lie Battalion
O
PINION
Page 13* Thursday, October 21,1999
OUDLY
HE WAKE
OXAUT
>cock. apt
'liertfiisuttij
Methods
used by
rew chiefs
to recruit
for cut
mounts to
rude
wvakening
m
d
ihe amount
of leader
ship and
anization
ided to keep
from be-
a 12-foot-
ipile of un-
itush is
izing. Work
(on fire
its are coordinated, people
managed and interest in the
ition is fostered.
'he hierarchy of Bonfire coor-
(StoTS is crucial to its success,
all too often, participants do
ething to maintain the
1 /M|I eol yP e dull-witted, ax-
T I r Biding savages.
^^ v ™Vhile recent public attention
focused on a redpot and a
iterpole pot who allegedly
!med more concerned with
King the hell outta other Ag-
than Bonfire itself, the detri-
ital actions of lower-level sim-
ons often go unnoticed. Many
|thods used by residence hall
n chiefs to motivate students
articipate in Bonfire and cut
offensive and show a basic
kof respect.
ivs a fif’d Many crew chiefs do not real-
Coiojijl that their job is aimed at a
digalioni M' c 8 rou P i n a hall. More of-
idictingiif [than not, that group is a mi-
by Coloui rity, but crew chiefs seem de-
iow cori mined to force their ideals and
; cial ptf pavior on everyone. The pres
ited. re placed on students who are
auty (Hi® >t active in Bonfire cut starts
erfamil'f iry early.
/after© 'Within the first week of
rents, ^ pool, freshmen are rounded up
iriedJonN id paraded around campus to
vest off lout filthy “dorm yells” outside
uovedti )Sf other residence halls.
Few things are as mindlessly
as insist lurious as a group of college stu-
do ’■ ints screaming at a brick wall,
althoiif |nt t| le rea i f UI1 begins when the
aid the)' Iroup returns. To gain the respect
la of siinff
GABRIEL RUENES/The Battalion
of crew chiefs and show their
“redassness,” freshmen are
strongly encouraged to shave let
ters into their hair to spell out
some form of “our dorm is better
than yours.”
While this builds a unity of
sorts for them, freshmen who ig
nore the crew chiefs while they
are enlisting “letterheads” are of
ten looked down upon and called
whatever derogatory term that
comes to mind.
In the past, crew chiefs have
even delved into illegality to en
courage students to come to cut.
Ga. (AP
ie lack o !
lying of
leaned 'c
rave yesfi
id scraif
” in redr
? slab con
James Ep
ry, polled
;m was if
When they
employ petty
methods,
crew chiefs
hurt their
own efforts.
Crew chiefs organizing parties
where minors can get alcohol is
almost traditional in itself, but
the zealous Bonfire leaders do
not stop there.
According to an Oct. 30, 1997
article in The Battalion, to attract
students to attend cut, crew
chiefs from Dunn Hall two years
ago brought a stripper to the site.
The Dunn Hall crew chiefs were
reprimanded for that stunt, but it
is not hard to imagine more un
detected instances of Bonfire
rules being broken for the sake of
bringing more students to cut.
Despite all of this, childishness
and disrespect toward others are
never so blatantly displayed by
crew chiefs as during morning
wakeup. If a student is in the hall
on weekend mornings during
cut, he or she will most likely be
treated to a chorus of obscenity-
spewing loudmouths running up
and down the halls at 5 a.m. The
added bonus comes when the
same loudmouths turn on their
stereos at the highest positive
volume to further eliminate any
chance students have at undis
turbed sleep.
Do crew chiefs, as they are
running down the halls calling
students all sorts of insulting
names, actually think people
who were not planning to go to
cut will now be motivated to
wake up and join them? Of
course not. They are waking up
those students who already plan
to go to cut. But they do not have
to harass other sleeping students
in the process.
When residence halls are pre
vented from collectively organiz
ing cut trips and crew chiefs are
stripped of their roles, wake-up
will continue in a more civilized
and efficient manner.
The people who want to go to
cut could leave signs on their
doors to be awakened or let crew
chiefs know they need to be
called at 5a.m.
Even plain, old-fashioned self-
reliance in getting up for cut would
seem to get the job done while still
respecting the wishes of others.
Crew chiefs are an integral part
of Bonfire, and their job is an im
portant one in organizing individ
ual residence hall participation.
But when they employ petty
and sometimes illegal encourage
ment, crew chiefs hinder their
own efforts. The crass, childish
ways crew chiefs often go about
motivating students to attend cut
lowers other people’s opinions of
them and ultimately the great
tradition they represent.
