ATI0\
rALiox
:h
y as the
le hoini
irsch
i NASA'
ord ne\
they
rockete
:mber.
added
J statioi
give
Its mof;
the worl
The arr
mt, and
will pt-
launi
day fligt
thwane;
jltimatel;
lay. The;
id to hf
:h slippe,
de
rs of trt
iotti, m
ig down;
lough-gi
ase wool;
)usinesse
nprisone:
nily’s cm
i nephe'
i, a forme
s of thou
ry,” cour
conditio?
ch actio;
1 his reltj
dined fm
using hir
gambliiif
ic contro
;rnatioM
ily rigge;
on healt
Opimon
The Battalion
Page 7 • Wednesday, June 5, 2002
ANDIBACA
Not such a
hot idea
A s the scorching heat of another Texas
summer hits campus, students will visit
the Student Recreation Center to take
full advantage of the swimming pool. Until
recently, however, the outdoor pool was
scheduled to close for renovation during the
summer. Now, thanks to a frenzy of complaints from the student body,
Texas A&M decided to postpone renovation to the outdoor pool in the best
interest of the students.
Closing the outdoor swimming pool was an illogical idea simply
because it is summer. Any renovations to the outdoor facility should have
been planned for winter months when the pool is closed. The Rec Center
would not be in a rush to complete the work because it would be dur
ing off-season, when students would use the indoor pools. Students
spend all year anticipating relaxing outside by the pool.
Although students may feel that A&M does not consider their
opinion as they plan events that affect their lives, this is not the case for the
Rec Center pool. Rec Center staff said the dates for renovation were recon
sidered because they received so many complaints from students through
phone calls and confrontations. Considerations and compromises were
made by the staff to accommodate the student body. Each individual
complaint made an impact on the decision to close the outdoor pool.
The outdoor facility is used as a social gathering place for some
students and organizations. Others swim laps in the pool for exercise.
By taking away the availability of the outdoor pool, students felt they
would have been cheated out of a popular summer activity.
Student fees cover using the Rec Center facility, including the pool. If
A&M had decided to close the pool, the fee should have been pro-rated to
compensate students instead of having them pay for a facility that was
unavailable. Students may have been more accepting of the renovation plans
if they had been given an opportunity beforehand to express their views.
Finding an alternate pool would have been difficult for some students.
The closing of the outdoor pool would have made students feel they were
at a disadvantage. “If 1 didn’t have the Rec pool. I’d be laying out in my
backyard,” Dan Prendergast, a senior biology major, said. “You can drag
out the hose, but it’s just not the same.”
Although most apartments have pools for their residents to use, students
who live on campus or in a house may not have access to other pools aside
from the one at the Rec Center. Students would risk trespassing if they go
to an apartment pool where they do not live.
While plans to close the indoor instructional pool Aug. 19 are still
underway, thanks to the outcry of complaints from students, they will be
able to enjoy their time at the outdoor pool this summer without worry.
Now, the outdoor pool will not begin renovation until September 2, 2002,
due to both students who were willing to voice their opinions and adminis
trators who were willing to listen.
Audi Baca is a senior
journalism major.
ADRIAN CALCANEO • THE BATTALION
attorne)
to
fS
requm’
ricter b)
irs of tin
require
founded
in povei
-icans '
i childrel
betwee?|
d.
i waul;
uire
of the d
peopi'
11 are o|
•s a wee!
)07, ”f
i averagi
t 30 pel
the pee
work™
alsl
ceep M
welfare
includ'j
:ote mar]
a portioi
spent of!
ling ;ini
ptical o
lent ari
power i (
md train
umber e
ites als (
> plan t f !
propose
e chand
indepen
ent isn' !
“A wori
on in oe
Abercrombie & Fitch
too sexy for
S ex sells. This principle has
been recognized since the
advent of motion pictures,
when “peep show” nickelodeons
were among the first ever mov
ing picture clips available for
viewing. But back in the
1940’s, a “peep show” entailed a woman lift
ing her dress to reveal her bare ankles. Over
time, the standards for determining what
defines appropriate sexual content have great
ly deteriorated.
Sexuality in past advertising was based on
innuendos. Today, sexual content in advertising
has become incredibly blatant. Ad campaigns
such as Victoria’s Secret’s, which depict practi
cally naked models plastered on 30-foot-bill-
boards, or Uncle Ben’s commercials featuring a
couple lusting for something other than rice,
market their products through these techniques
unabashedly.
Leading the pack in explicit advertising is
clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch. In their
latest 2002 “XXX” catalog, it has been reported
that 121 of its 280 pages show suggestive photo
graphs which depict sexuality in many different
forms, ranging from nudity to near orgies. In
addition, the pages that do show clothing
advertise clothes that are not for sale. It seems
clear that Abercrombie is advertising something,
but it certainly is not clothes. Instead, they
appear to be advertising a lifestyle. A&F
spokesman Hampton Camey said of the catalog,
“It’s all part of the college experience ... a
commentary on college life.” Has this man spent
a day on a college campus?
