OPINION
... .. . ^ ^ ^ .
Hti
wrsday, February 10,
2(XX)
THE BATTALION
Page 13
1
andoned kids
enied rights
nder stature
ears ago, there was a cute film
made about three men who woke
up one morning to find an adorable
aby girl on their doorstep. The biggest
roblems facing the men was their inabili-
|y to change a diaper or know when she
ceded to eat. Viewers watched in delight,
nd it never crossed their minds that a hor-
ible crime had just been committed
gainst this little girl. Baby abandonment
r rebe
ijured
:crea$i
Is in the A
ree Russii
> e a tougher
lit-and-nm t
nand said that some$1
zny. though it claimsiLl
control of thecilj
and artillery conic
h.;it
night, with (Kvasio®
Black plumes offlnfllp
n
ister Sereei
said that
civilians v«i
Grozny, ami
nd
of them need
ical aid hr
n
gave a mud
estimate,
20,000 to
s not a hot topic on die big screen these days, but rather, is
lore likely to be found on CNN talk shows.
Most people are in agreement that abandoning a new born (or
hild of any age) is a hateful crime, but there are a great deal of
uestions about the punishments and the rights the mother who
bandons her child deserves.
Many times the mothers are young, unmarried women who
lore afraid to have an abortion or go through the legalities of an
adoption. But regardless of the reasoning behind this outrageous
decision, it is w rong. The fear of an abortion (or any situation
that leads to abandonment) is nothing compared to the fear that a
newborn must feel after being left alone in a Dumpster to die.
The motherly rights for such despicable women should not
[even be in question. These women do not deserve any further
Irights to their children, because their motherhood ends with ge
netics. A true mother loves and cares for her child. A woman
who gives birth to a baby and abandons it on a street comer or in
a Dumpster deserves to be punished.
Currently in Georgia, there are disputes over the "Dumpster
Baby Statute" (yep, that is really the name of it) that permits a
woman who abandons her baby a period of 90 days to come
back and reclaim the child. This is a complete injustice to an in
nocent child. The opposition to this statute is attempting to re
duce the time period from 90 days to 30 days. Although this is
The motherly tights for such
despicable women should not
even be in question. Their
motherhoods ends with genetics.
jeyev
"lister
civilians reml'
the city, Intel
ported.
Meamvliii
Russian fonsi
delivered fol
construction®
generators to theUnis-1
to Chechnya, themiliuj
I'AR-Tass.
Igor Sergeyev toldrefj
nilitary would soonstJI
southern mountains,lt|
; saying that “altettfej
in Grozny, the troops»|
ervice their weaponsij
increase their efforts iti|
ins.”
n in Chechnya began!
militants from Chccla
l republic of Dagestan!
Chechens tore throiil
n Russia.
obviously a step in the right direction, it is not at all enough.
For a baby left in a Dumpster to die, there is no second
chance, unless a miracle rescue occurs. The mothers of these ba
bies already made the immoral decision to abandon them, so
why should they deserve to get another chance to ruin their chil
dren's lives?
Another problem w ith baby abandonment is that there are
currently no steadfast laws against abandonment in places
not deemed life-endangering. In other w ords, if the mother
does not actually murder the child, she has not broken any
specific law and therefore, does not receive a specific punish
ment for her crime.
This is a plain and simple issue of responsibility. Pregnancy
is a responsibility as is being a woman who must deal with the
possibility of a life inside her. Abortions are legal. Adoptions are
legal. Abandonment needs to be recognized as a crime.
Unplanned pregnancies have raised questions for many years
now, but recently there have been many efforts toward better so
lutions in the best interest of each individual woman.
“Project Cuddle” is an organization working across the na
tion spreading alternatives to baby abandonment. The organiza
tion focuses on trying to catch the young mothers before they
actually abandon their children. A task force in Houston is at
tempting to combat baby abandonment by putting up billboards
bluntly ordering “Don’t Abandon Your Baby.”
Such alternatives, like the debates for the "Dumpster Baby
Statute,” are headed in a positive direction, but that is not
enough right now. There needs to be some laws put into action
about this issue. A punishment must be set in stone for abandon
ment of a child, and maybe, just one of these mothers would be
less likely to turn to child abandonment as an easy solution.
Three Men and a Baby had a PG way of portraying this
R-rated crime. Aside from this fairy tale story, for most chil
dren abandoned by their mothers life usually does not work
out so easily. And until there are some enforced laws about
this immoral solution to a pregnancy, there will be no happily
ever afters.
Melissa Beds
Senior resident discount
Upperdassmen living in residence halls reap on-campus benefits
A t the begin
ning of the
fall semester,
upperclassmen who
live on campus may
be victim to a com
ment of this nature:
“So, are you a resi
dent advisor yet?”
It is fairly standard
for first- and second-year students to expe
rience dorm life; however, after one year of
on-campus living, or certainly after two,
they will be expected to go crazy and move
into housing which allows the burning of
candles, toasting of bread and refrigerators
that tit whole gallons of milk. Unfortunate
ly, upperdassmen who remain on campus
invite an unwanted stereotype, including
everything from their sanity to their ques
tionable style.
