I
"IONai
TALIO!
in
1 the buili
esumed.
ters wate
mer 8%
-ennoxi?
m before
live telev
3f extrent
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Monday, June 3, 2002
An immature selection process
Board of Regents behaved poorly in choosing A&M’s next president
n the b
" May to
11 bumii
;e we kne
t way."
heduled
ying “G(
ng on tk
would
on of it ix
n condm
»e the
den Jubi
heduled
rountrux
t St.
iv’s fires
.s thatdis
at Winds)
‘ourt PaL
o areas
water fa
T!
MAT! HEW MADDOX
here exists a regime that
drains its contributors of
their wealth and gives them
little say in return. It is an insulated
oligarchy bent on social engineering
and goes against the individual
merit system. Its members are so
despotic as to have no qualms in silencing their detractors. Its
majority has overlooked the general welfare for personal politics
and is rooted in a system destined to fail. This is not the Axis of
Evil. The aloof Ivory Tower that has brought arrogance and stupidity
down on other Universities for decades has surfaced in Aggieland,
manifested in the recent presidential selection process. The group
ofTexas A&M System regents behind this trend has no place at A&M.
Board members Dionel Aviles, R.H. Stevens, Anne Armstrong,
Lionel Sosa and Susan Wynn allowed their true colors to shine
through during a hastily called meeting on May 1 1th. Student and
former student groups — crowned by representatives of the
Association of Former Students, the Twelfth Man Foundation,
and the Corps Foundation — petitioned to speak on the behalf of
their constituents. Before the floor could be opened to those
speakers, regent Aviles audaciously protested they not be
heard. He was overruled by Chairperson Erie Nye, who used
his authority to allow the speakers. Anyone who would want
to silence TAMU’s strongest contributors can only be charac
terized as a tyrant at best.
Sighs, eye rolling, watch checking, and counts
ing - all by certain regents — intermittently
overshadowed the speakers timed 3-minute
speeches. A class of freshmen might be
reprimanded for that behavior, but such
were the manners of A&M policy mak-
■ers. These actions are preserved for
« Ball to see at
’^IJhttpy/user^.ev 1 .net/~calr/bor.htm.
Since the meeting, it has become public
: knowledge that regent Aviles is under
consideration for a nomination to the
in office Air Force Academy’s Board of
reviewnt Visitors by President Bush. Aviles
m in 20W was a Governor Bush appointee
Defulsinli to the regent position, as were the
;s the uni four other regents that voted for
toanelhi; Gates. Gates worked closely with
week. George H. Bush during his presi-
ter compe dency. The closed-door politics and
ruptive. back-room deals that determined the
hey will!: outcome of this selection process must
ie won't! never factor in again.
ew leade: Perhaps the greatest trespass dealt to the integrity
fight sol jof the process was the series of public attacks
lade by unnamed sources on Senator Phil Gramm,
n again.* Time and again, a Texas A&M regent found it tasteful
nd prudent to snipe at Gramm from behind the mask of
;r since' gnonymity. This writer’s name appears beside all he says; that
y he miJPs the least that should be demanded of an A&M policy maker
and employee of the Texas taxpayer. Is there any wonder Gramm
declined to publicly announce his candidacy?
The other side of the selection process, the selection commit
tee, was a laughable excuse for a representative democracy. They
made no secret that they would choose someone to carry on
President Ray M. Bowen’s Vision 2020. Bold leadership other
than the status quo was not wanted. Once revised to the point
where integrity can be found in the selection committee composition
and procedure, the Board of Regents must be more tightly bound
by their decision.
However, this time that did not exist. Its single largest flaw
was the over-reliance on faculty opinion. While faculty input is
valuable, its utter dominance of the selection process made a
mockery out of open consideration of all possible candidates.
While Gates has agreed to champion Vision 2020, he has also
vowed to increase faculty control of the University and increase pay
raises. There is little wonder why when faculty outnumbered every
one else on the the selection committee, 18-6. Any committee that
could pass over interviewing the candidate most qualified aca
demically, politically and emotionally is less “Blue Ribbon” and
more “Bull Corn”.
