OPINION
edr esday, January 19, 2(XX)
THE BATTALION
tan
jfjbontroversy a local matter
|.S. Constitution gives South Carolina the right to choose
I’akhUr
ums arc
is week,
age for 4? or a long time, the
M H state o! South ( ar-
olina attempted to
KKine ovc h° VN diHerent it is
lv i oni any other state. For
ecn ther* l l 1 lc, it is the only
ate that seceded from
\ leaderi> e 1 nion twice. Anoth-
.j j *, more obvious way the
^^^^Bietto State has shown
. S ii dependent streak is
. • ■ * ylymg the Confederate battle Hag above
teltatehouse in Columbia.
CV*Whe debate about whether this flag
urn Id be flow n over South Carolina state
ptdings has been brewing for a long time
nd uis increased in intensity in the past
;vl weeks.
a debate between Republican candi-
ate > for president earlier this month, Texas
io\ George W. Mush was asked what he
" ” yolld do to make South Carolina take the
lal down.
^^^^■lis answer was simple and correct:
not a matter for me to decide," Mush
onded. “It’s a matter for the people of
iollh Carolina to decide.”
^Bush’s response was not only the politi
cal!; orudent one, but the only plausible
>ne The 10th Amendment guarantees any
.taw powers that are not specifically dele-
tattd to the federal government. Nowhere
n lie Constitution does it say the president
uls he right to force states to remove some-
hiig that may be in bad taste. If the people
)Routh Carolina do not want this banner to
.’oine down, it w ill not — and people should
>U>| looking to the federal government to
naf c them remove the flag.
■( )ne thing is certain, the people of South
Cat ilina should and will have the final say
an the matter.
■Several organizations, including the
UUCP, have taken action against South
Carolina for continuing to fly the flag.
Claiming the flag is a symbol of racism
and hatred, the NAACP is attempting to or
ganize a boycott of the state. A good portion
of South Carolina’s economy is based upon
conventions and tourism and a successful
boycott could cost the state millions of dol
lars a year.
However, the state has refused to budge.
Members of the state government, as well
as many of the citizens, have maintained the
battle flag is a symbol of their heritage and
a memorial to those who fought in defense
of the state. They say the battle flag is not a
symbol of racism and refuse to consider re
moving it.
One thing is certain,
the people of South
Carolina should and
will have the final
say on the matter.
The arguments of each sides have some
merit. While the battle flag was used only
by the Confederate Army and not the Con
federate government, it is the most visible
sign of the rebellion. Its use by other
gropps. such as the Ku Klux Klan, have led
many to claim that the flag symbolizes big
otry.
However, it is unfair to label the resi
dents of South Carolina as bigots.
It is also unfair to say they should not
be able to remember their dead. The South
fought for four years against overwhelm
ing odds and the Confederate soldiers
should be remembered for their courage if
nothing else.
Most men who served in the Confederate
Army did not fight to defend slavery, but
because they felt they had to defend their
families from invaders. If the people of Ger
many are able to remember their dead from
World War 11, then the people of South Car
olina should be able to remember their Civil
War dead as well.
One major difference between Germany
and South Carolina is the federal ban in
Germany against displaying the Swastika,
or other Nazi material. In the United States,
the law is specifically designed so that such
decisions are made by the people or by
those they elect at the state level.
While the Constitution is certainly on
South Carolina's side, some supporters of
the flag have not exactly helped increase
outside support for their viewpoint.
At one rally, a former South Carolina
congressman demanded that the “National
Association of Retarded People” stop mess
ing w ith the affairs of his state. When asked
if he would like to amend his comments or
apologize, the congressman said he would
like to apologize to retarded people every
where for comparing them with the
NAACP.
Such acts, along w ith the know ledge
that the flag did not rise up over the State-
house until the height of the '60s Civil
Rights movement, do not improve their
standing in the eyes of outsiders.
Simply put. w hat outsiders think is
meaningless. The people of the state of
South Carolina are the only ones who can
decide whether the Confederate battle flag
continues to fly. If they feel a moral or busi
ness imperative to make a change, they will.
