Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 27, 2002)
new! 002 |)a ge 1 « a tion .-P ■■ <as A&J|1_ :Sr EDITORIAL Si To Prevent a she said I stI Tragedy •rthefiekB targcirB offers, of® In the wake of the 1999 Aggie Bonfire collapse, Texas A&M obs atlowas learned the hard way that tragedy can take place on this tly redij cainpus. It is important for students to remember that danger Hxists even in events meant for fun and unity, and care must be realize Jlaken to avoid future injuries or deaths to our fellow students. It r dream; ® for this reason that the apathy surrounding the alleged Corps mi local;Mazing incident is so dangerous to A&M and its community, are ge!i:| The activities captured in the photographs discovered on the sa >d- “ft'fmggieland server depict a cadet, bound and gagged, who was tt inaleJllearly in danger of injury. While this has been said to be a case ;en fieldaMf “boys being boys,” the dangers inherent in binding a stu- 5 for maMenfs arms and legs with duct tape cannot be ignored. Had the t ‘ on ' »adet begun to choke or had any other medical emergency to go itMccurred, he would have had no way to help himself or clearly id he starMommunicate his needs to his companions. While it is fortunate 1 televis; i Jhat the cadet emerged unscathed, the dangers of such behavior larch. should not be ignored. g and hii If the University decides the incident was hazing, it is impor- ’uraged. iMant that it reacts swiftly and justly in response to the evidence give undiscovered. It must make clear to all students — not just the nembers of the Corps of Cadets — that such reckless disregard for another student’s safety will not be tolerated. If the niversity decides the incident was not hazing, it must then nform students exactly what constitutes hazing. If this incident Is swept under the rug and quietly set aside, such behavior will continue until someone dies. In order for the University to pre- ent tragedy from visiting the A&M campus unnecessarily, it nust make a strong statement against hazing and the dangers it resents to all members of the student body. €Z, 3 SCOi. gled just in Colk rid she sr ail store: lege Stt s not te oyereytt; tedbet-j was jeej ez sai: 9 ied fc- tuatic isidera d jpenings. got ititet foi orfw otk fd THE BATTALION ■ SINCE 1893 ■ EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in Chief \ DOUGLAS PUENTES Managing Editor Executive Editor Opinion Editor News Editor Guy Rogers True Brown Richard Bray Christina Hoffman The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less and include the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submit ted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX ,'*77843-1 1 1 1. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com 0 wc a compar ids. in June l f i hey got iwasimerrogram was too er and Controversial f or id. sing ma n response to Jenelle Wilson's ainly h (, une 26 column: time be:'" I disagree with Nickelodeon's 3 resourArogram choice for many rea- - center dons, but for the sake of brevity you havt'll leave the strictly moral issues it until lid others. 'someth; The main, though underlying, mer joh ssue here is whose job it hould be to educate young >eople about moral and social ssues, and how that education hould happen. Wilson did a |ood job of explaining that the re i ""ogram was about tolerance V, { 1steac * °f homosexuality. f\tir ^ 0Weve h I arn sure that 11,1 ^ es P ons ible parents would ’ e |h M 1er explain these issues to atnei heir children themselves, e are i nstead of letting a kids' news not m irogram do the job for them. t JP ldren ar, d teenagers are s ,01 !f, T, P ress '°nable. If anyone has a A |, to explain homosexuality h loi * md tolerance to them, and i the * 1 nave it explained in a certain n In 11 v vay, it should be parents and m. a 'jot Nickelodeon. ^° r n . ' s program, even if it was iritiit Ubout tolerance, was still very le ^tUfWtrQversial. Parents have a A'tll x easonable expectancy, though, " eSlllc ' 0r non-controversial program- n ' r >g on kids' networks. There places for controversial pro- ^^^pramming, but parents should ■ have to worry about a con- ■jldlGhroversial subject popping up on little' ^ ids channel. Nickelodeon is " lying to take over the role of an (AP)? rent with this series, and it itellige# u ' d not be. ded a n , T N| cl<elodeon wants to be the Afg^Btroversial, that is their deci- un |3at! ,| on. |f they want to address nature issues on a kids' net- iemb ef - Vor ^ they will reap both the fficials 52> t ene hts and consequences. Jlj t parents should in no way be m boy v ' ,:aulted t°r expressing their dis- e four-b cl PP rov al, and doing what they lte Tues^ to stop it. of w ar ; I HoW eV: Jonathan Drum belief Class of 2001 ed ' n ;S day* MAIL CALL i 8 1 ini s Orson Scott Card was not an expert In response to Jennifer Lozano's June 25 column: Despite the lack of respect Ms. Lozano shows for the rights of a person to decide their own reli