Those educators who claim a certain former can-
v didate for the U.S. presidency would make a poor
ill choice are practicing deceit on level with academic
fraud. Some faculty have actively shown how high
they carry their noses by expressing in the local
media their contempt with alumni opinion.
Robert Gates, however, deserves the benefit of
the doubt that Gramm was denied. Gates may be
the very “agent of change” which he has been
described as. If he proves himself unwilling
to be anchored by his predecessor’s tunnel
vision or the group that selected him, a
Gates statue may be the next erected
on campus. He should be commended
for the way he has conducted himself
by not participating in the fray.
The real losers in this hullaljaloo
have been those that the system was
created to serve — the students. As stu
dents graduate, they will remember how
little former students were respected and
will give less to the next generation of
Aggies. The alumni must be val
ued for more than just their dona
tions. And the asset of Phil
Gramm, whose unabashed love
for A&M was returned with
partisan backstabbing, might be
lost if the message sent by the
regents is heeded.
The crimes of arrogance committed
by the Board of Regents against those
who employ them must not go unpun
ished. Those hiding in their Ivory
Towers without the best interests of
A&M in mind must go.
Matthew Maddox is a junior
management major.
ns,
Ma
RUBEN DELUNA • THE BATTALION
p race.
,e will be
s week,'
NY doctors should learn best
abortion techniques available
New Harvard policy fails to
properly protect women
ittacks Dy
Mideast
js carried
including
oup has
t fighting
ions an
rafat has
.^structure
But his
to differ
uding
see.
i FOR
D BE
the job
ne on their
pie
he dear
next
)k for
xnald
8:30
ailing
epted.
he abortion debate has
become one of the most con
troversial topics in present
history. Recently, the argument
over abortion has become even
more heated in the wake of the
New York City public hospital sys
tem’s decision to expand upon its abortion train
ing program. Despite the protests of pro-life
advocates, this change in policy will merely
allow those who choose to have abortions to do
so in a safer and more accomodating manner. As
long as abortion is a legal procedure which
requires medical personnel, it is the responsibility
of public hospitals to supply the public with doc
tors who can provide such services.
Beginning in July, abortion training will
become required curriculum for obstetrics and
gynecology residents in New York’s 11 public hos
pitals, which train one in every seven of the
nation’s doctors, according to The Associated
Press. Currently, only two of the New York hospi
tals train students in proper abortion techniques.
Students who undergo this training will
learn the latest abortion procedures, including
nse of the abortion pill Mifepristone and other
techniques which do not require anesthesia or an
operating room. Students will have the option of
excluding themselves from such classes on moral
or religious grounds.
The main reason the abortion topic is causing
such heated controversy is because New York
City’s public hospital system has traditionally
been a model for other hospital systems, and
some believe similar training programs will be
jenacted in other public hospital systems.
According to the New York Daily News, in
1997, the number of obstetrics and gynecology
Programs teaching proper abortion techniques as
Part of its normal curriculum was 12 percent,
down from 23 percent in 1985. Due to this
decrease, the number of abortion providers has
declined and 84 percent of U.S. counties have
no one qualified to perform abortions. Nearly
25 percent of all women who wish to have an
abortion must travel more than 50 miles to do so.
This change in New York public hospital
policy, which was heavily supported by New
York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been
accused of making abortion appear to be an
RICHARD BRAY
acceptable practice. However, it is
not the responsibility of the New
York public hospital system to
determine whether abortion should
be legally offered to American citi
zens. That is the domain of the U.S.
government.
In the meantime, it is the responsibility of the
public hospitals to provide the public with all
medical services they require, which often
includes abortion. According to The Associated
Press, about 1.3 million American women have
abortions each year, making it one of the nation’s
most common surgical procedures. As a result of
this demand, Americans must have a way to safely
obtain these services from their local medical pro
fessionals.
Olivia Gans of the National Right to Life
Committee criticized New York’s plan because
residents would have to opt out of the program
instead of specifically requesting to be included.