Eric Dickens is a junior
English major.
B onfire par
ticipants
view the
final product of
their efforts as
the culmination
of a long semes
ter spent per
forming difficult
tasks with little,
if any, appreciation.
Oddly enough, many people in
the crowd enjoying “the burn” are
the same ones who spent the se
mester ridiculing Bonfire.
One of the largest student orga
nizations is consistently portrayed
as dumb and savage.
Cheap jabs at Bonfire and petty
stabs directed at the the student
volunteers only slow changes that
might otherwise be quickly imple
mented.
Students who possess an actu
al working comprehension of
Bonfire should be allowed the
freedom to initiate any alterations,
not armchair spectators.
The workhorses of Aggie Bon
fire, crew chiefs, are charged with
a most difficult duty — motivating
volunteers to perform strenuous
acts of physical labor.
While some mistakes are made,
crew chiefs still achieve their
goals, even without much outside
support.
Underlining most dorm diffi
culties is a lack of compromise on
the part of Bonfire’s opposition.
Crew chiefs are too often asked
by well-intentioned policies to do
things fundamentally detrimental
to the completion of Bonfire.
Attacking such a petty aspect of
Bonfire as morning wake-ups sim
ply characterizes the ridiculous
nature of anti-Bonfire propaganda.
Dorm Bonfire representatives
are empowered to wake dorm
residents up for cut through a
democratic voting process.
Resident directors, resident
advisers (RAs) and hall council
members administer the voting
process to assure fairness to all
residents.
Residents wishing to be left
alone may post an appropriate
“Do not disturb” sign in a speci
fied place, or simply on the door.
Furthermore, dorm wake-ups are
limited to 20 minutes, hardly
enough to consider unfair.
RAs even supervise morning
wake-up proceedings to assure
respect is maintained toward all
residents.
Any farther
restrictions on
crew chiefs
will damage
Bonfire
participation.
Any further restrictions forced
upon crew chiefs will only further
damage participant turnout for
Bonfire activities. A prime exam
ple of the effects of restricted
wake-ups on participant turnout
happened in Dunn Hall in 1997.
After the Yellow pot and five
crew chiefs lost their Bonfire priv
ileges after being reprimanded for
taking a stripper to the cut site,
cut wake-up procedures were se
verely restricted within the dorm.
Participant turnout dropped by an
estimated 20 percent.
“Numbers may have been
more drastically affected by the
new limitations had the incident
occurred earlier in the year,” An
drew Zeve, head crew chief of
Dunn Hall said in 1997. For Bon
fire leaders, motivation is every
thing. In motivating students for
Bonfire
traditions
unfairly
criticized for
petty reasons,
such as
morning
wake-up
cut, timing is everything. If the
limitations had been in place at
the beginning of the cut season,
participant turn out would have
been more greatly affected.
Students need to understand
that Bonfire volunteers’ main goal
is the continuance of Bonfire and
its traditions. Students also need
to rediscover their trust in those
who do the work.
Construction is made possible
only through innumerable hours of
experience, and Bonfire will contin
ue only with student support.
The silent majority must raise
their volume to protect and main
tain this proud tradition. At one
time, students stood united on
campus. Now, Texas A&M has stu
dents who run to the administra
tion every time some individual’s
statements get under their thin
skin. Blame for the indiscretions of
a few participants is often unjustifi
ably placed upon the whole Bon
fire organization.
Perpetually ridiculous accusa
tions and demands against Bonfire
will only lead to its eventual
demise. After Bonfire is gone,
some other cause will fall to the
force of students’ hyper-sensitivity.
Bonfire will not be dismantled
at once. It will die gradually, be
ginning, for instance, with objec
tions to wake-up practices.
Students should grant Bonfire
volunteers the patience, under
standing and freedom to safely
complete the construction of this
Aggie emblem. As students, de
mand excellence.
As spectators, demand victo
ry. As Bonfire onlookers, enjoy
the burn this year, because it
might not survive the witch
hunts now plaguing its proud
builders.
John T. Baker is a junior
agricultural development major.
'OBl
\r/) C h ” B
fa 67^*1
7WJ
roposed changes to lottery not worth chance
MAIL CALL
veryone
dreams of hit-
Iting the big
ie, and the Texas
ite Lottery Com-
jssion took a
ible. However,
|(e so many of its
Jekly customers,
|e Commission
id nothing to show for it but empty
ickets.
