
pound sleeping giant — the stu
dent body — and the project’s
lack of substantial student input
is alarming.
Of the over 250 members of
the Vision 2020 task force, only
about a dozen were students.
Administrators have failed to
include students in the planning
process for Vision 2020. Student
opinions have not been solicited
except in small numbers, and
student awareness of the admin
istration’s activities has been
minimal at best.
Vision 2020 can erect an
Emerald City at the end of the
yellow-brick road, but so far it
has been too much like the wiz
ard behind the curtain.
To be successful, school offi
cials must pull back the curtain.
and soon. Without a formal plan
to rally student support. Vision
2020 will leave a bad aftertaste
of a policy handed down from
on high instead of collaborative-
ly built from the bottom up.
A failure to include students
more proactively will spell doom
for Vision 2020.
Today’s students are tomor
row’s alumni, tomorrow’s
donors, tomorrow’s legislators
and the parents of tomorrow’s
students.
By 2020, the students who are
not included in the project now
will be the ones called upon to
fund it.
They must be convinced early
that it will be an investment
worth making.
Vision 2020 does have the po
tential to be a rousing success,
and its findings may indeed
waken the University’s sleeping
giant.
But to do so, administrators
will simply have to awaken the
sleeping student body first.