Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 30, 2000)
vlomelay, October 30, 2000 THE BATTALION Page 9 Itl R»C8d bandwich boards displaying aborted fetuses uncalled for, undermine pro-life cause WMi IditionalS d to qualftl ast week, stu- dents, faculty, JEOUSM^staff and visi- ?Hai s t0,s 10 the University ii Paul were greeted by sand- wichboardswithvio- sottwaretc :[ ei t images of aborted fetuses. ^ 1 ^Ucolor pho- aust. lire-:, toj i aphs were of bloody, o. 268-663; ^ngled tlesh taken from a woman's body see, MoowsBring gestation. Little can be accomplished by entering ondilion, $2 the debate of the morality or constitutionali ty of abortion. I However, it is appropriate to examine d °9s '• l the message these sandwich boards con veyed and the aims of Aggies for Life, the student organization that sponsored the lUinpaign. kLabnucfl The Aggies for Life Website states that its mission is to “help and protect women Just In tack to babies” in crisis pregnancies, open tor Kelt. »ople's minds “to recognize this atrocity can jar; and call those who are apathetic to action,” bom t (lead, vacc FES [id aid the national pro-life movement 4 [rough “peaceful protest, voter education, —isJbbying, etc." ai ajestewB Though the intentions of Aggies for Lite were good, the group did not inspire sym pathy for its movement by displaying offen sive images. jsemesw«[ The sandwich boards did nothing to pro- ibdrma* F mote any of the three points of the Aggies aanna or; j.'^ Lj|' e m i ss j on statement. nesler( -^: This campaign did not serve to “help 9. and protect” women and their babies, aid the national pro-life movement or “open the minds” of those seeing the signs. I All Aggies for Life accomplished by this Campaign of indecency is increased ani- >drm/2btti l/2bllls. . mosity and hostility toward its organization and, ultimately, the movement it represents. The pro-life movement has long been marred by abortion-clinic bombings and shootings, though the individuals in volved in such incidents usually were not acting with the sup port of other people in the movement. If anything, these photographs have served to close the minds of dissenters and further stigmatize the pro-life movement. Aggies for Life claims that the sand wich boards are “sim ply pointing out” the evils of abortion “in the hope that the 44,000 students on this campus will look at the truth.” The gruesome “truth” of abortion should be recognized, but exposing such im ages to students who are walking to class is inappropriate. It seems Aggies for Life could have found a more decent way to il lustrate its message than by making viewers cringe and look away from the sandwich boards. The bottom line of the actions is that the images on these boards were offensive. Many of the students con fronted by these repulsive images were not thinking of the atrocity of abortion; they were stunned by the graphic nature of such displays. Instead of breeding hostility for abor tion, as wasrthe end result of Aggies for Life, it likely was garnering animosity for its organization due to the tactics it used to convey its message. Other causes have grim realities behind them. Take the campaign against tobacco, JOE PEDEN/The Battalion for example. Tobacco is known to cause emphysema, heart disease, high blood pres- , sure and many different types of deadly cancers, according to the American Cancer Society. Yet the commercials on the subject do not feature bloated corpses of dead smokers. One commercial hauls body bags of “dead smokers” onto a beach, but the view er never gets a glimpse of blood or cold skin. The tobacco commercials are effective, despite the absence of repulsive imagery, and they do not trap viewers in a moral paradox. Viewers'of these aborted fetuses were forced to decide what offended them more — the fact that these fetuses were taken from their mothers’ wombs or that the viewers were subjected to such a hideous sight. The laws of immediacy suggest that the viewer would find more offense in the im age than in the abortions. Therefore, Aggies for Life is not only ar ticulating its intended message ineffective ly, but it is hurting its credibility. Being known as an extremist — and posting graphic pictures of aborted fetus es ib public does count as extremism — it only hurts one’s credibility and ability to persuade. Aggies for Life should have reconsid ered its campaign and looked at which movement it hurt more, the pro-choice movement or the pro-life movement — and itself. Chris Carter is a senior speech communication major. lester in route. ublease, S? 1 ' 4 * ' What is too specialized? B Examination of fourth and fifth precepts of Vision 2020 uilding on the analysis of .the vast Vision 2020 docu ment and its main points, the fourth imperative aims to ^ [[Build the Letters,'Arts and Sci- soMurUaugiH j llces Core ’' and “establish a fine m. M-T(6pm-; arts program.” tetokoit Various steps would be taken, i/estpriceaito including establishing an honors we-ein ^lojigge an( j developing a fine arts program. ss ^ While there should be ample opportunity for the gre cmia^ arts, the statement “All the great universities exhibit ursexom strength in the core arts and sciences programs” is po- ivw.housinglOl tentially offensive. I It implies that the framers of Vision 2020 believe 1 [J 1 ^ A&M is not a great university because, if it were, ' |[ten it already would have “strong” programs in these i-8oo-776-s4 teas. Blorrecf {/ision Part ^ of 7 )SS J This statement, given A&M’s community cohe- n sion, warrants great dispute among Aggies in general, ecks, creai: It implies that, according to the administration, a nking of 17th best public school from U.S. News Mail Call and World Report among several hundred universi ties still is not good enough. While liberal arts should not be forsaken, A&M was founded on agriculture and mechanics, not anthropolo gy and music. The advocates of Vision 2020 are attempting to make A&M No. 1 in every category. Even though aim ing high is admirable, specialization is not a bad thing. Why does A&M have to be renowned in every field when the majority of its students come