Wednesday, Feint,
OPINION
'fK'day, February 2, 2(KK)
THE BATTALION
Page 13
ne
fhere goes the neighborhood
%ms for a new luxury residence hall not in the University’s best interest
sefflfj
Ult
Is
the
RK (AP) >tpopular
e" novelist k. t on the
s in critical . asA^M
i lire at his - ipu
sutlerd -ytK. n is
h.i\ night istjjtuJciu
oke out ir
'! his l ast
^^■tion
' iteir right ailer New Year
ic ^ UI nof-Q^| arL . ma de. Max Iv it i
d darkh
API-
restv
st (J .unpus librarv' at 2 a.m. in
mitidle of finals. Maybe it is
le Field wtien the Longhorns
ne ti > town. [Despite all this corn
ition. nglit now tlie grassy comer
the [lot next to All Faiths Chapel
, joss from the Beutel Health Cen-
lmu 1 * s |P'-‘finitely in the running,
re at hir Ma n > people have different
-.utTcrtt as for this location’s future, but
night s .sidenee Life is working hard to
out in tk i the spot for a new luxury resi-
s 1 • ice riall. Although the idea of
author - ythii ■ new is always exciting,
been c; cSrent plans for this residence
1 ar». extremely elaborate and
tn CTixa \ relevant to the students' needs.
' Thi. plans for the new residence
il art. similar to the type of struc-
i> reponevit g^urrently used in off-campus
is b-ugat-.'ygfe. residence halls, such as The
1 Jlawav I louse, with four bed-
. ims sharing a kitchen area.
The first question in any
tns nor something new on the
xas \&M campus, and maybe
the biggest problem with this
specific project is, what will it
cost the students?
The University is still paying
for previous residence hall con
struction projects from 1989 and
will continue to pay until approxi
mately 2009.
A&M does not need to spend
more money on an expensive
apartment-style residence hall. So,
the people working on the plans
for the new residence hall are sug
gesting the
expensive on-campus housing.
Because the cost of this resi
dence hall is so lofty, there is also
an unmentioned part of the plan
that is nearly inevitable. It is not
likely that there will be enough
students who agree to pay this out
rageous rent and the price will
have to be lowered to a more rea
sonable cost.
So, what about the dilferenee
that still needs to be paid? Well, to
be blunt, all on-campus students
might have to
uay
hi
it \e
lupcrlf
“toll road
method."
In other
words, get
the students
who are liv
ing in the
residence
hall to pay,
higher fees
prices to pick
up the tab for
its construction, and ideally the
new hall would not be costly to
those living elsewhere. Although
this seems to be a simple plan,
there is a definite catch.
To break even w ith its building
fees, the new residence hall would
cost its residents a hefty' rent. The
price to the prospective residents
would certainly be more than that
of living in one of the modular res-
idence halls — currently the most
Although the idea of
anything new is
always exciting, the
current plans for this
residence hall are
extremely elaborate
and not relevant to the
students' needs.
pay that bill.
The money
could be subsi
dized by a
planned in
crease in the
cost of all on-
campus resi
dence halls.
Although
the cost issue
is important, it
is not the only reason this plan
should not be given the green
light. The elaborate lay out of this
residence hall (which is what
would cause outrageously high
prices) is not necessary’.
Why does a residence hall
need to have a kjtchen , when it
w ill be located across from the
improved Sbisa Dining Hall?
Furthermore, having a kitchen
for the luxury of cooking what
one wants is nice, but for tenants
living in a residence hall not lo
cated extremely close to a park
ing garage or fish lot, getting to
the store for cooking supplies
may not be an easy task.
Finally, because of the apart
ment-style layout of the pro
posed residence hall, it is obvi
ous that it would be exclusively
for tenants who can afford more
extravagant living. Northside is
perceived as being a practical,
no-frills community.
Setting up a high-cost luxury
residence hall would create a stig
ma of have’s and have-not’s.
Why would Texas A&M purpose
ly plague Northside with this fi-
naneial segregation?
