NATIO!
HE BATTALIOI
held at the
ding
•achers
11
Wednesday April 3, 2002
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL
Students for Mayor
Four candidates are vying this spring to be the mayor of College
Station. Usually, this would not be abnormal or particularly note
worthy. What should be noteworthy, however, is that this year, two
of the candidates are college students. A largely ceremonial post
with some oversight authority, the mayor of College Station is not
a full-time position. Some have suggested that the two students are
not serious contenders, and should not be considered as such by
voters. To the contrary, student participation in local government
issues should be encouraged in every way possible.
Texas A&M and Blinn students are an integral part of the Brazos
Valley community, and it is only right that students speak their
mind on issues that concern them. Many of the problems and
solutions the College Station City Council debate directly con
cern Aggies. For student input to be seriously considered, stu
dents must get involved. Sadly, electoral turnout is chronically
low among local voters. For college students, the percentage of
eligible voters who actually vote is even worse.
With greater student involvement, both at the ballot box and
through elected officials, the issues this group cares about will
appear at the forefront of the local government agenda. From
construction and parking to taxes and the businesses allowed to
operate, student views would be much more dominant. In a
town overrun with them, this is a positive. This is what the two
mayoral candidates are attempting to accomplish, and they merit
serious consideration.
More than 50,000 young adults reside in the Bryan-College
Station area. That is a lot of untapped electoral power. Of
course, not all students agree on every issue, but student input
has been lacking in the decision-making process of local gov
ernment for many years.
At the very least, Aggies should pay attention to the local
services provided and how their tax dollars are being spent. It
is, after all, our town too.
IWII || -|-|P| p*
mam m m M wLm mam
MATTERS
Cloning is needed for science y not domesticated pets
dential election,
he wants to dedi-
lion for researcli
acy programs and
work, the same
another proposal
up Tuesday on
ydi
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief MARIANO CASTILLO
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
News Editor
News Editor
Brian Ruff
Cayla Carr
Sommer Bunge
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
/ Mdinivie the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves
righto edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in per-
SOM0I4 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014
MMcDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1111. Fax:
)845-26 47 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com
iad considered
ool, because d
id store them,
le eggs to the
>al and others
3 helped theij
■ DA told me,
call it a drug
^hat does it mean
0 be homosexual?
MAIL CALL
Certified
•azos
Valle/
untleV
f 79
oUegeAV;
r TX 778 40 :
■8916
972
§P
Half the things in Gay
Wareness Week seem point-
p Ss - Isn't being gay just a sex-
preference? Being gay does
, tg'veyou any magical powers,
Sea ses or an innate fashion
nf 56 J" 0r one thing, the week is
about letting Aggies know
ere are gay people on campus,
[ Mr - Anderson said. I think that
L a 8 IVe n, seeing as how we
ave a CLBTA and Aggie ALLIES,
■j. ^°ut getting the moderate
L P e on this campus, the ones
L,° u are open minded and are
l homo Ph°b ic , to see that
intii° Sexua * s are treated differ-
|rj ^ have been for a lon 8
, • it they can get those peo-
Sav tk Un< d ers tand, then I would
r hey would have a majority
hoiw°n le on tbeir s '^ e ' anc *
Ilfl they could prevent
,0 Pen^ from ha PP enin 8
Can P k knOW that gays are
KSDPrt bein § s ar, d deserve the
Orp intended for every-
ilescrik e _. Da y Silence is better
ttinj e ! as da Y in respect of all
ivoi C p wbo bav e never had a
jive ’ ratber than a silent protest.
v ho hAH yC !u r - Voice for P eo P le
bunHcn their vo,ce silenced,
XenJ 1 ^ a good idea - That
itivp c P k e °P le ta ^ e this week neg-
Ve should matter to us all.
Charles DeWitt
Class of 2005
Tradition Council
not representative
In response to John McFate's
April 2 mail call:
I take offense to McFate demo
nizing ring dunking. As if the
Tradition Council not declaring it
an "official" tradition somehow
makes it bad bull or counter to the
Aggie spirit. The several refer
ences of "all Aggies" cater to the
presumed conformist nature of
the student body, but do not hold
true for student participation in
any tradition. It is almost like
oppressively organized religion vs.
free expression of faith.
Ring dunking can be a memo
rable occasion shared with those
you've grown close to at A&M
before everyone graduates and
parts ways. But McFate would
defame it, as if only the adminis
tration can choose our decent
traditions. Should we 'beat the
heck outta non-PC thought?
Maybe they won't be satisfied
until everyone walks in 5-person
rows with T-shirts that spell
"howdy", or embrace every new
tradition that the administration
chooses for PR. Whatever the
case, the Tradition Council can
officially recognize my red-ass.
Chris Ordonez
Class of 2000
COURTNEY WALSH
F our to six million dogs and cats
are euthanized each year in ani
mal shelters across the United
States because of overcrowding and
lack of adoption. Six to seven million
more will die from starvation, disease,
exposure and abuse as a result of aban
donment and neglect. According to the
Humane Society of the United States,
companion animal overpopulation is at
an all-time high with an average of 5,
500 dogs and cats born every hour of
every day, a birth rate seven times that
of human beings.
Given these numbers and the
unwanted animals dying simply to make
more room for future unwanted animals,
the idea of anyone paying money to
clone a pet seems rather incredulous.
Unfortunately, cloning is an available
reality and somewhat popular.
Texas A&M is well known for its
active participation in the competitive
scientific world of genetics and cloning
with Second Chance, the successful bull
calf clone of Chance the prize bull, the
Missyplicity Project, the Noah’s Ark
Project and the recent cloning of a cat.
