Battalion
O PINION
Page 15 • Monday, September 20, 1999
|Too pretty for the Corps?
^^adet stereotypes unfairly masculinize women
MARIANO
CASTILLO
ecently, a
female
jt J. vfreshman
Corps of
Ca lets ap-
^Hached one
■ ~4 of lerupper-
I jsmen and
ed how she
iuld have Te
nded when
sat down in class and four
i-reg male students around her
up and moved to the other
?of the room.
Incidents such as this are re-
iders that as idealistic as Aggie
rit is, the school still lacks in
COOYWAQE&TulM, e q UJ ]j t y an( j p re ju-
•enior outside dii One group that is often
ta Clara in the slreotyped and unfairly judged
Thursdaynigh here at Texas A&M is women in
tine twni™. Je Corps of Cadets.
"'eoraa faroBH ^ tereot ' > ^ es an ^ rumors that
nded !hp3« culate amon 8 the non-reg pop-
megameB^ion 0 ft e n give the Corps a bad
■. iJiage it does not deserve.
°hrf , mlawS Students who are not in the
Crrps often have an image of
Know nowjpMjet women far from the Aggie
Dack, corK.B ea ] 0 f 5 e j n g true to 030^ other,
l mmostproulB N on . re g males see women in
, ..,. Be Corps as a group of butch gals
^ ijv ■ ^Bho get abused by male cadets.
33 nittingpm /\ t p tlr ties, unsuspecting guys
/1C reco |~"jL|Bv'i n g to start conversation have
/as nameu .V. comments to female cadets
’he tot.397o> , eB| a t include, “You’re too pretty to
) kills and LBg j n t| ie Corps,” and the ever
manning “Did 1 say dyke? I
to the ffiBeant it in a good way. ”
I Even if every cadet in the
Borps does not share the same
Bersonal opinion about integra-
ed
vas Mosk'
iy-
tion in the Corps, they do share
the Corps of Cadets’ oath which
pushes every cadet to live by a
higher standard.
This is not just a saying. For
the most part, cadets who do not
agree with women’s role in the
Corps still respect them and are
not judgmental when allotting po
sitions for the following year.
It is a few bad apples making
the entire Corps look bad. The
cadets who openly tell their fresh
men not to meet upperclass fe
male cadets and to blow off their
directives should follow the ad
vice General Hopgood wrote in
his statement about gender
integration: “For those cadets who
cannot [follow the integration pol
icy], the only honorable course is
to resign from the Corps. ”
The truth of the matter is,
while a minority, women play an
important role in the Corps and
hold several leadership positions.
Last year, females held three of
the top seven positions in the
Corps.
Rebecca Fennel, a member of
Company E-l and a senior ac
counting major said one reason
why females excel is that they
have to be tough from the begin
ning.
“It takes a special kind of
women to make it through the
Corps,” she said.
This does not mean there are
attempts to drive women out of
the Corps. The fact is that the
Corps is not for everyone, male or
female. In most cases, however,
activities and hobbies that males
often take part in during high
school better prepare them for the
rigors of cadet life.
In every case, the women who
make it through their freshman
year are just as qualified or better
than their male counterparts.
The Corps of Cadets was inte
grated in 1974, two years before
the service academies integrated
From the beginning the Corps
has been a model for integration
at other military academies such
as the Virginia Military Institute
and the Citadel.
All of these academies have
sent representatives to follow the
example set by Texas A&M.
Women should be seen as
equally capable leaders by both
Cadet and non-cadet students.
There is something really wrong
with what A&M stands for if the
same stories of disrespect toward
women continues.
The Corps is. not full of males
and females. It is made up of
cadets who made the decision to
live by a higher standard and who
should all be respected, regard
less of gender.
Mariano Castillo is a sophomore
international studies major.
ROBERT HYNECEK/The Battalion
rST/OA/S
ublic prayer infringes on
ights of American people
JESSICA
CRUTCHER
'lies
Plates
he public profession of
Christianity offends
many people. Therefore,
fganized prayer has been
pnned at many sporting
Ns and public gathering
laces.
These decisions were justi-
N under the constitutional
PPulation of the separation
P church and state.
J However, as the recent case of Marian Ward
■ustrates, a permanent decision is far from near
■ng reached.
Because a state appeals court’s ruling banned
fayer before football games. Ward was barred
J 0m leading her Santa Fe (Texas) High School
I a pregame prayer.
However, U.S. district judge Sim Lake issued
■ temporary order reversing the ruling, demon-
bating the indecisiveness of our entire society
( ’ w ard drawing a line regarding public displays
i religion.
I The debate would be more easily solved if
Importers of public prayer would be more con-
I aerate of non-Christians’ wishes and beliefs.
L * ra y er has many purposes. According to San-
f e High School Superintendent Ray Ownby,
| e invocation prior to football games is intend-
I 10 solemnize the event. However, it is possi-
r e to solemnize an event without a public
'^ng of Christianity.
|iv , lou 8l 1 Ward’s message itself was inoffen-
' f’ j er aiding — “In Jesus’ name, Amen” —
e d consideration for others. It is doubtful
. (y person in the audience professed Chris-
' V as his or her religion of choice,
ind X ^ ect ' n § these non-believers to partake in
.^operly appreciate a Christian prayer is un-
■ * efore beginning her prayer, Ward stated
1 nm Ce f a ver Y good judge ruled that I have free-
i 101 * of speech tonight.”
However, prayer before football games is less
a matter of freedom of speech than one of free
dom of choice. For example, people attend
church because they wish for spiritual guidance.
If they do not wish to attend, they do not.
On the other hand, most people attend sport
ing events wishing to be entertained, not to
have another religion imposed upon them.
