Monday, March 6,S
men’s
hosts
mey
50N LINCOLN
e Battalion
&M University woraai'i
)en its spring seasonal)
is season,
fending the Aggies'h®
ost tournament, the Gil
itational, the toumame
at Pine Forest Count
i.
different not defend:.
A&M women's jol
iherland said, “butit’ssf
i your own toumameni
noved the site of the 211
'ine Forest to attract ate
and to play on a morel
laims that by moving tie
ne Forest the Aggies
that is in “perfectcote
ling half a dozen sir®
ig the tournament a UJt
: young Aggies,
ent is named aftertheb
.vho holds the lowromi
ggie women.
1 will host a 16-team fell
i. 22 University of OH
diversity of Nebraska rt
ament champion No.
ssouri. Baylor Universal
versity, the University <
isas State University roc*
ippearanceatthemeet
will play withouttwoo!
>rers. No. 42 Anna Jon
re, is out with a back in
jmore McKenzie Dyslit
y.
Taking protests by the horns
UT decisions go against university's liberal tradition
OPINION
THE BATTALION
Page 9
c
ollege cam
puses have
been consid
ered bastions of tree
speech. The University
of Texas-Austin has
been one of the foremost
places that have taken advantage of
First Amendment, often to the an
noyance of tide Texas A&M communi
ty. Recent events on the campus may
suggest, however, that times are a-
changing.
It appears at first blush that mem
bers of the administration and student
body are more interested in keeping the
rest of the university community quiet
than in letting them engage in any sort of
political debate. If this is indeed the case, UT is
doing more than turning its back on a tradition of polit
ical activism. It is also helping to set a precedent that
will limit the rights of students on other campuses.
Last month, former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger was scheduled to give a speech on the
UT campus. After several campus organizations
threatened to protest Kissinger’s appearance.
University President Larry Faulkner and
Kissinger decided to cancel the appearance, cit
ing fears that the protest would be of “suffi
cient magnitude to pose a threat to public
safety.” But this would not be the first
time that protests have been avoided at
the liberal Austin school.
In 1984, another appearance on the UT cam
pus led to die arrests of four dozen students, yet
no violent acts were committed. The idea that
Longhorns would bum down the campus — or worse,
disrupt traffic on Interstate 35 — over an appearance by a
man who has not been Secretary of
State in a quarter century, seems far
fetched at best. A protest could,
however, generate negative publici
ty for the school, which may have
led President Faulkner to vow the
installation of “new and appropriate
steps” to stop possible future
protests. Maybe Faulkner should in
vest in a good lawyer because such
steps may well violate the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
If members of the student body feel the tremendous
urge to protest President Nixon’s policies in Vietnam
and American involvement in East Timor in 1976, they
do have the right to assemble and speak their minds. It
is perfectly justified for Faulkner — or anyone, for that
matter — to tell these students to get a life and worry
about something that affects their lives now. It is not
justified, however, to take away their avenue to express
their opinions.
People who do not think along the lines of conven
tional wisdom at UT seem to find themselves discrim
inated against. The university is certainly taking a
180-degree turn from its history of tolerance and in
clusion. This disease even penetrated the esteemed
ranks of The Daily Texan, which finds members of its
staff accused of political bigotry.
This past summer, a writer at The Texan was fired
after a dispute with the editor-in-chief. The writer, a
self-proclaimed conservative, said that political dis
agreements caused the editorial staff to remove sever
al of his columns. One of the columns that did run
criticized the management of the UT radio station,
KVRX. In the article, the writer criticized Faulkner
for his involvement in the issue. Shortly thereafter,
the writer found himself without a job.
The Texan should be ashamed of itself. A news
paper is obligated, by design, to report the facts to
its readership. The facts may include information
some people find distasteful but should be run
nonetheless. The editorial staff of The Texan ac
cused The Battalion, in print, of lacking journalistic
integrity for not reporting allegations of sexual ha
rassment in the Corps of Cadets. The incidents that
The Texan referred to happened in March, and in
vestigations by UPD and the Corps itself found the
allegations to be lacking in truth. In spite of that,
The Texan pulled out its soapbox and lectured its
Aggie counterpart on how to do its job. If the staff
of The Texan condemned other publications for ethi
cal lapses, and then fired one of its own writers over
a political dispute, it is guilty of hypocrisy of the
highest magnitude.
