THE BATTALION
Page 5B
, November 6, 2001
ngrateful intolerance
TC programs should be allowed on every campus
mate needed
ushed Melrose
64-7522.
ate needed on o
luplex, 3-bedrocr
ontact Andrea a: i’-
ate needed Pi
ew 4 - bedroom Vi
’5/mo. 979-76t-
[ince the terrorist destruction of Sept.
11, calls for tolerance and respect
toward the American Muslim commu
nity have been heeded
across the nation.
This is the right and
rational thing to do, but
several colleges still refuse
to tolerate those who stand
and fight against terror at
home and abroad. The
U.S. Army Reserve Officer
Training Corps (ROTC) is
JONATHAN
JONES
prohibited from any activity in three New
York City colleges alone — Columbia
University, New York University and the
City University of New York. Likewise,
Harvard’s ROTC candidates are forced to
drill on the grounds of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Yale’s Air Force
trainees must drive 75 miles to practice on
another campus and Stanford and Brown
Universities are among those that have
banned ROTC programs. Evidently, some
forms of diversity simply are unacceptable.
Such a policy is hypocritical and a disserv-
r sublease from.
4-bdmn apartr?
S. 764-6965
eeded for subiei-
$285/mo., on tu
ring semester.
Irm'2bth new trar
170.
needed ASAP,
ty- 458-1234 (8-5).!
needed for 32
/3-bills. Master tar
12/1/01. 696-3248
) neeed. Duplex
jttle route, $375/mo
ed ASAP tot 3-2 v
;ed-yard, pete #0
ration (Lew's- $
rase call.
RVICES
ensive Driving, dw
! Ticket toss
M-Tiepn#
-ri.&Sat.- Fr#'-!/
im), Sat(8am-!»"‘
nerica. Walk-': ‘
Lowest pnce aM
Dr., Ste.217. 8468"
early. (CP-OOITi
Test; Hope Prsgr*
Station 695-9193
bortion Peer C<^J P * ,
I goose hunts in ^
II 281-382-2644
usava Yoga- All
js-(979)268-3853
\NTED
ice to the honorable and courageous stu
dents who volunteer for military service.
These students soon may put their lives on
the line for the very people who disdain
them. Texas A&M, with its reverence for
those who defend and protect this country
or the long line of graduates who have
fought, does not need Vision 2020 to guide
it toward one quality of an elite institution
of higher learning — a large number of
selfless and respectful students.
Most ROTC programs were banished at
the height of the Vietnam War controversy.
Some have returned to campuses but many
have not. In the 32 years since Harvard dis
banded its program, many efforts have been
mounted to bring it back. Recently, more
than 900 distinguished alumni — including
former Secretary of Defense Casper
Weinberger — petitioned the university to
reinstate the corps,without success. The
Chronicle of Higher Education reports that
Harvard has no plans to consider revoking
the ban.
To shun future protectors of freedom
during a time when America is under
attack is not only wrong, but ignorant of
Harvard’s role as a birthplace of patriot
ism. After the battles of Lexington and
Concord, the headquarters of the colonial
army were right in the middle of the
Harvard campus. George Washington took
command of the army at the Cambridge
Common.
But Harvard’s students and administra
tors now ridicule the American ideal of lib
erty and equality by denying the ROTC the
opportunity to drill where Washington and
his troops prepared to take Bunker Hill.
Harvard does this in opposition of the mili
tary’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. But it
accepts the protection of the same armed
services it refuses to support. The warped
version of tolerance that universities such
as Harvard that ban its ROTC program is
one that holds in contempt the sacrifices
that make America’s constitutional freedom
and liberty possible.
The diversity of cultures and traditions
that they seek to find is too often devoid
of a respect for the proud tradition and
culture of the U.S. armed forces. The stu
dents who train in ROTC programs should
not have to travel elsewhere to prepare to
defend their country. They have nothing to
be ashamed of. These students are possi
bly the only thing standing between
spoiled students chanting anti-war slogans
and a draft.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no
room for “duty, honor, country” in some of
the places where free expression is sup
posed to be at its best. This is a shame.
