Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 6, 2001)
June 7,2001 in ft ftstball that ood curve ► — have as the po- dominant dnesday, June 6, 2001 High court avoids race decision ffirmative ac tion in college admissions has for Chris Been a highly debated Tom Cum- Bopic since the 1978 I'ennessee, Byling in Bakke v. Ida State to moard of Regents. In Series last Bhat decision, the Jupreme Court ruled <;r. l e his pitch- ~ioIes coach iTed Smith nyer. Smith isferrineto jhat racial quotas did not represent ompelling state interest, but it did hold Jhat the use of race as a factor in admis sions to increase diversity is constitu tional. Since then there have been nu- Jow, the Supreme Court has denied an appeal involving the issue at the Univer- id led confet- es. right-hande: gh School r . ith the ninth ity. He burs: en he threw : 'ont of dozers hs ago. Grife i and outfield , duringwhid n 59 innings, ed Tennesfc Burke, c iference pfe- the lOthpici ielton’sscho: er hits, nut :s, and becarn r leader in sin- urke is regard- loff man. inder Kennr the fifth routis 1 for his senior one of 10 Di- vith at least f hen Martir Bierous decisions from Icawer courts that release. He Bloud the topic. op left-han-1. In the 1996 case of Hopwood v. Univer- and again Wjty of Texas-Austin, a 'Texas court banned ability as ^l ie use of race-based admissions at pub lic universities in Texas. In December, )ten, arightjpjhe University of Michigan’s affirmative seman nror » ct i on policy was upheld by a federal 5 Pittsburs.j jiidge, but its law school was barred from c. He ledtkm s j n g race as a factor in its law school ad- >ol and .Mid-m 1 j ss j ons by a federal court in March, re-record 11 j conference l so set school tty. of Washington Law School. cords in mts| "phe issue is not whether affirmative action has any place in admissions but that the Supreme Court needs to make a decision about the subject. Without <flear guidelines, admissions officers and applicants are at a loss as to whether race is an allowable factor. J With these multiple and contradicto ry decisions, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to clear the air and offer an answer to the question of the constitu tionality of affirmative action. Yet, it has continued to do what it does best lately J— nothing. The court would rather let lower courts stumble blindly around the issues of affirmative action and constitu tionality, while the Supreme Court watches from the fence post, j On one side of the issue is the argu- nient that affirmative action has become reverse discrimination. To the propo nents of this, the use of race as a decid ing factor causes an overrepresentation of the minority population. This was a ed by Detroit hi a in argument in the University of Baugh, draft-Washington Law School case. | Opponents of race-based admissions state that race does not contribute to whether a person is a.promising student. Admissions should be based not on race U) and400ca- but on grades, test scores, activities and ted (460). other such factors. Past performances cee tookriglit- and achievements are better factors on es from Thun- w hich to base decisions. iooI in Arizona! Proponents of affirmative action pro- an outstanding grams say it is a way to help diversify excellent me universities and enhance the education h arm motion received there. “Blacks and other mi- hitthe mid-9fc nority groups have defended affirmative nan, the son c'lact ion programs as a way to make up for league manage' past discrimination,” according to a Kotchman, w CNN article. Vngels with U Others feel that preventing colleges smooth-hittinj from using its discretion when admit- nsidered onC ting students is a violation of the 14th ;h school hittee Amendment’s equal protection clause, id also has excel- ; B \ using race as a factor, the colleges are ility at first base protecting a racial group that has been baseman Jfy historically affected by discrimination, taken by Sit Considering race also helps because mi- he 14th pb norities that traditionally do not have ished himselfi ; s pch things as alumni connections that aseball’s topaf contribute to college admission. I According to a New York Times edito- , rial, “To tamper now with the ‘ability of ontfieW 1 colleges and universities to toss race mt to 1 oroin pjj-Q t b} s m ix in pursuit of diversity, and ick. He cona bence a richer educational experience, n baseball -would be a monumental error both as a :s at quarter!).!- Tatter of law and as social policy.” as a fresMi^g Whatever side one considers to be all-arouni correc t does not matter. The issue that ements us nJ‘ tru jy b a s reached the threshold of ur- P , ' )( S 1 )LU gency is in need for a concise decision. •Without comment or decision from the f|pgh court, the states will continue to J battle this problem. from Ratf From these battles will come more confusion on the subject, leaving uni- n want n to i' yursities and students wondering the constitutionality of affirmative action, ind Andy Sto 1 The Supreme Court must not let this u t mu ie\" j ssue f a p aside and be forgotten. It is an ui i hen tettii - ssue t b at w jH not en d by silence. The tlie improvemet: J me for action is now and whatever the . . , decision is, at least it will be a decision, ason and the P ason that we ha' eason,” Watkir this team can hi prised ifthisteu a at least the mi' nd led Division nor Brieanne Porter is a junior political science major. o PINION Page 5 THE BATTALION Five wives to one man Polygamy not seen as religious freedom by court T he Western idea of legal marriage in volves two peo ple — one man and one woman. However, for one Utah man, his many commit ments have him awaiting the outcome of an appeal of a state conviction decided earlier this month. Tom Green, an outspoken practi tioner of polygamy, is now facing a possible 2 5-year prison sentence for four counts of bigamy, along with one count of failure to pay child support, for practicing what was once an acceptable Mormon belief. Green, who lives with a total of five wives and 29 children, has sparked national attention. Bigamy is the criminal offense of registering a second marriage with the state when a first marriage is still recognized. Although Green filed divorce requests to enable him to lawfully proceed with his subsequent marriages, the requests were invali dated by a judge before his trial. The judge ruled that under Utah