gious beliefs, her article "Maintaining the Faith" was a desperate grasp at news fallen tragically short. First, I think it is important to highlight a fact Ms. Lozano con veniently left out. The author she based her arguments on, Orson Scott Card, is a science fiction writer. He is not a theolo gian, expert on political science and certainly not a behavioral anthropologist or zoologist. To base a religious argument on an unnamed scientific study, cited by an author who specializes in Star Trek-like fiction is absurd. Such rationale on Ms. Lozano's part is very discrediting, and in short, a poor reflection on her and The Battalion. Second, in citing Card, she mentions a study of chim panzees. Who conducted the study? When? Where? What do chimps have to do with Jesus? This non sequitur comparison of chimp and human behavior defies logic and common sense. To hold two such com pletely different species accountable to the same code of conduct is childish, ridicu lous and shows a complete lack of rational thought. Apparently the author found it appropriate to use a scientific study without justification of its connection or relevance. Third, in the last paragraph, Ms. Lozano states a case against the abolishment of organized religion. Who said anything about abolishing religion? I thought the issue was young people abandoning religion, not rallying to wipe it off the face of the earth. James Bell Class of 2003 Opinion The Battalion Page 9 * Thursday, June 27, 2002 A profitable position Policital officeholders making millions from speeches I n former President John F. Kennedy’s unforgettable inaugural address he stated: “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Most of the founding fathers of the United States went bankrupt serving their country — Thomas Jefferson even died broke. That is not to say bank ruptcy or any amount of money can accurately measure the degree of ded ication a politician possesses. But it does prove the founding fathers did everything in their power to serve this country; these ardent men gave them selves entirely (pocketbooks includ ed) to a cause in which they fer vently believed. Modern politi cians regularly find themselves in a fiscal situation completely opposite of bankruptcy, forc ing one to wonder what it means to be a public servant today. While in office, presidents serve the American public selflessly. The trademark wrinkles, gray hairs and tired eyes of many American presidents reflect the tremendous burden of responsibility they must carry. Presidents must work hard to attain a crucial mixture of personal characteristics in order to best serve their constituents, such as the ability to balance opti mism with realism. Presidents fre quently receive the brunt of responsibility for things largely out of their con trol: the whimsical stock market, activi ties of foreign coun tries and even the well-being /*- ^ and con- tentment of every LINDSYE FORSON American citizen. Make no mistake - political office is a great act of service to this country. Once presidents leave office, however, their situations change entire ly. While they retain their fair share of lime light, the attention former presidents receive from the media is usually at charity balls, ribbon cuttings and various speaking events, not from a tele vised State of the Union address. The price tag on these pub lic appearances drastically changes once a president leaves office; it is not unusual for politicians to gain millions of dol lars as a direct result of their political career. Last year alone. former President Bill Clinton was paid $9.2 million for making 59 speeches and $450,000 to speak at one event in Tokyo alone. Clinton also reportedly received an advance in excess of $10 million for a book deal; his wife. New York Senator Hillary Clinton, will also be paid an $8 million advance for publishing her memoirs. According to the New York Times, the Clintons’ largest asset is their $5 to $25 million account at Citibank. Other former presidents have also received lush royalties since leaving office. Former President George H. Bush has received millions of dollars for speeches, reportedly charging $80,000 per speech. Ronald Reagan received $2 million for one series of speaking engagements, according to the New York Times. The Times also reports other politicians have “struck it rich” thanks to a political career. One such person is current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld also served under former President Gerald Ford. After holding this prestigious political office and before returning to the White House to serve under President George W. Bush, Rumsfeld made millions of dollars work ing in high-ranking positions at several corpora tions. Rumsfeld is not alone in this expe rience; many others have found the respect and prestige associat ed with a political career to be very useful credentials in the business world. The list of rich politicians is seem ingly endless. Whether