’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