OPINION
'ednesday, February 9, 2(KK)
THE BATTALION
Page 11
PROMOTING
HATE
AND FREE
SPEECH
Northwestern officials’
restriction of racist
Matt Hale blurs line of
First Amendment rights
’5
10 0
>3
20.0
’9
13 5
>7
14.5
>3
8 0
16
11.0
1
8.0
8
13.0
5
9 5
4
12.0
0
7.0
FF- Fora
ivefies
egate
xessive presidentii
for a disappointinr
slock of his lagging
ozen of the 2,066 do
ut Bush and McCaii
It headed into SouthCr
I another
;ntum.
three candidates, c«
iie ballot, thoughhii
icr. u ho dropped wi
isted.
ish did best among'!
Jerly, conservatives
le presidency
to be affluent, welkd;
dependents and moi:
king for a candidate
ieves
1 fora flat tax since his 1*1
i \ oters who listedtasi
oes freedom of expression
mean freedom to promote ha
tred? That is the question
supremacist and self-proclaimed
leverend Matt I lale is causing North-
kestem University to seriously consider.
Hale, who admits to being racist
tnd anti-Semitic, recently visited the
tampus to proclaim his message to
he students and spread literature
fom his World Church of the Creator. His goal is to have
Northwestern officially recognize a student group of his
hapter. Northwestern officials are hesitant to allow Hale
[o speak on campus, or even to allow students to form the
fii|H organization, reasoning that, since it is a private university,
they have a right to regulate what will be recognized.
But in creating student organizations funded by student
activity fees Northwestern has created a public forum for
all students to express themselves, no matter how hateful
their beliefs. As long as the students are not directly threat
ening the physical welfare of themselves or others, it is
wrong to forbid them from forming an organization. First,
the ban narrowly avoids a violation of First Amendment
rights. It opens up the possibility for future breeches of
freedom of speech at other universities. Also, such a ban
shows a complete lack of respect for the students' abilities
to think for themselves.
Undeniably, a private university has a right to restrict
certain people from coming to campus. The question is
whether school officials should restrict a speaker’s right to
speak simply because that person offends the officials.
,., M Alan Cubbage. vice president for university affairs at
0-.S, amiN or th W estem, said “It troubles me that Hale is using
Northwestern as a launching pad for his garbage.”
Cubbage's comment is just as intolerant as the beliefs
expressed by Hale, and unacceptable as a reason to keep
Hale from speaking on campus or forming a student orga-
(nization. Cubbage certainly has a right to express his per
sonal views, but he should not use them as a basis for
making decisions which will affect the en
tire student body.
Most universities, including Northwestern,
add a student activity fee to tuition costs. This
charge helps finance “university recognized” stu
dent organizations. The general understanding is
that if students wish to form an organization, they
can. It is unreasonable for Northwestern officials
to charge students “activity fees,” and then not allow
them to utilize those fees to suit their own interests.
In addition, banning a set of beliefs from any
campus sets dangerous precedents for other
schools who will face similar challenges in the fu
ture. Many other universities, private or public
will inevitably decide to follow in Northwestern’s
steps. But university officials will not stop at cen
soring racists. If Northwestern is allowed to cen
sor Hale, it will open the door for college officials
everywhere to censor any beliefs they dislike on
that particular campus.
Also, withholding the students’ right to listen
to 1 lale shows a disturbing lack of respect for the
students' ability to logically think for themselves.
College is a place of higher learning — a time
w hen students learn to formulate their own opin
ions of the world, by taking into account many
different beliefs.
College students are adults capable of mak
ing their own decisions, not easily-swayed ju
nior high students who need to be protected
from controversial ideas. In addition, the con
trariness of human nature often makes ideas
seem more exciting when it is censored. In
denying Hale the right to speak and denying
students the right to form an organization. Northwestern
may be causing fascination w ith a set of beliefs that
would probably otherwise be ignored.
Hale may be a racist. He may be anti-Semitic. He may
be offensive to 99 percent of the people at Northwestern.
But there is still that 1 percent that cannot and should not
be silenced.
