Battalion
O PINION
Page 15 • Tuesday, September 21,1999
ow much is that rifle in the window?
linton’s gun buy-back program provides superficial solution to serious gun control problems
P
r£vt
i
BEVERLY
MIRELES
iOO^ESI*
resident Clinton seems
determined to get an “A”
in the history books no
■ter the cost. And the way
■Dod approval ratings is
■ding out money.
Bis newest approval-get-
H plan is a gun buy-back
Brain. The program is slat-
d to distribute a lump sum
Il5 million to individual
oliee departments in $500,000 allotments. The
Bestion to the local police departments is to
■ guns back from inner-city areas at a price of
per gun.
ne can hardly decide which is more offen-
Ive about this plan, its naivete or that it is such
Blf-hearted attempt to reduce the nation’s
Is supply.
■vhile many groups are hailing his new plan
Did America of its guns, they should stop wast-
Itheir support on a plan that will not even
Be a dent in total gun possessions, much less
legally-obtained guns.
Bhis program is the equivalent of sending a
Iment of food to starving people in a foreign
lot B — it makes a big show of decency and hon-
ir, but when the food runs out, the same people
tflstill starving. And just as staving off hunger
llefinitely without offering a solution to the
-,-^lblem is cruel, so is teasing the American pub-
SlyIk vith a program that cannot possibly affect
pithing further than the present.
■Jl - Irhis is not the first empty idea to come out of
| AM Clinton presidency, but it is one of the most
j yWiating, especially considering the recent shoot-
^ ing> in Fort Worth and Columbine. Those
tragedies signal a real, painful problem, while
n ^j^jClii ton and Congress go around patting each
3 (\[ pier on the back for a plan that has no mean-
I. The $50 for each gun, suggested by the pro-
jgos gram, is a decent amount, as far as gun buy-back
t Rgrams go. But more money does not mean
ft® plan will be effective.
wB However, the fact that the program is basically
juJeless has not stopped people from lining up to
-jsupport the initiative. Andrew Cuomo, secretary
jijitol the Department of Housing and Urban Devel
opment (HUD), is a major supporter of the plan.
mor in ]
held for.
no sign
as who
i army la
d murde
trom thf
ion i
NAT
tied a
ithe!
?r reh
in tec
tit si/.
“We have 200 million guns in this country.
We have to reduce that number,” Cuomo said in
an Associated Press article. “Buying back the
guns (from] people who have guns in the home
who don’t want them is one way to do it.”
Yes, it is one way to do it, but not a very effec
tive one. What Cuomo does not mention is the
unfortunate reality that the program will proba
bly not collect anything more than a trifling
amount of guns.
Clinton is only bothering with the buy-back
program because it is much easier than deal
ing with a Congress that has an aversion to
gun legislation.
Clinton and Congress, seem determined to
avoid real answers to questions about the place
of guns in America, and it is at the expense of
the public. Apparently it will take more than the
deaths of innocent citizens for them to realize
the uselessness of any program that presumes to
reduce the number of guns in the country
without even alluding to gun legislation.
It is a crime that even the well-intentioned ad
vocates of gun control have to bend over back
wards to spark initiatives through weak buy
back programs. Democracy is all about choice,
but peqple and politicians seem to have no free
will when it comes to gun legislation. Are lobby
ists that powerful, or are people are so commit
ted to guns that they would lash out at anyone
opposed to unlegislated gun ownership?
Everyone would like to hope that the gun
buy-back program will be wildly effective, and
that people will be willing to hand over their
guns for $50 dollars. But everyone has to face
the cold, hard truth that it is not going to hap
pen. If people did not want their guns for
some reason, they would not have bought
them in the beginning.
Buy-back programs mean well, and Clinton
no doubt means well, too.
But his job, and his duty, is to the interests of
the public.
The interest of the public, in this case, is for a
meaningful source of gun legislation. Anything
less, as earnest as it might be, is offensive.
Beverly Mireles is a junior
microbiology major.
row .
' refcH'- !
Them
Readers debate
the Christianity, guns
‘sentative* ^ T; • „
gener.vft s P onse to Caleb McDaniels
upervis: ^ ^ column.
TOR, u ^
■ was very disturbed after read-
d offacr| McDaniel s colurTin concerning
Nato J( st i anit y and fire a rm s. The pic-
ivesterdal that he paints of the “ blood y
/entafoilrch pews” and his insensitive
5 [q rep# towards the shootings made
nv Cen l ’ ever y angry -
'nectedhl am a member at Wedgwood
fter KUW' sX Church and a friend to
1 Gen of the P e °P |e who were
n ieree* d and wounded. The way he
nmnLled made me wonder if he
T. Ite the article because he
slid about the victims or if he
mis willi# looking for an excuse to jump
rn.PrtinJthe bandwagon of changing
’“f Sarrr regulation.
ilManv of Jesus’ disciples car-
jec: swords, which were the
f.: ion iapons of choice at that time. In
. , It, in Luke 22:36-38 Jesus
lgmn? ;.. lecifically tells his disciples,
?men a§ : fd jf you don’t have a sword,
P roce " fell your cloak and buy one.”
chief in
Lust because they had swords
8 lvm f J not mean that they were going
s logo hack people to death. The
ted 101 |me is true about guns. It is not
11 as I vie guns that kill people, it is the
' Koso ' 1 people that aim the guns. Guns,
ust as swords, can be used as
lefensive weapons as well as of-
isive weapons.
