Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 8, 1999)
e Battalion O PINION Page 7 • Tuesday, June 8, 1999 nc Reno’s rap sheet Attorney General Janet Reno has long history of disciplinary negligence, poor leadership MARC GRETHER 'em insi ts, such 'its allo\i. -|B yi" uch has been we en pfejX/I made of the he SenaEV J. recently dis- i wary offered Chinese espi- alth inspruige at the Los ited bemfflmos National Lab- iritory in New Mexi- Included with ■fiews about the spy- have been m^Birges and counter- fl ithprges about who is to blame for the *'Xlanses in security. Along with the accusa- AjJions, several lawmakers, including jrfcminent Democrat Robert Torricelli, ^^^haLe called for the resignation or re- ■)val of Janet Reno from her position as ^Vtiorney General. Iwhile Reno’s actions may yet warrant dates, r ner removal, there have not been any t ofco\e-2hp r 8 es to t hi s point that would call for ce Assocffis action. 1 ssociat;r® However ’ ^ er P ast actions seem to in- IfBate her propensity for making matters onalht worse. In both the Waco and Ruby Ridge ;eif a f| t -|a|astrophes, Reno made a bad situation I989 a( much worse through her actions. ’ tosa\ a I P er r °l e i n die Chinese-spying scan dal. up to this point, has been minimal. She has primarily been a go-between for the FBI and other Justice Department of fices. In 1997, the FBI had its request for wiretap of a foreign scientist at Los Alamos denied by the Justice Depart ment’s Office of Intelligence Policy and l 4 At 1 ^ ev ' ew because it believed the FBI’s evi- milnce did not rise to the standard re quired by the Foreign Intelligence Sur- i 5 , veillance Act of 1978. tlCftIn an effort to appeal this action, then assistant FBI director John Lewis brought the unresolved matter to the attention of Reno who quickly ordered the Executive Office for National Security to examine the case. They upheld the original deci sion to deny the FBI wiretap. T#nl This fact was never brought to Reno’s attention. She assumed that because she ; ' never heard from the FBI on the matter u 1 again, the situation had been resolved to ],n everyone’s satisfaction. ogic; i. ight di it heal aid. tatemec: r s neuti Therefore, the claims that she was in active in trying to remove spies are un true. The evidence shows she did every thing within her power with the knowledge that was afforded her. Noth ing more should be expected of anyone. Yet the real test for Reno will be whether or not her administration will pursue convictions with enough zealous ness. If her administration follows the pattern set in the Waco and Ruby Ridge fiascoes, the Justice Department will like ly let those responsible for this mess get off with only a slap on the wrist, if that. Here is a quick recap of those events. In 1992, Randy Weaver and his family lived in a small cabin near Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Weaver, a rather poor man, was offered $700 by an undercover federal agent for two “sawed off” shotguns. Af ter several refusals, he finally consented to the illegal action and sold the guns. Because this sale was illegal, notwith standing the entrapment, a warrant was drawn up for his arrest. The attempt to serve the warrant can best be described as a raid and was carried out by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and several other feder al agencies. Unfortunately for all involved, Weaver had several other guns at home, one of which he used to fatally injure a deputy U.S. marshal during the botched raid. Weaver’s son was killed in the initial raid. These deaths led to a standoff in which Weaver’s wife was also killed. Enter Janet Reno. Though not directly involved in these events, Reno made up for lost time in her handling of the cleanup. It was her administration at the Department of Justice that indicted only one member of the FBI staff in charge of the debacle and did nothing to every oth er agent involved. The agents responsible for this tragedy should have been given the boot and put in jail. Yet these misdeeds pale in comparison to the mess Reno helped to make of the catastrophe outside Waco at Mount Carmel. The BATFs’ procedure for serv ing the warrant was similar to the one used in Ruby Ridge, involving several dozen agents with machine guns sur rounding the building. However, a publi cist with the agency tipped off a reporter that something important was about to happen at Mount Carmel. After hearing about the report on the radio, the Davidi- ans simply looked outside and saw a massive force of law enforcement offi cials outside of their compound, seem ingly poised to attack. When the agents finally did approach the building, shots were fired on both sides, killing several federal agents and Branch Davidians. This incident precipi tated a 51-day standoff that eventually led 76 people dead inside the compound. Two years after the fact, a congres sional committee held hearings on the incident. During these hearings, it be came clear that several officials in the Justice Department had acted unethically and probably illegally. Yet Reno’s Justice Department did not file charges against any of the perpetra tors, nor did Reno appoint a special pros ecutor in the case, as she should have be cause of the obvious conflict of interest. Again