Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 6, 2002)
’NATIO BATTai ins Opinion Page 9 • Thursday, June 6, 2002 nh ' than usidered sovereign; shoot at imme: 1 attacks there in Iraqi 'ts. that the to have militan they uq ooriym burning issue ross burning should not be protected speech ind % Force' H els, B4ig aggres(> RICHARD BRAY ast Tuesday, the Supreme j>urt agreed to examine portersi-^thje First Amendment Jdecf de whether state banning cross burning liie/ the constitutional Uee of free new, mofeh. In order to pro- nde, Hoa American citi- are fee s, the Supreme dent tha trt must uphold t past,”h h state laws to li vent domestic el prism in the far St m of cross burn- devel destruct In the case of Nations ifginia vs. Black. [Virginia litaryfac preme Court nest ansv uck dcnwn the ite’s 50-year old raqi com v banning cross ‘ United only be nw in ilitary fad devel 1 or bioA i aw criminalized a eld has proach. i efforts at mplished ji deniai nil e ministry Irning in November, e court ruled 4-3 that I rticular method of con- ying a certain message. The first time the Ipreme Court considered the Tue of cross burning was in •92, when it invalidated a St. lul, Minn., ordinance which |nned the burning of cross in order to anger or Ifghten others. As a result the ruling, state Supreme j_ lourts in Maryland, New CT^jlrsey and South Carolina down similar laws in |teir states. Virginia cited the ime aconpfehients of these states in regard 1 their decision. However, the state Supreme Courts in ministry|' or ida, Washington and California have dia relat'd their cross burning laws are compat- e unlikePe with the 1992 ruling, and the lirginia case therefore gives the U.N. moJupreme Court an opportunity to clarify )atrol thelie law. it it “mil It is important for the Supreme Court effective li recognize that the burning of crosses out. howjin order to intimidate innocent people ;ary to lilhould be among the limitations of free m — "Ipeech in this country. Just as yelling Jfire’’ in a crowded theater is not protect- > been sold speech, states should be able to prose- oetweenl^ute those who burn crosses. confronts! The American Civil Liberties Union i Indian las argued that burning crosses should id along le considered protected speech because jhe burning of the cross contains a mes ay that hoi s by Dell and Def| sage, thereby placing it under the protec tion of the First Amendment. However, the message it contains is one that prom ises violence. Historically, the burning of a cross has not been associated with minor forms of violence, but with lynch ing and murder. Just as it is illegal to threaten someone’s life verbally, states should also be allowed to ban the same threat inherent in burning a cross. Throughout history, those in charge of this country’s laws have recognized that there must be exceptions to the First Amendment. Journalists cannot know- ANGELIQUE FORD • THE BATTALION ingly spread lies through the media, and people cannot make bomb threats to schools or threaten the lives of others. Limitations such as these are present because they improve the society we live in. Although such speech contains a mes sage, that message has been deemed so detrimental as to be made illegal. The symbolic burning of crosses deserves to be in that category. Richard Bray is a senior journalism major. title IX hurts A&M soccer aj payee is the « e lookin; an see ttnfy , II ^ lex as, football reigns as the king of all sports question II 11 ^ eve nt that can bring 80,000 people together in fromli^^ . r . t * 1e sa ^ e °f sportsmanship and the Aggie ir againsljn 51111 * s wor th the financial hurdles it presents. Tiovyever, there is another sport that is on the rise r t | le United States that does not exist at A&M Pccause of football’s success and the failure of a federal law. 11T1 Soccer s growing popularity in America has been gaining U.|zl 0rnen tum over the past thirty years. Today, it is one the most K 0 Hi Ular s P° rts America’s youth, second only to basketball. I- iJSy t,lou gh, A&M is still without the great asset of a men’s iCri p A soccer te am- tven as the U.S. men’s soccer team competes on the interna- • l() nal stage in the World Cup, A&M is failing to realize the role could play in men’s professional soccer. This is largely due to infamous amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title e-iiio'f * Wa s a 1972 law designed to prohibit discrimination against urt recoit w omen in higher education by requiring that athletic depart- ; Journal me nts allocate equal funding to both male and female sports hief. disfj Programs. While its intentions were noble, its current form miss- )rt city l ] e s the mark in