4
tooni
-nt
needs.
Robert Bollinger
Class of ’02
This piece is the best article I
jave read in the Battalion since I
irst discovered it online.
McDaniel makes the point I
jsh everyone who claims to be a
hristian should know and advo-
te. Jesus taught that love of
|)d and one’s fellow man is the
[sence of the word of the Father.
H Advocating the use of guns is
jdirect contradiction to that
iemise. It makes me feel good to
low there is someone still left at
kM who has not sold out to the
jht-vying conservative Christians.
Frank Lovato
Class of ’62
Those of us who believe in the
bnstitution and the Second
rnendment should have foreseen
h assault on us by The Battalion.
Not content with characterizing
\k as mere hypocritical child-
]aters (Sept. 15 editorial), on
ptember 17, McDaniel contin-
dthe attack by blatantly exploit-
MAIL CALL
ing the Fort Worth tragedy to also
declare us anti-Christian.
It is not surprising that Mc
Daniel and the editorial board
have resorted to emotionalism
and name-calling, since it is un
likely that either could have formu
lated a strong Constitutional argu
ment to support their views.
The editorial board and Mc
Daniel are quick to advocate the
abdication of basic Constitutional
freedoms and rights so long as it
is done by someone else.
One wonders how this sort of
logic would apply to all the stories
that we hear about journalists
who make up news stories or
slant news coverage to favor one
position or another. One would
hardly expect McDaniel and the
board to then advocate “reason
able” limitations to freedom of the
press. I think not. .
The fact of the matter is that
gun control laws only affect those
who obey the laws in the first
place. Such measures would do
little to curb acts of violence like
the ones we have recently seen in
Fort Worth or at Columbine High
School.
Mike Eaton
Class of ’02
Yes, I am a Christian who be
lieves in the right to keep and
bear arms.
No, I will notbe rethinking my
position because of bloody church
pews. We have experienced a lot
more bloody beaches to ensure
this freedom.
Kenneth M. Kimball
Staff Member
Nasty situations
in Kyle Field lines
That Kyle Field will soon be
larger than the Longhorns’ stadi
um will be little comfort to Aggie
fans unable to get safely and ex
peditiously to their seats.
The lack of foresight of those
who designed the expansion
and/or the gross incompetence of
those responsible for crowd con
trol resulted in 45-60 minute
waits to enter the gates for Satur
day’s game.
Anyone arriving at the entryway
for Ramp 4 after 6 p.m. encoun
tered a deep semicircle of fans at
tempting to converge on an utterly
inadequate number of turnstiles.
This inexcusable situation was
not merely an inconvenience — it
was downright dangerous. Had
this occurred anywhere other than
College Station, there would have
been pushing and shoving,
fisticuffs and pandemonium.
Before next Saturday’s game,
the Athletic Department must
remedy this inexcusably danger
ous situation; otherwise, the ex
panded Kyle Field will simply be
come an expensive Aggie joke.
James L Harner
Professor of English
I was again proud to say I am
an Aggie when I saw the atten
dance and participation at the Tul
sa game this past Saturday. I
was, however, dissapointed at
what I experienced outside the
East gate while waiting in ridicu
lously long lines to get in to see
my favorite team play.
The lines were hot, crgmped
and not moving; we were all, un
derstandably, a little cranky.
However, it was very sad for me
to witness the conduct of some of
the crowd when paramedics and
game staff began to move the
crowd to make way for an ambu
lance and a heart attack victim.
Not only were students calling
out rude and offensive things to
the paramedics and game staff,
but many simply refused to move
and some even tried to rush the
entrance in order to reach their
seats before kick-off.
Everywhere around me, people
were pushing to get past ticket at
tendants, muttering under their
breath or cursing the game staff
who for some “diabolical reason”
wanted to keep us all from seeing
the game.
The tradition of high atten
dance and participation at Aggie
football games is something to be
very proud of, but please do not
let eagerness to take part in an
Aggie tradition overrule other Ag
gie ideals like compassion for a
fellow Aggie.
Jeni Caldronia
Class of ’00
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in
clude the author’s name, class and phone
number. The opinion editor reserves the right
to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy.
Letters may be submitted in person at 013
Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters
may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111.