The First Amendment was not written to protect majori
ty views — the majority is quite capable of protecting it
self. Universities ideally are forums where everyone can
RUBEN DELUNA/Thk Battalion
i,
express w'hat they believe in. Northwestern should think
long and hard about the consequences before departing
from this tradition.
Jessica Crutcher is a sophomore journalism major.
fAiteUcbvict,
fouryears .tsvamiV
i Dole, theevOTstoM
gineers
>th
i. - General Meen' :
tco)
Masculinity in media a trap,
issues exclusively for profit
M
^ CRACK program
- detrimental
I HAVE
SOOK.
In response to Eric Dickens' Feb. 8
column.
I must agree with Eric Dickens in
his opinion on the CRACK program.
What kind of message are we send
ing as a society? What happened to
rewarding responsible individuals
who work hard, and benefit society,
not rely on her?
These unfortunate individuals do
need society’s help, but paying them
to go on birth control only validates
their lifestyle. Addicts are irrespon
sible in all aspects of life including
sexually. Birth control then is proba
bly in the best interest of that indi
vidual, and should be provided for
free. Giving them a cash payout
though is totally counterproduc
tive. That is like saying, “ Here is
$200 to feed your habit, just don’t
get pregnant.”
Is that the kind of message that
the kids who grow up in neighbor
hoods with junkies should get? What
happened to awarding hard working
responsible people? Shouldn’t they
get $200 for not being on drugs?
With the clouded messages we send
our youth it is no wonder they are
such a troubled generation. While
reaching out to addicts is greatly
beneficial both to the addict and so
ciety, one must do it with social re
sponsibility, and send the right mes
sage. “We want to help you, but we
don’t approve of illegal drugs and
what you are doing."
The Crack program should pro
vide birth control to the addicts free
of charge, but give the cash to the
kids of these troubled neighborhoods
MAIL CALL
tq go to college.
That would be sending the right
message that responsibility and
hard work is rewarded.
Joseph Kuebker
Class of ’02
Students support
Queer Aggies
In response to Dana Jamus’ Feb. 8
article.
I would like to thank you for post
ing the unbiased article, “Group to
address issues.”
I think it is a good sign for our
campus newspaper to have ad
dressed the issue so eloquently. I
would like to clarify, though, that
there is no law prohibiting TAMU
from including Sexual Orientation in
the nondiscrimination clause, as
was implied in the article. Bowen cit
ed “legal liability” as his reason; this
does not translate into a state law.
Regardless of what his personal
beliefs are, I would like to reiterate
what John Hall said about GLBT
equality. Every human deserves
equal rights under the law just as the
civil rights movement of the past pro
claimed!
Jason Patton
Class of ’02
accompanied by 11 signatures
As the student who brought the
issue of including sexual orientation
in the University’s nondiscrimination
policy to the forefront, I would like to
respond to the article on the group
Queer Aggies. Although I am not a
member of that group or GLBTA, I
wholeheartedly support their efforts
on obtaining “equal rights” for mem
bers of the GLBT community.
Subsequently I must point out two
errors in the article:
Amy Hinze is quoted as saying,
“GLBTs could be expelled from A&M
due to their sexual orientation.”
This quote is misleading based on
the fact that there is a deeper issue
here.
It is very unlikely that a student
would be expelled from A&M due to
their sexual orientation.
Because there is nothing about
this issue in University policy (i.e. Uni
versity Rules or Student Rules), it is
possible for expulsion based on sex
ual orientation, but in all likelihood
would never occur.
Also, the article mentions that.
Bowen cited Texas law as a reason for
denying the inclusion of sexual orien
tation in university policy.
First, Bowen never stated anything
other than “legal liability” as a reason
for his disapproval of the measure.
Most importantly, there is no state
or federal law prohibiting the protec
tion of GLBT individuals from dis
crimination.
While the university once included
sexual orientation in its policy in re
gards to students, I hope that any in
dividual or organization can help aid
in the effort to include sexual orien
tation in the nondiscrimination policy
once again.
With no firm legal issue preventing
the inclusion, it is imperative that our
university act in favor of this issue.
