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.