For many years, the UT community has spoken
its mind freely and without fear of retaliation (except
possibly from Aggies who heard their jokes one time
too many).
Unfortunately, some people on the UT campus
have decided that having a homo-homogenous cam
pus that thinks the same is more desirable than hav
ing one where people exercise their right to speak
openly whenever they like. The First Amendment is
one of the most amazing concepts in the annals of
humanity, and UT has often taken full advantage of
it. Whether one likes the Longhorns or not, it would
be a terrible shame for the nation as a whole if they
distance themselves from this tradition.
Austin’s FM talk station, 98.9 KJFK, uses the
motto, “The First Amendment at its best.” They may
want to keep quiet with that motto, or someone at the
University of Texas might come after them for being
a bunch of rabble rousers.
Mark Passwaters is a senior electrical
engineering major.
itiued from Page!
ecured the third spotwitl
‘One Florida’ plan would benefit minorities
A&M diving
aid. “They trained haul
i time in front of thtit
/d. That is how it is sf
bird place rested on tin
400-yard freestyle rels;
0:
ne of the most striking
features of the South’s
collective psyche is its
guilt about slavery. It seems a
white politician can only be ei
ther genuinely repentant or
prejudiced. There is little won-
ir the Aggies to claim th der then, that Florida C iovernor
tie, freshman PatriAkb 8dsh’s "Ghe Florida Initia-
ammates junior Davii
nore Riley Janes and jit
tnsour needed to finis!
fell one second and
ebraska edged out there'
lace.
hat the one-on-one at
een A&M and ISU eit
» from both sides to re
ictitive spirit in
neet.
r fun to have a team meei
at,” Nash said. “Sooter
in no man’s land eit
id or entrenched in third,
thing to chase after, and
ded beautifully,
phenomenally well. As
ithey got a little bit more
t zone and I was n
iw they responded,
'etime bests and pe
inuedfrom
inst UNM when sopho-
uson scored from second
the Lobos. The
e in the top of the thirl
:d from third base on*
the Lobos their onlyr®
live” plan has earned him
praise as a progressive and contempt as a racist.
“One Florida,” in effect, completely removes
race-based preferences and quotas from universi
ty admissions and state contracting decisions.
and his independently elected cabinet’s plan
replaces the race-based factors with a mandate
that the top 20 percent of graduating seniors from
each Florida high school gain automatic admis
sion. In addition, “One Florida” increases finan
cial aid and makes it easier for minority business
es to be certified. Despite how it may appear at
first glance — that Bush’s plan is anti-minority
his plan is actually, in the long run, good for
the minorities of Florida.
Understandably, many leaders in the community
"ere put out by this plan. They feel that the re
moval ofaffinnative action will have a negative
on the ethnic and racial minorities in the
state. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., said, “Well,
has made good on his promise to do nothing
for African-Americans, I lispanics. Native Ameri
cans, Haitian-Ameri cans, women and all other mi
norities in the state of Florida.”
Bush’s spokesperson Justin Sayfie said to
IN, “The governor has proposed the Florida
initiative in the hopes it can unite Floridians in
diversity and fairness.”
The question appears to be whether unity is
more important than the progress of a part of the
community. Any reasonable person who has paid
attention in history class knows that very question
"as at the heart of the slavery debates of the 1800s.
As was decided then, rather forcefully, the answer
is and must be that unity is worthless if it is gained
on the backs of minorities. It would be a step for
ward accompanied by several dozen steps back.
However, as Bush knows, the unity he seeks can
be accomplished without forcing minorities to suf
fer. Despite every prediction to the contrary, the
University of Texas-Austin, only four years after
the I lopwood decision came down, has overcome a
momentary dip and achieved the same level of mi
nority enrollment as before it was required to elimi
nate race-based admissions. Affirmative action was
irrelevant to the minority enrollment at UT, and it is
irrelevant to university admissions in Florida.
Will “One Florida” help minorities, though?
After all, if the initiative does not lead to any bene
fit to minorities, all it does is rile everybody up for
no reason. The answer is that “One Florida” will
not lead to any im
mediate benefit.
But in the long
term, “One Flori
da” is exactly what
is needed. It will
help minorities
who are still af
flicted with the ef
fects of prejudice
and racism without
using a racial bias
to do it.
