SCIITECH
E BATTALION
i artificial
7B
THE BATTALION
Thursday, March 28, 2002
eased
Ky. (AP) - The
ecipient of a self-
ficial heart has
from the hospi-
d Wednesday,
'son, the second
e AbioCor artifr
one of only two
ow residing at a
ck from Jewish
o a statement
pital, where he
a surgery Sept,
i was discharged
d Christerson’s
tel is a first step
i to return to his
il City, abouttwc
;t of Louisville.
Vlr. Christerson’s
as twice daily
asional lab tests
same," said Dr
one of the
uisville surgeons
d the artificial
transition plan
ig hospital and
ff in and near
the type of care
n artificial heart
tease
EDITORIAL
; in a gene that
oody’s cells read
is found in near-
nen taking her-
j a 27 percent
, compared will
le other womet
bad cholesterol,
variant did not
t difference,
study was toi
e higher levels
illy helped the
the gene makes
: other effects of
Hormones are
;s and treat the
ch as hot flash-
Enough is Enough
If there is to be peace in the Middle East, Palestinian
uthority leader Yassir Arafat must take drastic measures to
jrb all attacks on Israel by militant groups. Now. Otherwise,
the United States and allies that rail against terrorism must
"assess the strategies being pursued toward a cease fire.
Rarely do Battalion editorials offer opinions on international
iues, but Wednesday's suicide bombing in Netanya, during a
dermeal celebrating the Jewish Passover, is such an atrocity
at it would be irresponsible not to comment on the current
ipasse in the peace process.
trhe inhibitor of the current cease fire plan is not new, and
|afat deservedly finds himself in a tight spot. The militant group
imastook credit for the cowardly attack, which killed at least 19
opleand injured more than 120 on the Jewish religious holi-
y. If Arafat has the control he claims over Hamas and other mil-
nt groups, the time has long passed for him to call for an end
the string of attacks that have fueled 16 months of violence,
loth Palestinians and Israelis are weary from the violence, but
long as Arafat allows his followers to instigate violence, skep-
ism from Israel and other countries should be considered
id. Arafat has proved himself to be unwilling to compromise
Palestinian demands — a position that has spoiled numerous
empts at peace and stability in the region. His disregard of the
>lo Accord and turning his back on the Camp David talks in
ptember 2000 are among the obstacles he has laid for peace,
fhe international community needs to get past Arafat's
jeated apologies for bombings (he "strongly condemned"
e Passover massacre) and take all measures necessary to
sure that his actions match his words,
radically, this unacceptable attack occurred at the same time
the Arab Summit, where Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah is seil-
l his Mideast peace proposal. This proposal — well-inten-
med but misguided — will end up another dead letter if
afatis not held accountable for the actions of his followers,
srael is right to re-evaluate its overall policy, as should the
ied States if peace is to be achieved.
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief Mariano CASTILLO
wging Editor
pinion Editor
News Editor
News Editor
Brian Ruff
Cayi.a Carr
Sommer Bunch
Brandie Liffick
Member
Member
Member
Member
Melissa Bedsole
Jonathan Jones
Jennifer Lozano
Kelln Zimmer
^Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less
include the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
Withe right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submit-
person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be
tito: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Wlll. FaJc: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcali@thebatt.com
t way to
dents,
it a form
lestions
Midate issues
mlogy
^ an d foremost, I war
f to John Kitsopoulos
, ® r students who may
tended by the actior
^paign staff. I take
ability for these action
i ! ans however, do they r<
e way | feel about N
^ people, or any (
' fel| gion or ethnicity on
5 1 am truly sorry foi
a t our actions have cat
Resident Adviser it
job, and I have t.
P r| de in promoting div
u the reject of other
»th ,s camp,, 5 . The
) a* . ^ eac * dress we
; and the c
t a beating of war,
Piece of a one-
y.,* also included
^(trashcan lids), a
iough th and tambou
(ji t ' 1e intentions \
S k resu lts are someth
L' mef ul about. PI
apology.