It does not take a college degree to iccognize
the irony in a clothing company publishing a
magazine where very little clothing is actually
worn. This is not to say it does not work. Some
people, no doubt, come into the store to buy the
magazine, and Abercrombie’s young, sexy
image is probably due in no small part to its
association with this type of magazine. 5
It may be possible to chalk up Abercrom ne s
raunchy magazine and other distasteful ads as
merely a desperate grab for the attention an c is
cretionary spending of society’s youths, but sev-
young kids
eral recent incidents suggest that
Abercrombie has crossed the line.
For example, A&F has come out
with a line of thong underwear that
is sold in its Abercrombie Kids’
stores, targeting 7 to 14 year-old
children. As if selling thongs to
children is not bad enough, printed conspicuously
on the underwear are provocative phrases such
as “wink, wink” and “eye candy.” Objectionable
advertising is one thing, but pushing adult sexu
ality on an innocent 7-year-old child is another.
The most recent thong incident followed
Abercrombie’s previous debacle, the release of a
line of racially insensitive T-shirts. These T-
shirts feature phrases such as “Pizza Dojo —
Eat in or wok out —You like long time”,
“Wong Brothers Laundry Service - Two Wongs
can make it white”, and “Buddha Bash — Get
your Buddha on the floor.” All of these phrases
were accompanied by offensive pictures which
personify classic racial stereotypes that Asian-
Americans have worked hard to overcome.
Abercrombie & Fitch is, to put it simply,
pathetic. They have no pride or respect for them
selves or their targeted customers. This company
does not give thought to the repercussions that
would undoubtedly come if adolescents actually
adopted the type of lifestyle they are glamorizing.
Whether parading pictures that entice
teenagers to embrace a lifestyle involving sexual
promiscuity, exhorting little girls to engage in
adult activities, or racially stereotyping an entire
people group in order to make a joke, it seems
as though Abercrombie would do anything and
go to any length to grab the attention of today’s
teenagers and turn a profit. It is not, however,
Abercrombie or their kind who will ultimately
decide whether such tactics will succeed and
be rewarded. Instead the responsibility lies upon
consumers to realize and react to Abercrombie
& Fitch’s harmful and dehumanizing tactics.
Lindsye Forson is a sophomore
journalism major.
LINDSYE FORSON
Coalition for Life
needs new strategy
I n recent weeks, the Brazos
Valley Coalition for Life
has been hard at work try
ing to block the path of a
major women’s health
resource. While the Coalition
still has members who pray
outside Planned Parenthood, its sights are set
upon the Texas A&M Women’s Center, which
is seen as a potential threat to the morality of
impressionable young adults who enter its
doors.
The Coalition claims the Center is discrim
inating against young women who object to
abortion, and it finds the material the Center
distributes regarding unplanned pregnancy
offensive. Unfortunately for the Coalition, this
is not something the Board of Regents or the
A&M president can wave a magic wand at and
change. By directly approaching the vice presi
dent of Student Affairs with a petition that can
be read at www.geocities.com/aggiesforlife,
the Coalition demonstrated its ignorance of
the way the Women’s Center works.
While the Center must accommodate stu
dents’ various needs, the Coalition is over
looking the fact that many of the pamphlets
available at the Women’s Center promote
adoption, abstinence and birth control. Only
one pamphlet mentions abortion, and it is a
reference to the services offered by Planned
Parenthood, which includes abortion and the
morning-after pill.
The Women’s Center is entirely within its
rights by distributing literature regarding birth
control, abortion, equality issues and any
other relevant issue concerning women. The
stance taken in the Coalition’s petition
appears to be made by people who have never
stepped foot in the Center. If they had, they
would have noticed that four of the 22 pam
phlets offered are devoted to abstinence or
adoption. The rest concern breast health,
equality or birth control issues.
The Coalition failed to do its homework. If
it had, it would know that since the Women’s
Center is a service branch of a public universi
ty, Rick Perry is not the final
authority on how the law functions.
As long as the University accepts
grants from the federal govern
ment, it falls under their jurisdic
tion. It is more difficult for public
schools to close programs such as
the Women’s Center than it would be for a
private school to close a similar program.
There are certainly students and faculty
members who practice abstinence, but even if
the majority of students objected to the pam
phlets distributed in the Center, they could not
legally remove the offensive material by bul
lying the Center’s employees.
Even more upsetting about the path the
Coalition has taken is that rather than inde
pendently distributing its own information on
campus, it wants to interfere with the information
provided by the Women’s Center. Its arrogant
attitude of “we know what is best for you” is
insulting at an institution comprised of adults.
If the Coalition hopes to protect the student
body from information that might contribute
to their moral corruption, it has come to the
wrong place at the wrong time.
Protesting sex education in high schools
might be a better use of the Coalition’s time. At
least high school students have not reached the
age of consent and the government might be
more apt to meet the Coalition’s demands. As
educated adults, students at A&M are expected
to make their own decisions and use their own
discernment during their time spent here.
If a woman who objects to birth control
chooses to go into the Women’s Center, all
she has to do is avoid that information. There
are plenty other reasons for any woman at
A&M to go in and see what the Women’s
Center has to offer. It would be ridiculous for
an Alcoholics Anonymous group to petition
restaurants, which serve alcohol, and it is just
as ridiculous for the Coalition to petition the
Women’s Center.
Christy Ruth is a senior
journalism major.
CHRISTY RUTH