Each year many freshmen are
put on waiting lists for on-campus
housing. It is true that a new resi
dence hall would be in the best in
terest for the future of a growing
student body, but there is really no
reason the residence hall could
not follow more simplistic ideals
and run for a much low er price.
The ideas for the private resi
dence hall are not set in stone, but
the project already has an ideal
finish date of 2003. If the plan is
approved, it will not be long be
fore the cement is laid.
Melissa Bedsole is a sophomore
general studies major.
EMILY HARRELL/I m BATTALION
vith hv
-,hotozr:
i as hi!
ipna.
Truth about massacre
obscured by both sides
Texas lawyers forsake charity work
“G
Chris
HLiriTNES
days.
O n Dec. 13, 1937,
after tearing
through half of
China like the prover
bial bull in a shop, the
Imperial Japanese
Army captured the city
of Nanking and began
three months of looting,
rape, torture and mass
murder. The massacre claimed between
32,000 and 369,000 lives, depending on the
agenda of who one talks to.
®In a perfect world, someone would be
wearing a white hat. However, every side in
any discussion of the Nanking Ineident, more
spectacularly known as the Rape of Nanking,
has reached levels of self-delusion matched
perhaps only by the pathologically insane.
The Japanese government has systematically
dov nplayed all Japanese wartime atrocities,
while the Chinese government and people
have supported the highest death toll.
■Perhaps most disturbing, though, is the
insistence of many Japanese right-wingers,
including figures as prominent as Shintaro
Ishihara, governor of Tokyo, that there was
no massacre at
Nanking at all.
Tlie lies on both
sides must stop
before history is
doomed to bear
the repetition of
these crimes.
■The efforts of
the Chinese to
memorialize the
dead of Nanking
(and more impor
tantly for the
Chinese, to blame the Japanese for those
deaths) are being undercut by the insistence
of otherwise reputable scholars on ludicrous
ly high death tolls as high as 369,366. Fig
ures like this are achieved via methods that
car be kindly labeled as “questionable.” A
better description would be “exaggerated,”
“biased" or perhaps “dishonest.”
t':, The Chinese are relying on, and inflating,
the official Allied death toll for Nanking.
The Allies counted 300,000 deaths from
highly suspect sources.
|iFor example, a Dec. 18 mass killing on
the banks of the Yangtze River was tallied by
sun ivor Lu Su at exactly 54,718 people. Su,
a local peasant, reported that the victims
were bound in pairs, marched to the river,
machine-gunned, bayoneted, doused in oil
and then set on fire. Su was hit in the leg and
hid in a cave, which allowed him to gain his
count. The fact that Su could apparently
count that well through a cave wall while in
jured and on the run creates too much doubt
to trust his numbers. Every mass killing is
plagued by similar problems, yet the Allies
anti the Chinese have taken the numbers at
face value.
S', A relief organization, the Tsun-shan-tang,
said it buried 110,000 bodies over a two
itibnth period. In a three-week spurt during
this time, they claimed to have buried
/I PERF-0100 105,000 victims. To perform this feat, they
would have had to increase their daily rate
ds and cap-
:e and
ts. These
ie
i?
The lies on both
sides must stop
before history is
doomed to bear
the repetition of
these crimes.
is,
4,
;es.
from 75 bodies to 5,000 bodies-per-day.
Such improvement is simply not credible.
Yet, the Allies and China just took their
numbers at face value.
But while Nanking was not nearly as bad
as the Chinese claim, it did happen. An
American missionary filmed the massacre of
civilians and smuggled the movie reels out
qf the country. Japanese soldiers routinely
entered the “safe zone” set up by Europeans
under the pretense of looking for Chinese
soldiers and gang-raped and murdered Chi
nese women. Historical records agree that
these rape-murders occurred at least 20,000
times in three months, more than 220 rape-
murders per day.
And while accounts like Lu Su’s are un
reliable as to number, they are utterly reli
able as to existence. Lu Su did survive a
massacre on the banks of the Yangtze. Bod
ies were left in the street to be buried by so
cieties like the Tsun-shan-tang. Women
were raped and then murdered.