a shameful fashion. While chances for women to ile workiji play college sports jumped 16 percent from 1985 to 1997, istani nw ; ‘jccording to General Accounting Office data, men’s chances >earance,| ropped 12 percent. These results are not due to a decline in showing] mterest in men’s sports. :re sent | a matter Q f f- ac ^ numerous top male college athletic pro- n unknoj grains have been canceled around the country. The reason that ^rfbal 11,6 ^ 1138 been 80 damaging to men’s athletics is that it has Nvm grovvn to b e enforced as a gender quota system. This explains ntol t,lere is a women’s soccer team, but no men’s team. Under ^ ^ ndl US pres ent interpretation, universities are forced to spend equal 6 near! arnounts on men’s and women's sports. What began as a move to ^Pikisff °| Pen Paths for P ote ntial women scholars has resulted in the n ‘jjpnf s ' arr iming of doors on proven male athletes. sus pe<J N A&M has the potential to be a powerhouse of male soccer if a wPakSl ^ CA A team was founded. A&M women’s soccer head coach G. of ia4 Uuerrieri called Texas a “hotbed of recruitment” for other univer- I ishkarT Slt y male soccer programs. Some of the nation’s top high school , Vl-Qaid P ro grams are in the Dallas and Houston areas. Further proof that MATTHEW MADDOX d showirj captivit| g that bo| he e- A&M has the potential for a nationally competitive team is the women’s team performance. Aggie women’s soccer has been a consistent contender for the national title. In the last seven seasons, the team has finished in the top 10 each time. This year was no different, with the women reaching the “Elite Eight” and averaging 1,700 spectators a match. Also, Southern Methodist University has dominated men’s colle giate soccer, reaching the quarterfinals this year. It would be unfair, however, to overlook the men’s team that Texas A&M currently has. It is a dedicated group of young men who play for the love of sports and without the benefits bestowed on an NCAA Division I team. The Texas A&M Men’s Soccer Club operates without the scholarships commonly used to attract top recruits or the funding needed for. Despite this, the club team has consistently outperformed its club competitors, and even the NCAA teams that occasionally practice against them. Club team president Gareth Click is direct about what the team thinks of Title IX. “It has become a detrimental law,” he said. It would seem that A&M and other Big 12 schools would have to settle for non-NCAA teams for federal compliance, but there is no hope on the horizon. “This is inherently unfair. A system that distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of an individual’s sex is a system that curtails freedom of choice,” said Gerald A. Reynolds, an attor ney and Bush appointee slated to take over the reins of the fed eral agency responsible for enforcing Title IX. Under Norma Cantu, Reynolds’ predecessor, the Department of Education enforced a gender quota system called “proportion ality” on college athletics. In the name of proportionality, hun dreds of sports teams from track to gymnastics and baseball to swimming have been cut. In a town where the football season becomes a nationally viewed reality TV series, funding for other men’s sports is bleak. Title IX’s stronghold on college athletics has meant no men’s soccer for far too long. Matthew Maddox is a junior management major. Poor behavior plagues Boulder I n a classic example of a few bad apples ruining it for all the oth ers, students at the University of Colorado in Boulder living in a designated area will no longer be allowed to possess upholstered fur- JENNIFER LOZANO niture on their porches or patios as of Aug. 1, 2002. According to The New York Times, if the ordi nance is violated, students could face up to 90 days in jail and fines of up to $1,000. This drastic law serves as a consequence of several small but destructive fires caused by highly inebriat ed students stealing and torching sofas at random. Authorities claim these perplexing acts of foolishness often occur as a means of celebrating a sporting event victory. Although this solution may seem futile, it is the only option that students have given authorities who are committed to creat ing a safe and peaceful environment for both students and other residents of the community. In addition, students attending an institution of higher learning should respect themselves and their community enough to abstain from participating in destructive, barbaric behavior. The university, where more than 100 couches have been torched since 1996, is not the first college town to implement an ordinance of this nature. According to The New York Times, the