Some of America’s “elite” colleges
sometimes do not seem so smart after all.
Jonathan Jones is a senior
political science major.
jarters For Rock
dAgcieT-shiri^
T VISIONS
IONS fe‘ es share some shame, too
anything!
|fte Battalion editorial Monday stated
Jgies would never do something as danger-
USHING f 5 and classless as what happened at
'URBRUSH, p°ck this weekend," but the paper's staff
iously has a short memory,
fhe 1995 game versus the Longhorns at Kyle
[1 featured beatings of UT students who
fe tackled and punched the face by mem-
s of the Corps of Cadets. More zealous
fibers of the Corps pulled their swords on
fans to defend Kyle field. The next week, The
talion rightly called the actions by the Corps
I'embarrassment to Aggieland."
erthe 1995 UT-A&M game, many individ-
Aggies also recognized the problem, but
e defended themselves by suggesting that
fans had asked for trouble by coming onto
field. One Aggie senior wrote to The Daily
an "if anyone is to blame for this it is UT stu-
ts, not the A&M Corps of Cadets."
(lose defending the beatings by the Corps and
srAggies seem to forget that UT also has a
iriorial stadium, and that Aggie fans cele-
ting victory on the turf there in 1994 were
physically assaulted by their rivals in
tin.
Aggies, Longhorns and Red Raiders all
e been part of some shameful moments
[ociated with heated football rivalries, and
Ply, this will continue.
2 A island P ^ ls ' nc| dent and the ensuing response
•|.L rat P us thing 5 - First, Aggies are not good at
ui m 9 0 Ly Second, and more importantly, do not
2 to* wls Mr lose to Texas Tech.
lub sports
anizations
anizations
MAIL CALL
Leave Utah alone
In response to George Deutsch's Nov. 5 column:
I was both confused and frustrated by
Deutsch's column. I was confused because
the point of the article was lost on me, and I
am sure I was not the only one. I was frus
trated because he resorted to generalizations
and out-right name-calling in an apparent
attempt at humor.
I think he was trying to make the point
that citizens in Utah were about to lose
some of their First Amendment rights with
the appointment of this new "porn czar."
I suppose we should expect nothing more
from an over-eager budding journalist hell
bent on protecting freedom of speech for all
Americans no matter the cost. And consid
ering he is also a member of the libido-full,
20-year-old demographic, I can see where
disrupting the flow of pornography would
ruffle some feathers.
Well, actually, no I cannot. This is hap
pening in Utah. A majority of citizens of
Utah voted to elect a governor. That gov
ernor appointed Houston to be "porn
czar," a decision he probably did not
reach in the middle of the night without
consulting many people. Sounds like the
democratic process at work to me.
By making generalizations about citizens
of Utah, particularly those belonging to the
Mormon faith, Deutsch loses the point of
his article and loses credibility as a jour
nalist.
I find Deutsch’s article on Utah’s porn czar to
be hypocritical. He ends the piece with a very
pompous "It is intolerance.” But his article could
be a flagship for intolerance. I lived in Utah for
five years and it is indeed the nesting ground for
over-zealous Mormons, but should not we be tol
erant of their values?
If you have ever been to the state, you would
realize that about 80 percent of the population
probably does not see a porn czar as a waste of
money. Who are you to tell people they are wast
ing their money? Do the majority of A&M stu
dents think spending money on beer is a waste
of money? Probably not.
I just love how some people are so self-right
eous about their quest for tolerance and in doing
so they trample on values, criticize religion and
poke fun at a woman for her choice to remain
unmarried.
Tamara Adams
Class of 2003
Do not look at the pictures
This letter is in response to the horrifying pic
tures on display at Sul Ross statue. These pro
life campaigners are attempting to gain sup
port for their cause by showing graphic photo
graphs of fetuses. They are absolutely revolt
ing.