Whatever anyone else says is meaningless,
because the U.S. Constitution speaks louder
than any of them.
Mark Passwaters is a senior
electrical engineering major.
ERIC ANDRAOS/l llt BATTALION
Error: Gates’job change does not compute
s*
areas
'er
M icrosoft announced a major personnel change last
week in naming Steve Mallmer CEO of company
.operations. Mill Gates may claim a number of rea
sons for stepping down as CEO last Thursday, but it certain
ly was not because he chose to relinquish any power.
■ While the world's richest man claims he would rather
pki\ with computers, his company is in court battling the
Department of Justice. Steve Mallmer’s appointment to the
CIO position is no more than a ploy to protect Gates and
combat the Microsoft antitrust case.
I Despite the new title of Chief Software Architect, there is no doubt that Gates' di
rection will remain the deciding factor in all company moves. However, with
Ballmer at the head
of operations, Mi
crosoft now has a
brand new fall guy
should negotiations
fail with the Depart
ment of Justice.
I The antitrust case
ha - the software gi
ant on the offensive.
At a press conference
held at company
headquarters,
Ballmer said any ef
fort to break up the
company was consid
ered “absolutely
reckless and irre
sponsible.” Mi
crosoft has so far re
solved to resist any
form of governmen
tal interference in
company affairs. Although some analysts are expecting the announcement of a set
tlement, this seems unlikely because that Microsoft is a multibillion-dollar busi
ness and executives will not give in without a fight.
I This personnel change also comes at a strategic moment, following the merger
of AmericaOnline and Time Warner. Microsoft will be able to present a new forum
for building its case on the antitrust issue and plans for competitive, web-based
technology.
Possibly, company executives have decided now is the perfect time to present
a new Microsoft image. Gates is the emotional counterpart who leaves his post as
CEO to reach technological goals. Ballmer is the ideal manager, rational and
clever. A Harvard graduate, he is a respected intellectual who is active and cus
tomer focused.
The combination of Mill Gates and Steve Mallmer at the head of Microsoft is an
ingenious scheme because their strengths allow for possible domination of the in
dustry. Gates drives the technology side of operations, and Ballmer handles the
public aspects.
No one claims to challenge the brainpower of Bill Gates, but his public relations
leave something to be desired.
His intense personal interest seems to color his public reactions and statements.
The new CEO repre
sents a dift'erent strate
gy in dealing with the
government’s allega
tions of Microsoft’s at
tempt to monopolize the
industry.
In the testimony of
the Microsoft antitrust
case, Ballmer has not
made statements about
destroying competition
or sent incriminating
emails.
Make no mistake.
Gates remains in con
trol of Microsoft, but
Ballmer appears to han
dle the government and
the public in a better
manner.
It is no coincidence
that the announcement
of Steve Ballmer’s promotion to CEIO comes at a crucial point in the fight with the
Department of Justice. Company executives claim this change is simply an evolu
tionary move.
Considering the merger of AOL/Time Warner and the pending antitrust case —
their timing is no less than perfect.
Summer Hicks is a senior English major.
NECEK/Ti
Room |
II or
EDIT
sonit Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the editorials board
, Ijmembers. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Battalion staff
late, members, the Texas A&M student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff.
IColumns, guest columns, cartoons and letters express the opinions of the authors.
MARIUM MOHIUDDIN
ERIC DICKENS
Editor in Chief
Opinion Editor
BEVERLY MIRELES
MEREDITH RIGHT
Managing Editor
Campus Editor
MARIANO CASTILLO
STUART HUTSON
Opinion Editor
Community Editor
next
Setting the Standard
and Bowen follows students' leads by claiming final responsibility '99 Aggie Bonfire
On the morning 1999 Aggie Bonfire col-
’ lapsed, hundreds of students immediately
rushed, pots in hand, to aid their fellow stu
dents. School work and personal issues be
came second priority, driven out by what is
known at Texas A&M as Aggie Spirit.
The statement to resign if the Bonfire
Commission finds the accident was the re
sult of poor supervision by the university
administration is a noble and commendable
Jet. Bowen is continuing the effort of un
selfishness the student body showed the
morning of the tragedy.