On-campus juniors and seniors get
teased about their housing choice. They are
labeled as nerds or losers unable or unwill
ing to try the “real,” oft'-campus world.
They are often thought of as less social or
less familiar with the community than off-
campus students. The negative image
stems from the restrictions of dorm life.
People wonder what is wrong with an up
perclassman who w illingly stays in such an
environment. The restrictions, however,
only seem to bother people who live oft'-
campus. On-campus students simply adapt
to the conditions and enjoy the benefits of
the residence halls.
Upperclassmen who remain on campus
are making a sound decision. Their hous
ing is cheap, safe, convenient and well-
equipped. For a fiat rate, they get high
speed Internet access, cable television,
unlimited water and electricity and trash
pick-up. Besides that, a nice lady comes to
clean the bathroom once a week even if the
only mess was a misplaced shampoo bot
tle. It sounds like a great deal. Why is there
such a stigma attached to remaining on
campus?
Residence halls also offer complete ser
vices. Security is always enforced and resi
dent advisors are available to help. If a
window breaks in the middle of the night,
it is usually replaced immediately. If the
shower is not draining correctly, mainte
nance cleans it out. Few landlords oft'er
such expedient problem-solving.
One of the biggest draws to donn living
is the lack of paperwork involved. Rent,
which includes water,
electricity, sewage, trash
and central heat and air, is
paid along with tuition
and fees at the beginning
of each semester. The
concentration of expenses
is easier for parents and
students.
Yes, there are obvious
drawbacks to living on
campus. The biggest is
sue is personal space,
since private rooms are
limited and expensive.
There is also the ever-pre
sent on-campus parking
dilemma. Should a dorm
resident park in ‘Fish
Lot,’ where their car will
be covered with corrosive
bird droppings, or ‘Sand
Lot,’ where either the
weekly deluge or the dai
ly train will hide the vehi
cle forever underneath a
thick crust of hard-baked
dirt? Parking is a night
mare. Living on campus
inevitably leads to eating
on campus, which is an
other issue all together.
There are loopholes
for all of these problems.
Roommates may find a
significant other, and then
one will never see him or
her anyway. Further, if
one waits a couple of
years, someone is bound
to graduate and leave
them a spot in the parking
garage. The food problem
can be solved in three
words: The Northgate Freebird’s. These so
lutions arise as upperclassmen give on-
campus housing a chance.
Problems also work themselves out as
knowledge about resources grows. In
short, the longer one tries and learns, the
better things turn out. After a few semes
ters, a suitable roommate can usually be
found. The tricks of where to park and
when and how much to try and get away
with are learned in time. On-campus stu
dents discover every halfway decent mi
crowave recipe and invent some of their
own. They find many types of space-sav
ing furniture (and invent some of their
own). All of this useful knowledge makes
the drawbacks of living on campus fade.
By the time the third year rolls around, up
perclassmen are on-campus professionals
who only see the benefits of their housing.
An old adage says: “Character is nur
tured midst the tempests of the world.” If
the Northside dining situation is any indi
cation of what on-campus tempests are
like, then campus upperclassmen should
possess enough character to see them
through any stonn. They are not hermits,
losers or lunatics. They are experts and in
ventors — highly creative people because
of their experiences. They are also right in
the middle of everything happening at
Texas A&M.
Instead of being ridiculed or stigma
tized, they should be understood for their
knowledge and creativity. In tact, an oft'
campus student will be glad to snag one of
them the next time w hen looking for Fer-
mier Hall or a gourmet meal that can be on
the table in 45 seconds.
Heather Corbel! is a junior
English major.
MAIL CALL
THKT Does
WEComne
tn/cx:
DO^DOUtATlYoUt?
HANDS ARE THE ONLY
TWMSS GctfE HASN'T
HURT!
Proposed memorial
motives questioned
In response to Stuart Hutson's Feb. 9
article.
The proposed memorial to the 27
students killed or injured in the con
struction of Bonfire should only be
about remembering those students. I
have a serious problem with those who
choose this moment, this memorial, to
advance their personal agendas. All ef
forts to use the memorial to promote
or proselytize “the message” should
be avoided with all due diligence.
Wilber A. “Tex” Williams proposes
a memorial to the “bigger question,”
that the collapse of the bonfire repre
sents the collapse of the “south” and
an “adherence to the past”. That the
collapse signals an end to “barriers"
and a “lack of unity and diversity," and
that Bonfire and Texas A&M “cannot
continue to go on the way it was built
in either spirit or structure.” Tex reveals
his agenda by stating “The way it used
to be built was, in some ways, symbolic
of the old South’s attitudes and per
ceptions.” I believe differently.
I believe the Bonfire is about en
deavoring to do that which is hard and
difficult and choosing to do so when no
others do. It is about taking personal
responsibility and embracing the re
sults of one’s decisions and actions.