Reno failed to prosecute those responsible and allowed an extensive cover up to mask the blatant abuse of power by several of Justice Department agencies. Jeff Smith/The Battalion In the Ruby Ridge and the Waco cas es, Reno did not fulfill her duty as the na tion’s chief law enforcement officer. She allowed those sworn to protect and de fend the Constitution to trample peoples’ rights without punishment. It remains to be seen what action, if any, Reno will take regarding the Los Alamos spying case. But based on past experience, it seems likely she will not even attempt to prosecute those respon sible, again letting down the American people she is supposed to serve. Marc Grether is a graduate student in mathematics. ina# 1 areqS; ns, ills into :hat tte erever in I,” he si eurons, newW ?se stem ^eed ot Intolerance sometimes good, not synonymous with hatred ne of the prevalent goals of contemporary po litical culture is to discourage intolerance and hatred. Hate-driven crimes are becoming ram pant in society, and certainly these deeds must not go unpunished. From the Jasper killing to numerous attacks on abortion clinics, hate crimes must be stopped, and if it takes legislation to help curb the yjplence, then so be it. However, many misconceptions have arisen due to the actions JEFF BECKER Pf the malevo lent people who commit CfltJthese crimes, v, Blcause of A ifeir actions, Bje word intol erance has pen wrongly , associated with Officiate. Anyone |tho shows any signs of intolerance is quickly la- leled as hateful and evil. Even the thesaurus gives Tj synonyms for intolerance such as bigotry, prejudice, CuUracism and sexism. t Obviously" anyone who has those characteristics eb las a great deal of intolerance and has allowed it to u ne /Foster hatred and ill will. However, although all hate most certainly in- 845-1Solves intolerance, not all intolerance involves hate. —-—^n fact, intolerance is in some cases a form of pro- ^^Btion, and in others a form of love. Intolerance must be recognized as a form of pro- £ iction. The zero-tolerance laws in Harris County »iie!p to keep teenage drinkers off the roads, and Rke a safer driving environment for all patrons of pe highway. | Our country does not tolerate certain acts, and 5 :hese acts are made illegal by laws. This intolerance ittempts to make our country a better, safer place to ive. No one can deny that this is a good thing. B Intolerance can also be a form of love. Consider he example of parents and their duty to raise their -hildren. The blame for the killings in Littleton has n part been placed upon the parents of the killers, whose leniency and lack of parental guidance led to hese boys’ strange and evil detachment from reali- ; y- . I If their parents had only been less tolerant of the ?oys’ misdeeds then this terrible tragedy might not lave occurred. If they truly loved their children, hey would have disciplined them more. | Parents must be intolerant of some of the things : ilpr children do to show they truly love them. Even is children, everyone knew that. When we heard Id le Johnny boasting about how his parents “didn’t -are what he did,” we could see through the brava- lo to a sad little child who wished they really did. ■If the principle of intolerance and love can be ap plied to good parenting, then there must be applica- ions elsewhere. ■Consider the case of the abortion clinic attacks. one-Uhe people who attacked these clinics obviously did not understand this concept. Had they understood the concept of intolerance and love, they would not have allowed their purported love for unborn chil dren to manifest into hatred for the patients and em ployees of the clinics. Just as “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” one cannot show his or her love through hate. Our country provides better forms of expressing one’s beliefs than bombs, break-ins and threats. Vote for candi- dates who op pose abortion, write letters to congressmen, peacefully protest, stand up and speak against it pub licly or form or join an interest group. People Americans have right to be intolerant without being hateful u»er ute ipus should voice their intolerance of what they believe to be wrong, but on the other hand, they should not perform more wrongs to make their point about it. By way of another example, the Christian faith believes that homosexuality is wrong. To a Christ ian, this intolerance is a commandment from God. The Christian must also know, however, that this belief must be born of love, because God is longsuf- fering and calls all to repentance. The whole reason to be intolerant of such actions is to try to show the sinner the error and hope that he or she makes his life right with God, so that he might find salvation. The faith says nothing about hatred of those who are believed to be in sin, and it most definitely does not say, “God hates fags.” Hatred is despicable and absolutely contrary to the way Christians are sup posed to be. However, the possibility exists to state and up hold one’s beliefs against homosexuality without hate or malice and in fact with love. Sit and talk rea sonably with someone about it, but do not shout profanities from the rooftops. This is what should and must be done with all beliefs — not just with Christian ones. Find a