’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