law, those who were at one time married and later divorced but con tinue to cohabit as married individ uals for a period of time, could still be prosecuted. To prove Green was guilty, the prosecution showed Green knew he had a wife when he married the other women, accord ing to a polygamy Website. Although Green claims his deci sion to marry multiple women was done in a religious sense, Utah’s de cision to prosecute is not unfair be cause he continued to reside with all five of his wives and had more than one wife registered with the state. Essentially, Green could have maintained his relationships had he not have been so concerned with registering all of his marriages. The Mormon Church, which once supported polygamy in the early 19th century, now calls for anyone practic ing polygamy to be ex communicated. Despite the ban, Green contin ues to cite religious freedom as his defense. However, at no point should Green expect protection from the United States Constitu tion, which guarantees one’s right to religious freedom, because the Mormon Church al ready denounced the practice. The Mormon Church has not sup ported the practice of polygamy in over 100 years, and justifiably, has left Green to fight his court battle alone. Ironically, Green’s marital arrangements never coincided with his deeply rooted attitude, “You’ll pretend we don’t exist, and we’ll pretend you don’t exist,” as he was once quoted as say ing. Unlike an estimated 30,000 polygamists, most who currently live in Utah in a secluded, underground lifestyle, Green’s lifestyle became publically known, ac cording to CNN. Green’s personal mo tivation to gain public acceptance of polygamy is precisely what invited the criminal charges from the be ginning. For more than a decade before his indictment, Green’s be liefs were broadcasted into the homes ofthousands of Americans, when he chose to make his story public on television shows such as “Dateline NBC” and “The Jerry Springer Show.” According to Green, “The issue is of freedom from government inter- CARTOON OF THE DAY TUe W<AF(te£>N'\vf-© 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 student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 014 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (979) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com ference in personal lives,” but it is # more involved than that. Green’s feelings are invalid, because his out- spokeness served as the government’s rationale to evaluate his lifestyle. Although he lives nearly 100 miles away from any town, Green could not expect the nation to ig nore his behavior because he de liberately attracted this “unwant ed” attention. Although Green claims he has been unfairly singled out, the prose cution’s actions to proceed with the trial were appropriate. Green’s sen tence of 25 years in jail should come as a warning to the thousands of people who currently practice polygamy in hiding. J.J. Trevino is a senior journalism major. Space not a factor Veterans deserve memorial on the Mall (U-Wire) — With partisan bick ering at a high level with the recent defection of Sen. James Jeffords from the Republican Party, Presi dent George W. Bush has a tough road ahead of him. However, some issues, believe it or not, are not — or should not be — partisan. When Bush announced last Mon day the signing of a law allowing for the construction of a World War II Memorial in Washington D.C., I found myself nodding my head in agreement. Although the decision’s timing was questionable, that didn’t make it a bad one. There has been much controver sy over the years over the building of a memorial on the famous Na tional Mall in Washington, center ing on spatial issues. The National Coalition to Save Our Mall has con cerns that the monument will ruin the “open green space” between the Lincoln Monument and the Wash ington Memorial on the Mall. The monument would take up a 7.4-acre portion of the Mall — nearly half of the total space. Concerns are valid; these people are not against the recognition of World War II veterans. It is a matter of priorities. The National Coali tion to Save Our Mall wants to make sure the memorial will not “ruin” the National Mall, as if the debate was over converting the Mall into a huge nuclear power plant and not a grand memorial. Even if the memorial would hurt the Mall’s image, it is a ludicrous cla ; -~i that the landscape of the Mall is more important than the World War II veterans themselves. We are talking about 16 million people who served for the United States, not to mention the more than 400,000 who died. The memorial will con tain granite pillars, bronze wreaths and gold stars, all surrounding a pool, a design which some have de scribed as overly grandiose or even ugly, although it sounds nice. But even if die monument is not as aesthetically pleasing as the open atmosphere — which is unlikely considering the $160 million budget for the project — it is also true that the war itself was not pretty either. This is why the monument needs to be made in the first place. Honoring those who served our country in this special way is more important than honoring the perceived beauty of the National Mall. The memorial definitely would not be unprecedented, either. The National iVLall already has memori als of former presidents Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Delano Roo sevelt, as well as memorials for Ko rean War and Vietnam War veter ans. Why World War II veterans would be seen as less important is beyond comprehension. Politics definitely played a role in ( Bush’s signing of the law, as it always _ seems to. No one should think that it’s a coincidence that the law was signed on Memorial Day and in the midst of a $7 5 million opening weekend of the film Pearl Harbor. The timing is akin to signing an anti-flag burning law on the Fourth of July. It is much more difficult to oppose a memorial such as this when patriotism is so strong; a con troversial issue is made to seem less so under that type of circumstances. Bush was right to sign the bill. Many World War II veterans are dying, and there is a sense of ur gency that they get paid homage be fore many more of them pass away. Reservations about details of the memorial are not more important than the memorial itself. I will give precedence to World War II veterans over an open space any day. Matt Szabo Mustang Daily California Poly State University