David Kessler
Class of '99
en,
break
.out
the beer and
pretzels; testos
terone is mak
ing a come
back. After
much hype in
recent years
about women’s issues, the cultural
focus on females appears to be
fading. The media are working to
create male-centered contexts —
on television, in film and in print.
In this emerging era of post-femi
nism, men are the new hot topic.
Men should certainly be given
the opportunity to have their day
in the sun, or more appropriately,
in the media’s spotlight. However,
they should think thoroughly
about the realities of that spot
light. Fooled into thinking
their voices are finally be
ing heard, men are tee
tering on the edge of a
trap. Truthfully, men’s
issues are not even
men’s to begin with,
hut the media’s —
and those issues are
giving men a bad name.
Here is how the me
dia’s trap works: they
manufacture an issue
they think people
should he interest
ed in and people,
being ultimately
self-centered, buy
into it thinking it
was their idea in
the first place.
Tricky, is it not?
Men’s interests have
become the media’s
latest playground. For
example, judging by
what has recently emerged
in male-focused culture, men’s in
terests can be summed up in two
words: beer and women. Men also
have been known to like women
and beer. And do not forget the
greatest combination ever —
women with beer.
Come on, men — the media
must be stopped from continuing
to degrade the very concept of
maleness. Even women know'
there is much more to a man’s life
than beer and women, though
every man has been know'll to ap
preciate both at some time. Life
will always imitate art, and the
media will continue to create truth, if
no one is brave enough to stop them.
Sadly, many men have already
bought into the media’s “male” is
sues. Look at what has happened
so far: males aged 12 to 24 every
where can be found singing along
with Adam Carol la and Jimmy
Kimmel; “Grab a beer and drop
your pants / Send the wife and
kids to France / It’s "The Man
Show!’ / Quit your job and light a
fart / Grab your favorite private
part / It’s ‘The Man Show!”’ So
this is what men have been wait
ing for — songs about matters best
left out of public conversation. If
that is not enough, men can surf
over to “The Man Show”
RUBEN DELUNA/Thk Baitalion
Website; a place “where men can
be men, a haven for long-suffering
testicles.” Perhaps this appeals to
men’s baser natures, but surely it
cannot be how they originally in
tended to be perceived.
No matter to the media, though.
They are more than happy to
oblige men’s newfound interest in,
well, themselves. If men want to
see more “manly” shows and arti
cles, the media will soon come
through with plenty of them. The
media have long been flirting w'ith
women (and their wallets), and the
thrill of the chase has begun to
fade. Transferring the same equa
tion to men is simple: more arti
cles about men plus more shows
about men equals more money
from men. Males ages 12 to 24
spent $278 billion last year. Think
the media have any qualms about
catering to men’s whims as long as
they are pocketing the profits?
Women, though certainly sad to
see men getting sucked into the
same traps they have experienced,
might also be the tiniest bit glad
about the media’s waxing interest in
men. Perhaps women will finally
get a break from the constant pres
sure of America’s beauty myth.
Having w'aged a long battle with
media versions of perfection,
women are constantly in the process
of remaking themselves. Under the
influence of magazine editors and
television actresses, women
have worn high heels,
bought beauty products,
accessorized, gone on di
ets and cut, highlighted
and teased their hair
into every latest style.
It has been a losing
battle. No average
female can compete with
the airbrushed appearances
of celebrities on glossy
pages or the ultra-thin
women on prime-time
television. Just by flip
ping through any of the
“beauty” magazines out
there, one can clearly see
the unrealistic expectations
that women often feel pres
sured to meet. Men, in fact, often
joke about those very magazines,
scoffing at the life-changing advice
their covers claim to provide.
Ironically, over the past decade
52 magazines targeting the young
American male have come into exis
tence. Remember that commercial
with the middle-aged guy who asks
the viewer if his pants make him
look fat and laments the size of his
thighs? Its original intent may have
been to parody female self-image,
but now it looks like a foreshadow
ing of the male future.
As one guy said to a group of
women after flipping through the
latest issue of Glamour: “This is
why y’all are so messed up.” Exact
ly. Guess who’s next?
Melissa Johnston is a senior
English major.