And yet at a recent conference at Tokyo’s
Asia University, historians and retired sol
diers did claim there was no massacre at
Nanking. Shudo I ligashinakano, professor
of history at Asia Univer-
— sity, said, “There was no
massacre of civilians at
Nanking.”
To claim there was no
Rape of Nanking is ludi
crous. To claim that more
died than really did is
equally ludicrous.
Many historical revi
sionists seem to feel if
they say it did not exist
loud enough, it might
just go away. Many
Japanese feel it would be a loss efface to ad
mit their ancestors committed such atroci
ties. Fost-war historical revisionism has en
sured that students grow up in the Japanese
public schools ignorant of the existence of
this atrocity.
However, many Japanese feel it would be
better to own up to the past and learn from
their mistakes.
More puzzling is the behavior of the Chi
nese, who insist on inflating the casualty fig
ures. It is commonly accepted that their mo
tive for the inflation is so that Nanking will
have a higher death toll than the nuclear at
tacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chi
nese do not seem to understand that no one
cares whose atrocity is bigger. There is no
prestige in having been screwed over worse
by a victorious invader.
And while the Chinese are using exag
geration to further a political end, the Japan
ese revisionists are using outright lies to
make themselves feel better about the dirty
laundry from their country’s past.
Each side must stop the agendas, stop the
lies and stop the revisionist politics. Other
wise, the continued atrocities that should
have been prevented will bring tlie death toll
higher and higher.
your
tired, your poor,
your huddled
masses yearning
to breathe free.”
These words,
etched into the
base of the Stat
ue of Liberty, have come to em
body the American spirit of free
dom and equality under the eyes of
the law. Unfortunately, for many
disadvantaged Americans the na
tion’s second-most famous female
statue, Lady Justice, might as well
have words etched into its base as
well. “The tired, the poor, the hud
dled masses should seek justice
elsewhere.”
For millions of Americans, in
cluding many Texans, the use of
state and federal court systems is
far too expensive a prospect to
contemplate seriously. In today’s
society, justice has too high a
price for a large number of this
nation’s citizens.
Although Americans are entitled
to court-appointed legal representa
tion in criminal cases, they are on
their own when it comes to finding
legal advice or representation in
civil matters. The necessary proce
dures of transferring property, mak
ing a will or getting social security
benefits are impossible to carry out
for the large number of economi
cally-disadvantaged Americans
who cannot afford the services of a
legal firm.
And even though nearly one out
of every five Texans lives in pover
ty, the Lone Star State ranks a piti
ful 48th in providing legal assis
tance to the
poor. The vast
majority of
Texas lawyers
come nowhere
near meeting
the American
Bar Associa
tion’s recom
mended annual
amount of pro
bono work —
50 hours or one
hour a week.
In fact, ac
cording to the Texas State Bar, four
out of five Texas attorneys report
absolutely no pro bono work at all.
Many of those who did report pro
bono work cited time served on
community arts boards or FTA
work, neither of which actually
helped the indigent citizens of (his
state receive the legal assistance
they need.
In 1994, a class action suit filed
by South Texas farm workers ar
gued that, in exchange for their ex
clusive license to practice law,
Texas lawyers should comply with
By perpetuating a
system where only
those with money
can seek justice,
the principle of
justice itself is
being undermined.
the moral, ethical and professional
duty of providing pro bono ser
vice. The workers asserted that it is
part of the legal profession’s re
sponsibility to ensure that all of
America’s citizens are adequately
represented in court.
In response to the class action
suit, the Texas
Supreme
Court held a
brief hearing
on the need for
legal services
for low-in-
come Texans
Thursday. Al
though they
failed to come
up with a solu
tion to the
pressing short
age of pro
bono work, perhaps the hearing
will remind the lawyers, judges
and lawmakers of Texas that some
thing needs to be done.