She said this policy placed pressure upon young
doctors to separate themselves from the others.
However, she underestimates the divisive nature
of the abortion debate.
Virtually anyone who pays attention to current
events realizes that the abortion debate is not
one which will be resolved anytime soon. People
on both sides of the issue feel strongly and have
logical arguments to support their position. For a
medical student to choose not to learn abortion
techniques would not make them an outcast or a
renegade, it would merely make them one of a
large number of individuals who have moral or
religious objections to abortions.
By making abortion training a part of their
medical program, the New York public hospital
system is providing the public with a larger
number of doctors who are capable of fulfilling
all their needs, including those for abortions.
Other public hospital systems would be well
advised to follow New York’s suit. After all, the
hospitals that train our future doctors have a
responsibility to train their students in all the
legal procedures their patients will need. Through
the proper training of doctors, hospitals make it
easier for women to gain access to these services.
Richard Bray is a senior
journalism major.
R ecently, the faculty at
Harvard University
approved a revision of the
university’s policies involving
sexual misconduct, assault and
rape allegations. The measure,
believed to be the first of its
kind in the United States, limits the number of
claims the university looks into. The allega
tions that are not accompanied by either an
eyewitness or physical evidence at the outset
will not be investigated.
University officials say the new policy will
result in the refusal to examine cases that are
likely to end without resolution. Students will
benefit from not having to go through the trying
process of an investigation and the campus
will save resources. If the administrative board
does refuse to investigate, students can take
their cases to the police as an alternative.
This attitude and change in policy could be
the start of a dangerous trend. Refusing to look
into claims just because they may not be
resolved is a weak decision. The main goal of
university investigations should not necessarily
be resolution; another goal should be raising
awareness.
The claim that the new policy will benefit
students and relieve their frustration is
ridiculous. Limiting involvement will only
make the victims’ feelings of shame and isola
tion worse, and due to Harvard’s prominence,
other colleges may follow their example and
adopt a similar policy.
Rape is the most common violent offense
committed in the United States; one-third of
women will be raped in their lifetime, and over
twenty percent of these women are raped
between the ages of 20 and 24. Most rape cases
go unreported due to the nature and attitudes
surrounding the crime. Rape is about power
and humiliation, and many victims undeservedly
feel they are to blame for their attack or that
they will not be believed.
Incidents on college campuses are particu
larly difficult due to the confined setting.
Victims may be forced to see their attackers on
a regular basis due to classes or common
friendships. Almost half of the women
attacked at college never tell anyone about the
JENELLE WILSON
assault. During the 2000-2001
school year. Harvard University
only had seven cases to investi
gate; declining to hear allega
tions that do not have an eyewit
ness or physical evidence jWill
further discourage victims frbm
reporting their cases. Instead of making it
more difficult for young women to come for
ward, universities should encourage incident
reports.
Universities should not simply defer their
difficult cases to the police. The criminal jus
tice system is a huge disappointment when
handling sexual assault and rape cases. Only
two percent of the women raped ever see their
attacker.spend a day in jail, and the average
length of time between an attack and an arrest
is 18 months. Hundreds of thousands of rape
kits sit on police department shelves because
authorities lack the funding to process them.
Police investigations, due to limited resources,
should not be the only option a victim has.
Colleges must acknowledge the crimes com
mitted on their campuses and do all they can
to prevent them.
Some see the new policy as a way to bring
fairness to the school judicial process, but it is
forcing the burden of proof entirely onto the
victim. When, according to the Justice
Department, only two percent of reported rape
cases are false, women who report their
attacks deserve the benefit of the doubt. In
fact, by the time the average rapist is arrested,
has raped between eight and twelve women.
Refusing to investigate all claims puts more
women on campus at risk.
Universities have a unique opportunity to
impact the attitudes about rape. Simply stating
that sexual misconduct is against student rules
is not enough. With a large portion of both
victims and offenders attending college, cam
pus officials must become more involved
instead of backing away.
Jenelle Wilson is a junior
political science major.