Mtage
Sampson Jordan
Class of 2003
protected
l( l^rp n 0 V ecent comments
8ard,n g the Southern
Heritage Society and its use of
the Confederate battle flag on
their T-shirts, I felt it was my
obligation to clear up some
misinformation. First, the battle
flag is just one of nine various
flags representing Texas, the
South and the United States on
our shirts. We hold each of
these flags close to our hearts
because they symbolize our
ancestors' struggle for self-
determination.
They also symbolize their brav
ery against overwhelming odds
(Texans vs. Mexicans, Colonies vs.
British, and Confederates vs.
United States). Pablo Rodriguez
stated that he is offended by our
use of the battle flag. I have never
seen him at any of our meetings.
Isn't diversity about learning of
other cultures and opening your
mind to these?
Like it or not, A&M has many
ties to the historic South.
Jefferson Davis was the first man
ever offered the presidency of
A&M. There are numerous streets
and statues named for great
Southern men. The Sul Ross stat
ue, in the past, has even been the
target of organizations desiring to
remove it. We honor the great
things of our heritage and ances
try, and will do everything in our
power to protect the memory of
the great men and women who
have gone before us.
James Drew
Class of 2001
Race to the top?
Merit should decide next
Texas A&M president
F or
sii
A
MATTHEW MADDOX
>r the first time
since 1993, Texas
A&M has the
opportunity to make
a fundamental
change. A&M will have
a new president, one that will play a critical role in
several issues facing the University including Vision
2020, the future of the top 20 percent plan and
Bonfire. A&M always needs the best president
possible, but especially now. However, A&M
has a policy in place that may not guarantee the
best person for the job — affirmative action. It is
not clear whether A&M’s stated affirmative action policy is a
toothless means of appearing racially progressive or if it
truly affects the outcome of which candidate fills an
employment position. Either way, the outcome of such a
policy is disastrous and will only negatively affect A&M.
Last week a link was on the A&M Website,
“Presidential Search,” a site that posted a basic employ
ment description and solicited applications for the office
of the University President. Most striking about the
advertisement was the statement below the job description. The
line said, “The Texas A&M University System is an equal
opportunity and affirmative action employer.” There are only
two possibilities as to what this means.
If the policy carries no weight and is simply a facade to
appease those who feel that A&M is racially unwelcoming,
then shame on the University. Stated policy should be abided
by unless it is determined to be wrong. If it is wrong, then it
should be removed from University policy. If Texas A&M is
not abiding by its own rules, this not only leaves students and
administrators confused, but will be perceived by the public as
deceit. This would be a step backward for A&M’s goal of
changing the University’s racially-conscious image.
If the affirmative action policy is more than a paper tiger
and actually determines who will be employed by A&M, then
shame on the University. It is undeniable that decades ago,
Texas A&M was an unwelcoming place for minorities.
However, a past era of discrimination does not justify a new
one. All candidates involved with the University — whether
they are students or administrators — must be chosen with dis
regard to race or other factors not affecting job performance.
Individual merit used as the sole deciding factor is paramount
to ending the racial mentality that has plagued Texas A&M.
An answer to what is the true scenario is difficult to find.
The names of two mystery candidates not released by the
University have become shrouded in even more secrecy than
the federal shadow government. Dr. John Junkins is the chair
on the Presidential Search Advisory Committee. Junkins said
candidates with strong academic backgrounds and an ability to
fund-raise were actively sought. However, he declined com
ment when asked if the University’s affirmative action policy
affected the candidate pool or if it would influence who
becomes the next University president.
Brenda Simms, director of communications for the A&M
System and spokesperson for the presidential search, said she
did not know the criteria for searching out candidates.
Another interesting component is the apparent clash of
ideals at work at the highest levels of the University. President
Dr. Ray M. Bowen said, “It is a fundamental premise at Texas
A&M University that all students, faculty, administrators and
staff on our campus are due equal respect and consideration.”