way to express them in a sincere and caring way, whether it be publicly or privately. Intolerance does not always lead to acts of ha tred, and sometimes a lack of permissiveness is ben eficial. Americans have the freedom to choose, and the First Amendment allows for intolerance. They can choose what they will tolerate and what they will not. This allows Americans to form their opinion and what side of the issue to stand on. Just because they are resistant to someone’s views, beliefs or actions does not mean that they are intol erant of the people who are behind them. Jeff Becker is a sophomore computer science major. Misguided decision on school sexual harrassment impractical RYAN GARCIA T he United States Supreme Court acted be fore thinking when it recently ruled that school districts can be held liable for sexual harassment of one student by another. in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a Georgia school district can be held financially responsible for the sexual harassment of a fifth- grade girl if officials with the authority to help her knew about the harassment but were deliber ately indiffer- ent to it. The ruling, applicable to all schools accepting fed eral money at any level, is a theoretically sound deci sion, but the ory rarely co- incides with reality. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s majority opin ion is articulate, but it lacks the foresight that should be expected from the Court. This ruling deals with issues of such a subjec tive nature, that even the Supreme Court ulti mately backed out by leaving it up to the school districts to determine if and when simple teasing is actually sexual harassment warranting discipli nary action. By placing the onus on the school districts, the Supreme Court has effectively detracted from the learning environment by fostering an ultra-para noid atmosphere for school staffs from teachers to administrators. School districts will find their paranoia justi fied as they prepare for an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits, resulting from parents overreacting to nothing more than immature teasing. Even more problematic is the Supreme Court’s failure to distinguish between different grade lev els. Behavior considered merely immature for third-graders may be completely unacceptable in high school or college students. In the dissent, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, “A teenager’s romantic overtures to a classmate are an inescapable part of adoles cence.” This is not to say sexual harassment does not exist in school, but rather addresses the absurdity of assigning it one definition for grades kinder garten through college. “We can be assured that like suits will follow — suits, which in cost and number will impose serious financial burdens on local school dis tricts, the taxpayers who support them and the children they serve,” Kennedy said. The Supreme Court’s ruling attempts to dis courage frivolous lawsuits, but its language is ambiguous, stating the harassment must be of a “severe” nature and have a “disruptive” effect on Supreme Court invites frivolous litigation with recent decision the learning process. In addition, to be held liable, the ruling states school officials must have taken a position of “in difference” regarding the matter. Many times, such harassment occurs when the monitoring of such behavior is impractical, if not impossible. Should a teacher be bound to punish each and every claim of “Johnny is picking on me” out of fear of a potential lawsuit? Is too mild of a disciplinary ac tion considered a position of indif ference? The Supreme Court’s decision has forced school districts to fight a fight with both of their hands tied behind their backs, leaving their purses vulnera ble to litigation abuse. Guarding against such lawsuits, schools will now, more than ever, resort to questionable disci plinary actions in an effort not to appear as indif ferent. The Supreme Court’s belief that schools can act in a reasonable manner when confronting such issues is an error in judgment. For example, in 1996, schools in North Caroli na and New York City suspended a first-grader and second-grader, respectively, for kissing class mates. In 1997, prosecutors in Arlington, Va., abrupt ly dropped a sexual harassment charge against a fourth-grade boy who allegedly rubbed against a girl in a school lunch line. It was determined he accidentally brushed against the girl. With the recent ruling, the potential for similar events is even greater. “Next year, kids will be suspended for behav ior nobody’s ever been suspended for, and the parents will ask why,” Bruce Hunter of the Amer ican Association of School Administrators said in an Associated Press article. It cannot be denied that the Supreme Court’s decision is rooted in good intentions. However, it is undeniably evident that the Supreme Court sidestepped a controversial issue by passing the buck to the school districts of the United States after reluctantly opening a can of worms it couldn’t handle. Trapping each and every teacher, administra tor, school board and school district between a rock and a hard place, it is clear that the only “severe and disrupting” action that has taken place is this ruling. Ryan Garcia is a senior journalism major.