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.