Roe v. Wade has not been overturned and
women have spoken. Do not dignify this
garbage by stopping to look or to speak with
any of the people standing in front of the booth.
United, we should stand for choice.
Jarrad Prasifka
Graduate Student
Sean O'Daniels
Graduate Student
Chris Young
Class of 2004
Free speech
goes both ways
MARK
PASSWATERS
A lbuquerque, N.M., is three hours behind New York
City and Washington, D.C. When University of
New Mexico history professor Richard Berthold
began his first class on the morning of Sept. 11, he and his
students already knew that the World
Trade Center and Pentagon were in
flames. Instead of trying to discuss the
situation or calm the fears of his stu
dents, Berthold opened the class — and
another class several hours later —
with this disgusting quip: “Anyone
who would blow up the Pentagon
would have my vote.”
The backlash Berthold felt for his
inhumane and sickening remarks, which he claims
were “an unfortunate attempt at humor,” was immedi
ate and fierce. Students and members of the
Albuquerque community strongly condemned Berthold
and called for his termination. Berthold, like other teach
ers who have been criticized for letting extraordinarily stu
pid things come out of their mouths in the wake of the
nation’s most bloody day in half a century, claimed his
right to free speech had been violated.
Apparently, Berthold is not only a fool, but a hypocrite.
Professors have a right to free speech, and people have just
as much of a right to criticize them. If they cannot handle
justified criticism, they should find a new line of work.
One of the more noted apologists for the terrorist acts is
University of Texas-Austin journalism Professor Robert
Jensen, who wrote, according to The Washington Post,
that the “Sept. 1 1 attacks were no more despicable than
‘the massive acts of terrorism’ committed by the United
States in Iraq and elsewhere.”
UT President Larry Faulkner immediately upbraided
Jensen, saying he was a “fountain of undiluted foolishness
on issues of public policy.” After saying that Faulkner’s
rebuke had little effect on him personally, Jensen went on
to moan about the fact that he was allowed to be open to
such public humiliation.
Amazingly, there are other professors who think that a
public discourse means they get to say whatever they want
What these egocentric individuals are
facing, perhaps for the first time in their
lives, is the revenge of common sense.
and are not supposed to be subject to criticism. “There are
some things here that harken back to McCarthyism,” said
Ruth Flower, director of public policy for the American
Association of University Professors. This is nonsense.
What these egocentric individuals are facing, perhaps for
the first time in their spoiled adult lives, is the revenge of
common sense. People understand that what happened on
Sept. 1 1 was a heinous attack by a group of cowards that
killed thousands of innocent people, who had no part of
their “global plight.”
People who try to justify these actions or make them
into some kind of joke are rationally bounded and devoid
of any sense of human decency. Members of their universi
ty communities and the public have told them so, and they
are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats who did not get
dessert after supper.
In this case, the American people have every right to
send apologists for terrorism to their rooms without a
goodnight snack. Their comments, protected by the First
Amendment, are reprehensible. People are given the right
by that very same First Amendment to call such apologists
idiots, should they feel the urge to do so.
It is the height of hypocrisy to watch these professors
and their unions claim that they have the right to say what
ever they want, yet are immune to criticism. Just as
Highway 6 runs both ways, so does the public discourse in
American society. If a professor cannot restrain the urge to
say something that many consider dumb, what is there to
stop a student from telling the professor that he made an
idiot out of himself? Turnabout is not only fair play, it is, in
this case, a constitutional right.
Berthold and Jensen seem to be upset that people saw
their comments for the garbage they were and called them
on it. This may cost them a little sleep at night, but it is
perfectly fair and legal. Somewhere in their hallowed halls
of learning, there must be copy of the Constitution lying
around. This document sets out the rules of the debating
game nicely.
Mark Passwaters is a senior
political science major.
CARTOON OF THE DAY
TUr W£jHRt60N'\vf-<S>