Also, the University policy on harassment and discrimina
tion is clear. It reads, “All decisions and actions involving
students and employees should be based on applicable law
and individual merit. Texas A&M University, in accordance
with applicable federal and state law, prohibits discrimina
tion on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin ...”
ADRIAN CALCANEO* THE BATTALION
The irony is that the very premise of affirmative action is the
downplay of individual merit in light of a candidate’s race,
color or national origin.
Hopefully, the change of who occupies the maroon presi
dential office chair will be a catalyst for another change. The
change needed is one that rids politically correct thinking from
the administration in favor of common sense and academic
accountability. Texas A&M’S affirmative action is poor policy
no matter how it is sliced, arid it must be discarded before it
determines who makes the presidential cut.
Matthew Maddox is a sophomore
business administration major.
Contrary to the American way
JONATHANJONES
E arlier this month, the U.S. House of
Representatives voted to weaken the
laws against illegal immigration.
The measure allows more than 200,000
illegal immigrants to remain in the United
States while their status is determined
rather than requiring them to return home
to apply for U.S. entry. The vast majority
of these immigrants are from Mexico, and
many reside in Texas. Normalizing the
status of illegal immigrants through
amnesty and the possibility of dual citi
zenship are issues that loom large over the
upcoming meeting between President
Bush and Mexican President Vincente
Fox. Both are bad ideas and a terrible
precedent to set for the most successful
immigrant country in the world. The
future of America’s immigration policies
toward her southern neighbor should be
based on the core principle of loyalty
through assimilation.
President Bush is caught in a difficult
position. The new Mexican government
is the first in almost a century to attempt
serious free-market and democratic
reforms. Fox’s effort toward a more open
and economically-sound country is a
positive move for the United States and
the people of Mexico. In the short run,
however, he has some very specific and
strongly-held opinions about American
immigration policy. Mexico’s Foreign
Minister Jorge Castaneda has outlined
these repeatedly: amnesty for all illegals,
the establishment of a guest worker pro
gram for those still in Mexico, decreased
border enforcement and an exemption
from legal immigration quotas for
Mexico. The political motivations for
Bush’s endorsement of amnesty are
obvious: He wants to win a larger share
of the Hispanic vote for the Republican
Party and help Fox, who, without strong
support in Mexico’s Congress for his
programs, is losing popularity.
But such policies are not popular with
the American public. Pollster John Zogby
recently released a report that found 83
percent of Americans believe immigration
laws are too lenient. The focus on security
concerns since the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks means political trouble for those
who advocate policies such as amnesty for
illegal immigrants, and rightfully so.
America’s has been successful in forging a
unique national character through assimi
lation, regardless of race or national ori
gin. The course of action Fox wants the
United States to embark on is contrary to
what has made America strong.
Castaneda and other government offi
cials are pushing for “regularization.”
This involves legal work status for mil
lions of illegal immigrants, leading to
their eventual American citizenship.
However, a 1998 Mexican law states
these new American citizens could retain
Mexican nationality. In addition, the law
states that their children born in the
United States could also claim Mexican
dual citizenship. For the first time in
America’s history, millions of U.S. citi
zens could declare their allegiance to a
neighboring country.
Mexican immigrants have made
important contributions to the United
States. Most have become proud citizens
who transfer their loyalty from their
birth country and become as American
as any descendant of the Mayflower.
This process has enjoyed a long history
of success for both the country and the
individual. To try something else, espe
cially for political reasons, is to unnec
essarily take a course with unpredictable
consequences. Americanization and
assimilation have been met with undeni
able success since the birth of the
nation. America has been a haven for the
world’s poor and oppressed for more
than 200 years. Dual citizenship and
large-scale amnesty are inconsistent
with what has made America strong.
Jonathan Jones is a senior
political science major.