Can Texas lawyers be made to
do pro bono work? Can the state
reasonably ask its lawyers to aban
don their wealthy clients, lower
their incomes and do legal work
without getting paid for it?
The answer, of course, is no.
The state cannot ask lawyers to do
that anymore than it can ask restau
rant owners to donate dishes to lo
cal food shelters. The initiative to
help the poor must come from with
in, it cannot be forced upon the in
dividual by an outside force.
That being said, the lawyers of
Texas should be ashamed of their
failure to do anything to help allevi
ate the problem of legal underrepre
sentation of'the poor. By perpetuat
ing a system where only those with
money can seek justice, the princi
ple of justice itself is being under
mined.
As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote,
law is “nothing else than an ordi
nance of reason for the common
good.” The common good cannot
be served by a legal system which
excludes the poverty-stricken por
tion of its population.
The true goal of the legal es
tablishment should be to champi
on the rights of the downtrodden,
not merely to defend the rights of
those who can best line their
pocketbooks.
To be sure, lawyers have the
right to earn money, but they have
an additional responsibility as citi
zens to protect the founding princi
ples of this nation. In the end, the
bottom line should be justice and
civil rights, not the almighty dollar.
The mere concept of “Equality
Under Law" does no good for those
who cannot pay to get into the
courtroom.
Nicholas Roznovsky is a junior
political science major.
Chris Hufjlnes is a senior speech
communication major.
‘White trash’ column
draws criticism
In response to Ann Hart’s Feb. 1 column.
The Battalion’s Opinion page has
sunk to a new low of ignorance and con
tradiction. As an “offended citizen” and
at the urging of Ann Flart, this writer will
not take the Battalion’s racist “affronts
lying down.”
After reading Hart’s column, one
draws the conclusion that she believes
speech that is deemed offensive on the
grounds of racism should be banned.
However, if one follows Hart’s rationale,
then The Battalion should be banned for
its “inflammatory rhetoric.”
Hart’s editors completely contradict
her opinion with the headline, “White
trash on the highway.” The definition of
white trash according to Webster’s Dic
tionary: “White Trash — slang, (dis
paraging and offensive), a member of
the class of poor whites, esp. in the
southern U.S.”
The use of the racial slur is not jus
tified in print because it pertains to a
group of ignorant activists who happen
to be white.
Hart then goes on to contradict her
self saying, “The prospect of [the Klan]
slipping into obscurity terrifies them, so
they do whatever it takes to stay in the
limelight.” Why not let them slip into ob
scurity instead of dedicating six
columns, 400 - 700 words and a graph-
MAIL CALL
ic to this topic?
Finally, as if writing racial slurs
across the top of the page in large let
ters isn’t tacky enough, the column
runs on the first day of Black History
Month.
Perhaps instead of making readers
aware of the evils of the Klan in Mis
souri, a better topic might have been
the achievements made at Texas A&M
University by Black students and what
still needs to be accomplished.
Joe Schumacher
Class of ’99
In response to Heather CorbelTs Jan. 31
Bush’s religion alone
not a reason for support
column.
It disturbs me to read an editorial
that implies we should vote for some
one solely because he appears to be a
“model Christian.” Just because
George W. Bush appeared at a church
after the Bonfire tragedy (read — an
other politician’s phony media tactic), I
should vote for him?
Let’s wake up and realize that politi
cians know all the tricks to fool the vot
ers, but more importantly that our fu
ture president’s choice of religion is
immaterial. One is not hired for an oc
cupation because he is a moral Chris
tian; he is hired because he can do the
job properly, regardless of his person
al life.
The main issue that concerns me,
and hopefully the rest of the campus,
is that our economy continues to flour
ish, leaving an ample amount of job
openings in the near future.
I never planned to spend six years
earning two degrees at A&M so I could
work at McDonald’s when ultimately
complete my education. Think about
this situation, and choose your votes
wisely.
Thomas Lee Stone
Class of ‘00
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. 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 Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may
also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mall Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111
Fax: (409) 84S2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmall.com