The problem
most whites have
with affirmative action is that it is extremely co
ercive. Affirmative action is a very big stick.
Only recently has there been any thought that it
should be anything else. In the ’60s, when it was
enacted, affirmative action fought fire with fire.
Whites were discriminating against blacks, so
the federal government made it illegal to dis
criminate and backed up that order with a system
of preferential hiring and admissions. This pref
erence had the dual purpose of eliminating dis
crimination by removing employers’ hiring
choice and by rectifying some of the damage
centuries of slavery and more than 90 years of
segregation had done. It did this with coercion.
It has to be remembered affirmative action is no
more effective than a stick. It punishes the preju
diced for acting on their prejudices. While that ap
proach was fine for the ’60s, the advances in race
relations (yes, there have been advances) call for a
significantly more subtle approach.
What is needed is not a stick but a carrot —-
something that is neither coercive nor retroactive.
This country requires a system that compensates
for racial bias without using its own racial bias.
The biggest problem with affirmative action now
is that while it does effectively eliminate racism,
it does so by rolling dice loaded in favor of mi
norities. That is not equality; it is racism. In years
past, pro-minority racism for a good cause was
entirely justified, but
there will come a
time when fighting
fire with fire will
only get everyone
burned. Bush and
Florida are getting
out before their lin
gers get singed and
attempting to enact a
plan that will ad
dress the problems
of racism without it
self being racist.
Bush’s plan is un
popular with some. However, if “One Florida” is
given a chance to work as it is intended, with the
support of the minority communities, then it will
further the cause of minorities in Florida. If it is
undercut, the chance is good that “One Florida”
will fail and cause nothing but problems for
everyone in the state. Without support, the pro
gram will never achieve its potential. There is ob
viously a better route. It only remains to see if it
will be taken.
Chris Huffines is a senior speech
communication major.
Despite every prediction to
the contrary, the University
of Texas, only four years
after the Hopwood decision
came down, has achieved
the same level of minority
enrollment as before.
pleased with the team
: plate,” Evans said,
re selective and
t pressure on the defend
s the difference in
:he win for the
a 3-3 record,
d a great game,” Evan 1
New Mexico had serf
we knew she 1
:m. It was great forW
yell as the team’s
Substance-free
housing is positive
h response to Jill Riley’s March 2
column.
HAVE IT All!
d Partnerships is cunenl!
Hhampions After School
□grams in Bryan ISD.
*Site Direc#
I. *Site Assistai' 15
) training, convenient locitf*
ghts! P/T positions availi^'
feel Riley's column on the
substance-free housing failed to
at both sides of the issue
at hand.
First, I'd like to point out that
ouly4floors out of 30 dorms will
lie made substance-free. That is
avery small percentage. Not only
that, but we should remember
that students will be able to
clioose to live in a substance-free
anvironment. No one will be
Placed there who is unwilling to
looperate and unaware of what
leorshe is getting into.
Riley speaks of trying to build
amore unified campus and cites
separating users from non-
isers serves against that pur-
J NS AVAILABLE
EOE
OPENINGS&SUM0 lose. It is my opinion that those
too are completely separate
31-7804 TODAY J|in £ s: no one is excluded
lecause of their race or ethnic
-^background, for example, which
MAIL CALL
are things a person has no con
trol over. However choosing to
use or not use substances is just
that: an individual choice.
And just as those who choose
to consume alcohol, cigarettes
and the like should be able to do
so, then what is so wrong about
those who choose not to partici
pate in such activities?
The substance-free housing
will provide them with a safe
haven and friends who share in
their choice. I commend Texas
A&M in this decision and will
hope for its success.
Lucy Rochetti
Class of ’01
Bush exemplifies
Republican party
In response to Nicholas
Roznovsky’s March 3 column.
I recently read in Roznovsky’s
editorial that ". . . the November
election will be a matter of who
has greater numbers, not who
has the better platform," simply
because the bulk of the Republi
can Party does not want to sup
port John McCain despite the
fact that he probably has a better
chance of defeating Al Gore than
George W. Bush does. I find this
kind of thinking rather counter to
the way the system is set up.
The Republican Party does
not simply want to find a candi
date who can beat the opposing
Democrat, they want to find a
Presidential candidate that they
can trust and believe in who they
feel embodies the majority of
their political views.