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com
Tenure denial harms University
T he de
tails sur
rounding
Professor John
Boies’ denial
of tenure are
about as sus
pect as donat
ing blood in a
dirty, run
down school bus. The facts
about the case may have ended
with Boies’ release from the
University, but the allegations,
opinions and consequences of
the matter have raised some se
rious questions about academic
ethics and the future freedom of
Texas A&M professors to speak
freely and honestly.
After Boies, an untenured as
sistant professor in the sociolo
gy department, filed charges of
plagiarism against a fully
tenured sociology professor. Dr.
Mary Zey, Boies said he believed
he became the target of personal
and professional slander by
some individuals in the depart
ment.
When Boies came up for
tenure review, his department
gave him a positive vote to re
ceive tenure, citing that, among
other things, he had been pub
lished in one of the most re
spected journals of sociology.
Zey’s husband and tenured
sociology professor. Dr. Steven
Murdock, disagreed. Fellow so
ciology professor Dr. Dudley
Poston said Murdock openly
pledged he would do everything
in his power to keep John Boies
from getting tenured.
Texas A&M executive vice
president and provost Ronald
Douglas then received a “minor
ity report” authored by Zey,
Murdock and others which by
passed standard procedure and
was sent directly to Douglas.
When Boies’ tenure case was
in his hands, Douglas stopped
Boies’ ascent and denied him
tenure.
Boies successfully appealed
Douglas’ decision to the Com
mittee on Academic Freedom,
Responsibility and Tenure
(CAFRT) and a recommenda
tion by CAFRT to re-evaluate
Boies’ tenure was sent to A&M
President Dr. Ray M. Bowen.
But Bowen did not agree with
the recommendation and de
nied Boies’ tenure application.
effectively firing him from his
position.
The message of all this mess
can easily be lost in the details,
but to many A&M professors, it
is quite clear.
The lesson taught to these
educators is: if you call out a
tenured professor for academic
dishonesty, you will pay.
Poston’s revelation of Mur
dock’s intentions further
strengthens Boies’ stated belief
that he and Zey desired retalia
tion against him.
The co-authors of the “minor
ity report” knew exactly what
they were doing when they
stepped out of standard proce
dure and sent their opinion di
rectly to Douglas.
Universities
must be safe
havens for
dissenting
opinions and
open, honest
debate.
In an article in The Touch
stone, Dr. Colin Allen, professor
of philosophy, said the report
“falsely accused Boies of mis
representing items on his cur
riculum vitae and attacked
Boies’ research record.”
Allen said it was nothing
more, than a blatant attempt at
destroying Boies’ reputation,
credibility and chance for pro
motion.
The possibility that Murdock
and Zey were involved in Dr.
Boies’ denial of tenure has put
the University faculty in a very
uncomfortable and altogether
dangerous position.
Zey’s plagiarism charges
were dismissed. However, with
Dr. Murdock’s stated intentions
realized, A&M professors are en
couraged to watch their backs
and think twice before accusing
another faculty member of pla
giarism or any other forms of
academic dishonesty.
As Poston said, any belief in
Zey and Murdock’s involvement
could create a sense among the
faculty that “if you blow the
whistle on a tenured professor
or someone who has power, you
run the risk of endangering your
job at the University.”
This simply cannot be al
lowed. Any sense of fear of re
taliation for speaking up among
a university’s faculty is extreme
ly dangerous. A university is
nothing if it is not a safe haven
for dissenting opinions and
open, honest debate.
But in the minds of many
A&M faculty members, the op
posite has been proven true.
A&M simply cannot have the
truth about such major prob
lems as a professor’s unethical
practices going unmentioned for
fear of being “blacklisted” by
other, more powerful associates.
The dangers of unchecked
authority do not need to be ex
plained to anyone who has ever
taken a history class or watched
the news of late!
Unfortunately, somewhere
between Murdock’s statement of
intent and John Boies’ cleaning
out his office, there is a suspi
cious blank that can be filled in
with an abuse of power.
If Boies was kept from pro
motion because of a fair, unbi
ased review of his record, then
no one would argue.
But Boies, Poston and the
hundreds of other A&M profes
sors who signed a letter to
Bowen asking him to reconsider
his denial of Boies’ tenure appli
cation agree that a fair and un
biased review was not possible
in the wake of Murdock and
Zey’s actions.
Whether or not Zey is guilty
of plagiarism and if she or her
husband had a direct hand in in
fluencing Douglas’ decision are
both serious questions, but the
most troubling outcome of this
situation is the potential effects
on A&M faculty members.
The message has been sent
down to hundreds of professors
at A&M that if they challenge
the ethics of a tenured professor,
they will face the consequences.
That fact is a serious handicap
to everyone at A&M and to the
causes of academic honesty and
fair representation in academic
procedures.
Eric Dickens is a junior
English major.