here because they like how it is already? Many undergraduates do not want a liberal arts education. Currently, A&M offers students the opportunity to specialize in technical fields, such as aeronautical engi neering and genetics, without wasting time with too many additional credit requirements. Changing the basic foundations of a university al ters the kinds of students it draws. Is the administration trying to change the definition of a typical Aggie? The fifth imperative involves “build(ing) on the tra dition of professional education.” While the administration believes A&M’s liberal arts program needs strengthening, it can already brag about the excellence of other undergraduate programs. The popular undergraduate engineering program is ranked fourth by U.S. News, proving this field al ready exceeds the top-10 status builders of Vision 2020 seek. Additionally, the Gourman Report, which ranks public and private universities together, places many of A&M’s professional programs in the top ten. Undergraduate agriculture and landscape architec ture are ranked second nationally; undergraduate archi tecture and business are ranked seventh and 10th, re spectively. According to these numbers, A&M fares well above average in many of its specialized programs. These programs have earned recognition, and their growth needs as much support and nurturing as any new arts or science program. In addition to achieving top standing for all under graduate programs, the framers of Vision 2020 seek to gain the same status for all graduate professional programs. According to the 1999 U.S. News rankings, A&M does not fare as well as its competition in liberal arts ar eas. Examples included 45th in education and 52nd in public affairs. However, graduate programs currently rank 26th in architecture and 14th in engineering, outranking schools like the University of California-Los Angeles and the University of California-San Diego. Placing sixth in veterinary medicine, the Aggies face competition from Wisconsin, ranking ninth. While some programs could use attention, A&M’s 6 a r specialties excel. The precept involves “creat(ing) a university with in a university,” and, what that means is somewhat ambiguous. Vision 2020 states, “Texas A&M University will also operate a university funded totally from non state sources, primarily tuition and fees, offered through-multiple and diverse educational modes (e.g., technology-based media) to non-traditional, off-cam- pus students throughout Texas, the United States and internationally.” Aggies should question exactly who this “universi ty” would serve and how it would be funded. Would Aggies be hit with yet another tuition fee to supply the technology to educate far away students who cannot even relate to the Aggie experience? One can deduce many implications from this pre cept. Consequently, the administration needs to be more specific when throwing out ideas that suggest fee increases. Even though excellence in programs is the underly ing goal of all universities, A&M should concentrate on and expand upon what it does well. Changing and adding programs means changing the makeup of the student body, which could have long term effects on what it means to be an Aggie. Jennifer Ramby is a sophomore journalism major. our J01 jed 110 83. emory of Bonfire jcollapse victims lost In ongoing debate In response to Andy Hancock’s Oct. 26 Column. “People accept risk when they get up very morning. Participating in Bonfire is no ifferent; there are risks, and that is part of life.” I Is that how you rationalize the Bonfire ragedy to the families of the victims? That it should be “taken with a grain of salt?” I am tired of hearing and reading about all he groups whining about Bonfire. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It is time that the student body stop bick ering and remember that 12 students lost heir lives last Nov. 18. No amount of student participation in ■teep The Fire Burning (KTFB) or signing J 3f a petition is going to bring them [lack. The Bonfire collapse was a terrible, errible tragedy. I believe that a two-year hiatus from building Bonfire is hardly too much to ask 3ut of respect to those who lost their ives. I will support the administration’s decision egarding changes made to Bonfire because believe it will prevent the deaths of more of ny fellow Aggies. I have no desire to experience such sor- ow again, in any capacity. If Bonfire is symbolic of the unity of Ag- Jieland, let two years of not having Bonfire symbolize our grief for what happened that fateful night. Brian van Staveren Class of '99 Public display of affection by Corps members should be banned In response to Andrew Stephenson’s Oct. 25 column. I wholeheartedly agree with Stephenson that the Corps is “different from other stu dent organizations.” For this reason, it should be held to the standards employed by other military organizations. I also support his assertion that members of the Corps may lead “whatever personal lifestyles they choose” as long as they do not “broadcast it.” For this reason, I propose that we eliminate the tradition in which male Corps members kiss their female part ners to celebrate touchdowns at football games. Furthermore, we should ban all other forms of public affection as they pertain to cadets, such as hand-holding and hugging. These open and raw displays of sexuality have no place in the military and only serve to tarnish the grand reputation of our Corps of Cadets. Greg Weiner Graduate student 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 014 Reed McDonald with a valid stu dent ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 014 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University 1111TAMU College Station, Texas 77843 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (979) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com Columns and letters appearing in The Battalion express the opinion of the authors only. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of other Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student body, regents, administrators, faculty or staff.