college towns of Fort Collins, Colo., Normal, Ill. and Blacksburg, Va. have enacted similar laws. In addition to this new ordinance, the Colorado legislature recently approved a bill that requires colleges and universities to suspend students convicted of any disturbance-related crimes for an entire year. According to Jon Mies, the College Station fire marshal. College Station has an open storage ordinance that does not allow commodities or indoor furniture to be in public view. This ordinance was implemented because of the appearance and hindrance these items produce. Thus, College Station has seen limited couch-burning activity. Those opposed to Colorado’s new law stress that simply removing couches from porches would not keep students from getting drunk and rowdy. As Scott MacMaster, a 22 year-old recent business degree recipient from CU, said to The New York Times, “We’re going to get drunk, we’re going to party, we’re going to do what we do — you can’t stop it.” However, what young MacMaster failed to realize (maybe he was hung over during his business law class) is that his par tying rituals involve arson, and authorities have every right to do their best to prevent crimes from occurring. By removing the couches from the open air, the ante has been upped for the arsonists. They will either quit their imma ture behavior or they will move on to something of more value and danger and will be prosecuted. Objectors claimed the new ordinance was discriminatory against those who cannot afford new lawn furniture. However, since eight disturbances have occurred in Boulder since 1997, dozens of arrests, and injuries of more than 20 officers have resulted, the new ordinance seems rightly implemented. At times it is necessary for a small portion of the population to endure unpleasant situations for the benefit of the greater whole. The fact that authorities in Boulder and other college com munities have had to turn to such an odd measure in order to prevent drunken students from torching flammable goods should serve as a wake up call to college students everywhere. The fine line between good, celebratory fun and ridiculous, dangerous behavior has always been difficult for some to dis tinguish, especially when it is blurred to almost nonexistence by drunken eyes. When it comes to torching stolen property, however, it should be almost certain the line has been crossed. Be it burning couches or unsightly garbage containers, college students need to set higher standards and respect themselves and their community by behaving in a considerate, intelligent manner, even after a few rounds at the bar. Jennifer Lozano is a senior english major. MAIL CALL Coalition for Life did not write letter In response to Christy Ruth's June 5 column: Before she goes on to slam the Coalition for Life, Christy Ruth might have liked to know that the Coalition for Life did not submit the letter she referred to throughout her article. The letter was submitted to Dr. Ray Bowen, Dr. Southerland, The Battalion, Sen. Steve Ogden and Rep. Fred Brown by a number of students who were concerned about their representation and access to information through the Women's Center. These stu dents were concerned about the Women's Center's failure to live up to its mission statement, which says, "The Women's Center at Texas A&M University serves as a symbol for the uni versity's commitment to inclu sion and equal access." These students, along with the 300+ who signed the petition (mostly women), were con cerned because despite their repeated efforts to have equal access, representation and a sense of inclusion, they were consistently denied and ignored. The Women's Center is run by Brenda Bethman, a volunteer and staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood, who has brushed off the input of stu dents concerned about chastity, morality and sexual health as extremist or religious opinions that have no place in a public school. The Women's Center hosted at least two presentations last year that discussed abortion. One of the presentations was an oppor tunity for Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States, to exclusively advertise their abortion and non-abortion services. The other presentation brought in speaker Marlene Fried. Marlene Fried, president of National Network of Abortion Funds, promoted abortion throughout her talk about building a reproductive rights movement. Everyone is invited to read the letter that these students sent to the above mentioned individu als. The letter can be found on a link through the Aggies for Life webpage. The address is http://stuact.tamu.edu/stuorgs/ aggiesforlife. Brandon Posvar Class of 2002