By stepping up and claiming responsibility
for everything that happens at A&M, Bowen
is taking the example set by students and
raising the bar. Bowen has recognized that
his position as head administrator carries the
highest degree of responsibility.
In the tragedy’s aftermath, A&M and its
traditions have received much criticism,
which has been constantly rebutted by
those who treasure Aggie traditions. Some
of this criticism has been aimed at the ad
ministration, including Bowen
Bowen’s statement is admirable because
he accepts full responsibility while not falling
into the trap of prematurely deciding whether
it is right or wrong to continue Bonfire.
Since the morning of Nov. 18, no one has called
for Bowen to step down.
His recent announcement to give up his job
based on the commission’s final report echoes the
devotion students showed for one another that day.
As Bowen himself said in The Eagle article, “I have to
set the standard.”
Texas
Schools
part lot 3
Public
schools set
respectable
standards,
but fail to
enforce them
special I SERIES
I
Texas public school system fails
its students by passing them
T he recent Quality Counts 2()()() surv ey,
done as part of an Education Week study,
showed poor grades for the Texas public
school system. Texas received a B+ for stan
dards and accountability, a C for school cli
mate, a C for resources, and a D for improving
teacher quality. In other words, the Texas Public
school system received a C average — a 2.0
grade-point.
The school system’s highest grade was for
standards and accountability. However, a closer
look finds this division dangerously flawed. Stu
dents are certainly being held “accountable” for
their grades, in the context that they receive the
grades they earn, but the standards are not being
enforced.
Texas is cited by the Quality Counts Survey
as having “clear and specific standards” in Eng
lish and Math for high school students, but
Texas schools should spend less time setting
standards and more time enforcing them. In
some cases, students are passing, even graduat
ing, without mastering basic skills.
Students should not be allowed to move on to the next grade lev
el until they have mastered the material in their current grade level.
Allowing unqualified students to graduate is a short-term solution to
a long-term problem.
Standards for science end in middle school, and no grade level
has social studies requirements. The school system still seems to
have serious problems enforcing what few standards it does have.
For example, according to the 1996-1998 National Assessment of
Educational Progress tests, only 28 percent of eighth-grade students
could read at or above an eighth-grade level.
In addition, only 31 percent could write at an eighth-grade level, 23 per
cent had an eighth-grade knowledge of science, and a mere 21 percent passed
the mathematics section. It is doubtful the students would have performed
this poorly if they had properly mastered skills at the previous grade level.
Pop quiz: Do Texas students have to master tenth-grade stan
dards to graduate high school? Answer: No, according to the Quali
ty Counts 2()0() survey.
The heart of the problem with standards and accountability in the
Texas school system lies in the above question and answer. It is
practically impossible to expect high school students to strive to
meet certain standards iftliey arc not required to do so. Few students will
stay home and study if they do not have to.
Not enforcing scholastic standards helps few and liarms many. In 1997,
3.6 percent of high school students dropped out of school. It does
not matter how low scholastic standards are, there will always be
dropouts. Lowering school standards to convince potential dropouts
to stay in school harms those students who truly care about learning.
A high school diploma is worth very little in today’s world with
out a college degree. The diploma’s decreasing worth is undoubtedly
due in part to the lessening amount of work required to receive it.
Not enforcing high school standards hanns college bound stu
dents more than anyone. Thousands of students graduate high school
every year and move on to their freshman year of college with no
idea of how to study or take responsibility for their own actions.
Some learn from their mistakes and go on to succeed. Many others
become discouraged, pack up their “valuable” high school diplomas
and move backlxTrKitowakutlliiig^Kn^^ieradLstistRXKftstscmestcr.
In many cases, this type of situation could have been avoided if students
were forced to study and to take responsibility for their actions while in high
school. Raising and enforcing standards would undoubtedly increase the num
ber of high school dropouts. On the other hand, the students who graduated
would receive a diploma that was actually worth something instead of a
worthless piece of paper.
Raising high school standards is not something that can happen overnight,
but enforcing the standards the Texas school system currently has would be a
giant step in the right direction.
Jessica Crutcher is a sophomore
journalism major