the potential financial opportunities were motivating factors in these men and women’s political careers is impossible to say. However, it seems clear that for many, fame, wealth and celebrity status are an insepa rable part of holding political office today, making it difficult to determine how many politi cians actually perform their jobs solely as an act of public service. The American president is supposed to represent and embody the “common man” and the founding fathers designed the presidential office as such to try to escape the opulent monarchy that ruled England. The fact that the presidency has become an incredibly lucrative business opportunity poses a severe threat to the integrity of the office, and therefore, the coun try. It could easily tempt indi viduals with malevolent motives to seek political office as an avenue to financial success. The men who seek political office should do so for the sake of serving the American people, and helping to uphold the noble principles for which America stands. JEFF SMITH • THE BATTALION Lindsye Forson is a sophomore journalism major. Administrator should not teach Vice principal lifted girls’ skirts at dance to check for thongs A s if high school dances were not embarrassing enough, Rita Wilson, an assistant principal at Rancho Bernardo High School in California, just made them infinitely worse. According to CNN, at an informal dance near the end of the school year, Wilson performed mandatory thong checks by lifting up girls’ skirts upon entering the school dance. If a girl was wearing a thong, she was not permitted into the dance and was ordered to go home and change her underwear. To make the situation even more humiliating, Wilson’s thong checks were done in front of others including male students and faculty. After outraged parents and students complained, Wilson was investigated and put on administrative leave. When the charges were confirmed, Wilson was merely demoted to a teaching position. This “punishment,” which is almost as outrageous as the violation committed, makes a mockery of the students’ rights and needs to be amended expediently. According to CNN, the reason behind Wilson’s intrusive thong checking was to prevent potential sexual assault that she felt might occur with revealing clothing and suggestive dancing. This principle may apply with outstanding validity in reference to the length of a skirt, a pair of shorts or the revealing nature of a blouse or shirt; however, as its name suggests, under wear is supposed to be worn beneath other garments and thus cannot be the cause of revealing clothing. Even if girls were lifting up their skirts on pur pose to reveal their thongs at school dances, the appropriate avenue to curtail this practice would not include checking every girl for thongs at the entrance of a school dance. In addition, parents and students claim that nowhere in the school dress code is there anything stated that prohibits wearing thong underwear. Merely demoting Wilson to a teach ing position in which she will have more interaction with students does lit tle to serve as a good example for stu dents or to help students regain trust in this assistant principal. Instead, it shows students that when one grossly oversteps the bounds of one’s authority and vio lates others’ personal rights, they are “punished” with temporary leave and a demotion to a position with even more contact with the violated population. The only statement that this reprimand makes is one of mockery and humilia tion surrounding the Rancho Bernardo school district. Rancho Bernardo students’ trust in their faculty — and especially in Wilson — has definitely been shaken. “The vice principal is supposed to be there to help students, but when she is violating her authority then that’s kind of question able,” said Rancho Bernardo student Emma Schoppe to NBC San Diego. Now, some students will have to regain their trust in her as students in her class, a very intricate and important relationship. Although many parents are pushing for Wilson’s resignation and have threatened, in typical California fashion, to sue if she refuses, a simple probation period during which she would be under much surveil lance would be a good place to start in order to help parents and students regain confidence in the school system. However, that does not seem to be an option for school officials at Rancho Bernardo High School. It is clear that Wilson overstepped her bounds as a well-intentioned administra tor and should face adequate conse quences. According to NBC San Diego, 87 percent polled agree that screening for thongs before school dances violates stu dents’ rights. Whether a student decides to wear a thong or not should be between the student and the parent and should not involve a school administrator. In an attempt to prevent sexual assault or not, there is nothing to justify Wilson’s intru sive and humiliating acts. Jennifer Lozano is a senior English major.