The Bonfire is about honor, integrity,
and steadfast fellowship. The Bonfire
is the physical manifestation of the Ag
gie Spirit, a belief that we, the Aggies,
are the best, the strongest, and the
brightest hope of the defense of our
nation and what it stands for. The Bon
fire represents the burning desire in
our hearts to continue these traditions
and binds us in our determination. It
is not by accident that the best and the
brightest that this University has to of
fer are involved in Bonfire, or that this
memorial will be raised to remember
them. This message is a simple and
powerful one.
The memorial should also be this
simple and powerful.
Earle G. Stone
Graduate Student
i gcat public students should be wary of Wilson’s plan to lift lawsuit cap
T:
when you run
what you'
‘ally work and|
□ sell, have a
king to fill a
nything less
845-0569.
ION
ui "t was a University-sponsored event, and
that’s good enough for me.” With those
words, Aggieland was once again kicked
Bvhile it was down. Repre-
j; sentative Ron Wilson, D-
; Houston, has proposed a
bill that will lift the cap on
lamages awarded against
exasA&M in any lawsuits
elating to Aggie Bonfire,
ilson believes that lifting
uch a cap would aid stu
dents whose medical bills
lave become very large due to their injuries. Un
fortunately, this law would not only hurt the Uni
versity, it would also be unnecessary and perhaps
unconstitutional.
The bill inappropriately places blame on the
iniversity, and could diminish the ability of the
Iniversity to educate students. The biggest prob
lem with this bill is that it places blame on the
Iniversity in a factual vacuum. The Special
Commission on the 1999 Aggie Bonfire Collapse
/ill not release its findings until at least March,
trobably later. Until its report, any attempt to
speculate as to the cause of the collapse will be
just that: speculation. Not that this is hindering
Wilson. His comments to The Battalion clearly
show he has already made up his mind as to the
University’s liability.
In a Jan. 21 article in The Battalion, Wilson
said that the University is responsible for the
bonfire accident whether or not the investigation
finds instances of negligence. “The University
shouldn’t hide behind [the Sovereign Immunity
doctrine].”
He also said the state should provide some
economic compensation for the tragedy.
The doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty”
must be a great hindrance to Wilson’s political
ambitions.
The release of this bill, prior to there being
any facts, unfairly casts blame on the University.
The public must wonder what Wilson knows, as
a consequence of his position, that they do not.
Wilson, who has been in the Texas House for 22
years, knows political opportunity, and like every
shark in the water, he can smell blood.
Wilson is known for promoting legislation
which curiously coincides with current hot topics
in the media. In the wake of the Mary Kay Le-
toumeau incident, where Letourneau slept with
her student, Wilson introduced a series of sexual
misconduct bills aimed at the public schools, in
cluding HB 941, where a school district is held li
able if the sexual misconduct of a teacher leads to
The release of this bill,
prior to there being any
facts, unfairly casts
blame on the University.
the injury or death of a student. Last February, a
month or so after George W. Bush’s fonner drug
use was in the news, Wilson introduced HB
1440, which would have required drug testing for
all candidates or appointees to elective office.
In addition to the reputational damage to the
University, any lifting of the damages cap could
hurt the ability of the University to provide quali
ty education to its students. The state subsidizes
Texas A&M for the specific purpose of providing
education. If the University loses millions in
punitive damages, it will not be able to oft'er edu
cation in areas that only Texas A&M offers. The -
state’s interest in providing quality education
mandates a damage cap. The ability of the vic
tims to recover damages is outweighed by the
state’s interest in education. If this cap were re
moved, it would set a precedent where oppor
tunists will sue the state for a variety of punitive
damages, hoping to cash in on the deep pockets
of Texas.
In addition to being harmful to the University,
this law is also unnecessary. First, despite an al
most three-month span between the collapse of
Bonfire and today, there have been no lawsuits
filed, and there is no sign any will be. Of course,
many possible litigants may have declined to fol
low Wilson’s example and jump the gun, but so
far the families of the 12 dead and most, if not all,
of the less-seriously injured students have ex
pressed concern about the future of bonfire, not
anger at what the University may or may not
have done.
In addition, the Bonfire Relief Fund, from its
first major fund raiser, has already raised in ex
cess of $400,000. After further money comes in,
especially once the state-wide collection efforts
begin, any concern for medical expenses may
have been taken care of because Aggies helped
Aggies, not because Wilson blamed Aggies. If
OldAgswill pay $100 for abrick outside the
Student Recreation Center, they will pay to help
fellow Aggies.
Finally, this law may be unconstitutional, sim
ply because it is retroactive. While by definition a
lawsuit is retroactive, a statute law very rarely ad
dresses issues that came before it, simply because
it is very difficult to know to avoid doing some
thing illegal prior to it becoming illegal.
Wilson’s proposed law is not only dangerous
to the University and the education it is charged
to provide, it is also ineffective and even perhaps
unconstitutional. Wilson will be in Congress for a
while yet, but his law should never be allowed to
leave Austin.
Chris Huffines is a senior speech
communication major.