"Don’t Mess with Lotto Texas”
as the reaction the commission re-
, u^.^ed from concerned citizens to
WE0 oposed lottery changes.
'Texas Lottery executive Linda
oud found herself embroiled in
antroversy after she proposed
ding four balls to the current pool
50 numbers to lessen chances of a
gjackpot. Cloud also proposed
/EMECBtf; lore $5 and $100 payoffs, which
'ould almost double the number of
inning contestants.
But lowering the chance of win
ing a sizable payoff defeats the pur
pose for which most people play,
he commission should heed the ad-
ice of lottery players and create
lore big-money payoffs to increase
lies and reduce the $5 and $100
•lyoffs each week.
The current Lotto Texas system
Ides not have the big payoffs of
:> AUER It,,.
lprc-C^
rflBP
NIGHTS'
, onlyM.t®
multi-state lotteries in other regions
(which pool money between several
states, making jackpots astronomi
cally high). The thousands of players
who wrote to the commission said
the way to solve the problem is
not to divide the money
smaller winning purses,
to make purses bigger.
Under the current
system, a lottery tick-
etholder has a 1-in
57 chance of cash
ing in on any
prize. The pro
posed change
would lower
those odds to 1-
in-43, meaning
more people
would hold win
ning tickets.
However, the
chances of win
ning any real mon
ey — picking at
least six numbers cor
rectly — would fall from
l-in-15.8 million to l-in-25.8 million.
A news release issued by the lot
tery commission calls the proposed
change in jackpot odds “slight.”
Things are known to be bigger in
Texas, but 10 million is hardly a
slight change, even in lottery odds.
The proposed action was intend
ed to reverse falling ticket sales and
consumer interest in the game, but
the state almost drove thousands of
players away for good
until the changes
were dropped from
consideration by
the board.
Under the
changes pro
posed, lottery
players who
match five of the
first six numbers,
including a
bonus seventh
ball, would only
win $10,000. If
players were look
ing for this relatively
small payout, they
could play Cash 5,
which pays $85,000 for
hitting on just five of a pos
sible 39 balls. This means
Lotto Texas would offer a small
er payout on tougher odds — not
good business practice.
There have only been 369 win
ning lotto tickets for the jackpot
since 1992, meaning players know
the devastating odds they face for a
big score. Creating more ways to win
smaller prizes, instead a few ways to
win bigger payoffs, would just di
lute the cash pool the prize money
is taken from and draw less interest
from the boom-or-bust players who
make up the majority of Lotto
Texas buyers.
Texans should care about interest
in the state lottery. Over $6.9 billion
has been generated for the state by
the lottery since 1992. About half of
the money generated goes into the
prize fund to keep people playing for
big money, while 15 percent goes to
ward administration costs and retail
er payoffs.
The remaining 35 percent goes to
an educational fund for public
schools. It is in the best interests of
the state of Texas to keep its lottery
going strong for a source of income
for school programs.
For now, the commission has set
up “town meetings” around the
state at which concerned players can
voice their ideas for better change.
This input will be a better way of
determining what the people want
for their lottery than having the
commission rolling the dice on its
own ideas.
After all, craps is not the game
around these parts.
Jeff Webb is a senior
journalism major.
Workers defend
women’s clinic
In response to Amber
Matchen’s Oct 18 mail call.
As a volunteer at the
Planned Parenthood clinic
in Bryan, Matchen’s letter
puzzles me.
Any casual observer of
this debate should know
abortions are a very small
minority of Planned Parent
hood’s services (only 7
percent).
Most of the women who
go to the Bryan clinic are re
ceiving non-surgical ser
vices like birth control, AIDS
tests or even flu shots.
Members of the Brazos
Valley Coalition for Life do
not offer alternatives when
they scream at women
from the sidewalk on Tues
day mornings.
They intimidate women
by writing down their li
cense plate numbers, tak
ing their pictures and
telling them they will go to
hell. I have personally wit
nessed all of this.
Supposedly, pro-life in
dividuals do not stop at
intimidating the women
seeking services.
They also threaten the
clinic staff.
Posters with the name
and picture of the doctor
who provides abortion ser
vices are frequently posted
around the clinic.
Despite these at
tempts, women and fami
lies still have the right to
affordable, safe reproduc
tive health care in Brazos
County because of the ef
forts of the Planned Par
enthood clinic staff and
volunteers.
Amy Hinze
Class of ’01
With 31 signatures
The Battalion encourages letters to
the editor. Letters must be 300 words
or less and include 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: till
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com