While these projects possess scien
tific merit and contribute much to the
ever-expanding sciences of genetics and
cloning, these are scientific research
projects with specific objectives that
never were intended to become pet
store products. For example, the Noah’s
Ark Project was developed for research
and collect of endangered species’
eggs, semen and embryos for future
cloning if a species becomes extinct.
The use of the reproductive technolo
gy from this project for the cloning of
someone’s favorite dog is little more than
technology abuse and the exploitation
and victimization of peoples emotions.
Yet, for a hefty fee averaging
between $200 and $400, plus mainte
nance fees and actual cloning and cre
ation fees. Aggies can pay for their pet’s
DNA to be excised, frozen and stored at
Genetics Savings and Clone Inc., a for-
profit corporation in College Station.
What the public does not realize is
that each animal’s reproductive system
is different from another and variation
within the species exists; what works
for a cat may not necessarily work for a
dog and vice versa. Besides, cloning is
too delicate and experimental to
become consistent anytime soon. Even
if a successful clone is created, the per
son is not getting the same pet.
Personality is not encoded in any genet
ic sequence.
As a result, money is being spent for
little more than DNA storage and
experimentation. And, when millions of
tax dollars are spent each year to subsi
dize animal control, county shelters and
city pounds, not to mention the cost of
euthanization and disposal of animals,
something seems amiss. Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(SPCA) of Texas shelters handle an
average of 1,200 animals each month,
so the odds of finding the right pet are
favorable. And pet adoption is inexpen
sive in comparison to the cost of
cloning. It costs $129 to adopt a dog
and $75 to adopt a cat including their
vaccinations, deworming, spaying/neu
tering and identification tags. A clone
comes with none of this.
Granted, some animals end up at the
shelter because of behavioral or other
problems, but who is to say that a clone
will not have similar problems.
Someone who has invested heavily in
cloning a pet is not going to turn it in
to the local shelter if it eats shoes; such
a system is rather ridiculous.
When a beloved pet dies, it is only
natural to feel pain and grief, accompa
nied by a desire to have that pet live
forever. The public’s misconception of
cloning has fed into this desire, and
people are willing to invest large sums
of money in the hope that their pet will
be re-created. People need to move on
after they lose a pet and put their money
to better use by adopting a new animal
or donating money to their local animal
shelter and animal welfare charities
rather than encourage an unrealistic
application of a scientific technology
simply. At least if an animal is adopted
from a shelter, a life has been saved.
Courtney Walsh is a senior
biomedical science and English major.
Drug testing violates privacy
DHARMARAJ INDURTHY
A n Oklahoma case, Board
of Education of
Tecumseh Public School
District, Pottawatomie County
v. Earls, concerning the privacy
of students has made its way to
the Supreme Court. The dis
pute is whether schools can enforce random drug tests on
students in extracurricular activities even when lacking prob
able cause. The Court should rule in favor of student liberty,
but, given its history on this issue, it may only compound its
previous blunders.
In a 1995 case, Veronia v. Acton, the Supreme Court upheld
a school drug testing policy for athletes. However, in a recent
Texas case, Tannahi/l v. Lockney, a federal court ruled against
a mandatory drug-testing policy that targeted every student on
the grounds that such “suspicionless drug-testing” violated
Fourth Amendment protections. As Grahm Boyd of the
American Civil Liberties Union said, “The court’s ruling sends
an important message to school districts across the nation: that
they cannot treat students like suspects.”
The current case addresses an Oklahoma school district that
required drug tests of students engaged in extracurricular activ
ities. Prior to the implementation of this policy, there existed
neither a history of widespread drug use in the school nor any
suspicions of drug use in these organizations. The district sim
ply asserted that students engaged in such activities represent
the school and are open to increased scrutiny. Most alarming is
that actively involved students are targeted, a demographic that
is the least likely to use drugs as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
contended in the Court hearings.
In Veronia v. Acton, the Court reasoned that students had a
lower expectation of privacy than adults, athletes in particular,
and curbing drug use was worth the infringement on student
liberty. It also said that schools did not necessarily need proba
ble cause to prompt searches. However, in upholding this rule,
the Court implicitly validated testing in all schools regardless of
their drug problem history, as is the case in Oklahoma where
the drug-testing policy is more preemptive than preventive.
The crux of the issue is in gauging the relative importance
of student liberty and the need to stop drug use. Given that
other measures such as drug-sniffing dogs, locker searches and
drug education can combat drug problems, student liberty
should come first. The majority of students are innocent. There
is no evidence to suppose that drug-users gravitate to the lock
er room or the band hall. Moreover, parents should have pre
rogatives in allowing drug testing on their children.
It is unclear why students have fewer rights to privacy than
adults. If they can be randomly drug tested, can they be random
ly strip-searched? There is no obvious line, only degrees of inva
siveness. It is also unclear why public schools as government
institutions are granted lower burdens of proof for their policies.
In navigating these policy questions, one cannot deny that there
is ambiguity in weighing student rights and pragmatic concerns.
When in doubt, policy should err toward student liberty.
Whenever basic rights are removed, there should be a com
pelling basis, but despite clear Fourth Amendment infringe
ment, that is not the case here. Even if one concedes that some
schools have pervasive drug use that merits the infringement of
basic rights, certainly this cannot be said of every school.
Drug use is a problem in America. However, the way to
combat it is not by compromising constitutional rights. Drug
testing, if employed at all, must only be a last resort. The life
of an adolescent American is not easy. The majority of stu
dents work hard, and those who actively involve themselves in
school activities should be rewarded. If there are no grounds
for suspicion, students should be presumed innocent and gov-
Dhartnaraj Indurthy is a senior
physics major.