To most Republican Party
members, the person who best
exemplifies the standards, prin
ciples, and morals of the Repub
lican Party is George W. Bush,
not John McCain.
The Republican Presidential
candidate should represent the
Republican Party, not simply be
a "Republican" who can beat the
Democratic Presidential candi
date. The Republicans of Ameri
ca should not have to "settle" on
a candidate and pick between
the "lesser of two Democratic
evils," but should be able to
vote for a candidate they feel
truly and honestly represents
the Party.
If McCain was to win the Re
publican nomination for Presi
dent, I would find it impossible to
vote in the election with either
confidence in my choice or a clear
conscience.
Shea Trantham
Class of ’02
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. Let
ters may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com
5 ton
HONEY, PEoffE
ARE gonna say
THIS WAS A
^fm.lClTY STUNT.
Drug test results for
hospital’s eyes only
T he Supreme
Court recently
agreed to hear a
case questioning
whether the Constitu
tional rights of expec
tant mothers were vio
lated by a hospital drug
test. A Charleston, S. C.
hospital tested the
women for drugs and then gave the results to
law enforcement officials without the moth
ers’ consent. The policy began in 1989, when
crack cocaine mainly affected low-income
communities. Only women suspected of
drug use were tested. Of the 10 women that
tested positive for cocaine use, nine black
women were arrested; the lone white
woman was not. AH 10 women are suing the
city, police and hospital administrators on
the grounds that their Fourth Amendment
rights were violated. The policy was sus
pended in 1993 because of the lawsuit.
The Medical University of South Caroli
na Medical Center’s policy is fundamentally
flawed. The hospital’s first mistake was not
testing all patients; its second was notifying
law enforcement. By picking and choosing
who it tested, the hospital left itself open to
accusations of racial discrimination. Such a
policy also works to destroy clients’ trust in
their doctors, therefore discouraging people
from seeking needed medical care. The poli
cy also leaves the door open for more broad
ly encompassing searches in the future.
Testing all pregnant clients for illegal
drug use is justifiable in the interests of the
unborn child. Using drugs is undeniably
harmful to a fetus. In addition, someone
who regularly uses illegal drugs is not an
ideal role model. But notifying the police
was an inexcusable breach of botli patient-
doctor privilege and the womens’ Fourth
Amendment rights.
If pregnant women are to be subjected to
drug tests, all pregnant women should be
tested — not only a few “suspicious” indi
viduals. Crack cocaine users are often stereo
typed as poor African-Americans, which un
fairly makes them the subjects of drug tests.
The women involved in the lawsuit have
made accusations that the drug policy was.
racially motivated, noting only the African-
American women who tested positive for co
caine were arrested. In addition, the only hos
pital to implement the questionable drug
policy served a predominantly African-
American population. Whether or not the - 2
policy was racially motivated, the reality is '
that so-called random drug testing could be
used in a discriminatory manner.
In their zeal for looking for “obvious”
drug users, hospital officials could also over
look less obvious offenders. If administrators
are really that concerned about children’s
welfare, they should test everyone.
Charleston claims its policy of notifying
law enforcement is justifiable because it is
trying to protect the health of pregnant
women and the unborn. Although this argu
ment rings true for basic drug testing, it falls
flat when applied to informing legal authori
ties. If pregnant women are worried about
being turned in to the police, they will not go
to the doctor at all. The Charleston policy si
multaneously works to scare drug-using
mothers away from medical treatment and to
weaken the patient-doctor privilege. The
children of drug-using mothers will be worse
off with no prenatal care at all than with the
care the doctors can reasonably provide with
out infringing on their patients’ rights.
The hospital’s policy also opens the door
for many other infringements on privacy.
What if American citizens could be random
ly tested or searched for any substance, under
the guise of “looking after their welfare?”
There are more effective ways to help preg
nant women addicted to drugs than telling
the police. Counseling and support pro
grams would be much more helpful for re
covering mothers and their infants than sep
arating the pair to throw the mother in jail.
There are no easy answers to the prob
lem at hand. There is a delicate balance be
tween endangering children and violating
human rights. But in the future hospitals
should think more carefully before tossing
aside time-honored legal traditions.
Jessica Crutcher is a sophomore
journalism major.