These wishes should be respected.
The issue of prayer before sporting events is
far from being exclusively a high school issue.
Even at a school as diverse as Texas A&M, there
is still a brief prayer said before the kick-off of all
home football games.
Given the religiously diverse population of
A&M, all attendants of the football game proba
bly do not appreciate the significance of the
prayer. It is impossible to recognize all religions
equally at sports events such as these.
Therefore, they should all be equally ignored
for the duration of the gathering.
The resident non-Christians cannot be ex
pected to feel comfortable participating in a
Christian prayer, just as Christians would proba
bly not enjoy sitting through a prayer to Allah.
Incorporating a moment of silence would
better serve the desired purpose of solemnizing
the crowd. It would enable everyone in the
crowd to pray — or not pray — according to
their discretion. In addition, a moment of si
lence would not infringe on the wall of separa
tion between church and state, therefore obliter
ating many of the current legal arguments
dealing with pregame prayer.
Invocations before sporting events are a mat
ter of respect more than one of religion. Since
the invocation is meant to unify the crowd and
show respect for the players, it should seek to
unify everyone present — not just the Christian
majority.
Jessica Crutcher is a sophomore
journalism major.
Money capers in Congress
Needless raises disrespectful to constituents
T he members
of Congress
have returned
from their summer
recess with a new
sense of bipartisan
ship. They have al
ready worked to
gether to pass a bill
with overwhelming
support from both sides of the aisle.
What major issue have these elected
officials tackled?
Could it be campaign finance re
form, or perhaps social security
changes? Try a pay raise for federal
employees.
Clinton has already said he will
sign a bill to give a pay raise to
250,000 federal employees, at an av
erage of $2,346 per person. It also
includes a 4.8 percent pay raise, (ap
proximately $4,000 per person) for
members of Congress.
President Clinton is eager to em
brace this new bipartisan spirit since
the bill also doubles the pay of the
Chief Executive to $400,000. It
seems like everyone has been
well taken care of by this new
legislation.
Everyone, that is, ex
cept the American
taxpayer, who gets
to pay for all of
these goodies.
Members of
Congress have said
this pay increase is
to offset inflation..
Remarkably
enough, 4.8 per
cent is exactly
twice the going
rate of inflation in
this country.
This sort of math
makes it easier to
understand how Congress could also
make a fiscal year 13 months long.
The Constitution is designed so
that it is difficult for members of
Congress to pass sweeping changes
unless there is almost unanimous
agreement.
In spite of this, people expect to
see their elected officials make some
effort to face down the nation’s
problems.
In recent years, however, pathetic
partisan bickering and a desire to
play “gotcha” politics has made
Congress stagnant.
That they can put their differ
ences aside on this lone issue — one
that works to their benefit, not the
public’s — should be dismaying to
the average citizen.
The average congressional salary
is over $136,000. If Congress is in
tent on continuing their current pat
tern of doing nothing and blaming
the other guy, the American people
should demand a refund.
While gridlock is to be expected,
the actions of this bunch of lawmak
ers should be deemed unacceptable
by the nation as a whole.
Though it has always been the
case that members of Congress go to
Washington in order to stay there
(by being reelected) it has rarely
been more to the detriment of the
American people than it is now.
With the American economy
booming in an era of relative peace,
there is a great opportunity to ad
dress issues which, unchecked, will
be plaguing America for decades to
come.
Add onto that the issues that are
irritants to the nation now, and this
decision by Congress to pat itself in
the wallet becomes even more dis
tasteful.
There is a mountain of money
from recent budget surpluses that
Congress is sitting on, and all it can
decide to do is make the fiscal
year 13 months and give itself more
money.
This is beyond gridlock — this is
greed, laziness and ineptitude hard
at work.
There are dozens of other things
Congress could be attempting to
change besides their own tax brack
ets, all of which would be more
helpful to the public.
At this juncture. Congress’ re
solve to push for a solution seems to
dissipate.
The day before passing this pay
raise, leaders of both houses of Con
gress announced that any tax cut for
the nation would not be forthcom
ing this year.
The Republicans said they were
in support of a $790 billion tax
break, while the Democrats were be
hind a proposal to cut taxes by $350
billion.
Again using their bad math skills,
the average of these two numbers
(which should be $570 billion) has
come out to zero.
There was not even an attempt to
debate the issue in committee or on
the floor of either house of Con
gress. It was simply dropped.
So Congress gets money that was
not its own to begin with.
Putting someone else’s money in
one’s pocket would be considered
grand larceny in the private sector,
yet is accepted as “business as usu
al” when government representa
tives do it.
Congress has been unwilling to
pass or even seriously debate the
Shays-Meehan or McCain-Feingold
campaign reform acts, which would
limit “soft money” or foreign dona
tions. Instead, they passed a wa
tered down version that will
make minimal changes to the
current system.
Soft money almost
always goes to the
incumbent, so why
would they want to
hurt themselves?
Congress is about
to kill funding for
the F-22 Raptor, the
Air Force’s new
fighter, because the
money just isn’t
there. All right, then
where is it?
The prospects of
Social Security re
form have also been
danced around be
cause of how much
it would cost to consider changing
it.
Someone should remind our fine
tunnel-visioned friends in Washing
ton of a few things.
They are sitting on a major bud
get surplus which could be used on
a variety of major issues if they were
willing to recognize the situation.
They should also remind them
that they were sent to Washington
to serve the people of the nation,
not themselves.
If Congress is unwilling to adapt
and at least seriously address Amer
ica’s serious issues, the nation
should do something about it, soon
er as opposed to later.
Mark Passwaters is an electrical
engineering graduate student.
ROBERT HYNECEK/The Battalion