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