Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 8, 2002)
SPQR! 12 : alls at Opinion The Battalion Page 5 • Monday July 8, 2002 ledge of Allegiance ruling correct onstitutional guarantee of separation of church and state must he upheld Ihe 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the . phrase “under God” is ,L s ||nconstitutional has been the biggest shock to .Americans since 9/11. The extended reaction nree i, g is far from justified. President George W. Bush has gone on public the \l\l ifecord as implying the judges have no sense, and unnin! MICHAEL WHITLOW though. ance ie 16th a lone si it 19-urr:' the West? ratne up lit rowd stoti . from tier grinned an: A n round for par ni ped his fe caddie. and >earhup d vitht^ llyaniv nd Kelly} dav divO; nd wasftij ip grouit of his fir' 1 a total of ike behind With a Kf par-31# jnder. Jii' h, he 2 e hole: par-4 I ddle of the gi landini not f Has vowed to appoint judges that will overturn Hhe ruling. Congress stopped debate on pre- Hcription drugs for Medicare to pass a resolu- ■ion denouncing the ruling. John Ashcroft and |he Department of Justice have been scurry ing for any means to discredit and overturn [he ruling, and American citizens have sent numerous death threats to Dr. Michael ewdow. the man who originally filed |he lawsuit. Opponents of the ruling may say the phrase “under God” does not specify the deity of Christianity and Judaism, but includes Allah and any other supreme being recognized by a monotheistic religion. For anyone to say this, they must ignore the cultural history of this nation. This immediately ostracizes atheists, polytheists, animists and Shintoists. It is fine to say the phrase does not cause government to discrimi nate among monotheistic religions, but if you believe in no god, more than one god, or engage in ancestor or spirit worship, then you are left out in the cold. If the argument is made that the phrase does not endorse a specific reli gion, it still endorses a type of religion, and the very fact that it endorses any kind of religion violates the separation. Failing that argument, other detractors have claimed the ruling flies in the face of American tradition. God was men tioned in the Declaration of Independence. America grew out of puritanical English colonies. We always have been a Christian nation. So goes the argument. While mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, God was never actually mentioned i the Constitution itself. The Fledge of Allegiance did not even contain the words “under God” until 1954. They were added during the Cold War to help set America apart from the “godless communists” it was oppos ing. This was the same reason the words “In God We Trust” were added to the dollar bill at roughly the same time. Those two phrases in those two con spicuous places have little to do with American tradi- Ition. They are less than 50 years old. As far as breaking from American traditions goes, the Declaration andithe ■fHBHAirtTrtuiasNwere written by slave owners. Slavery was an integral part of the American culture and economy by the time of the Civil War, and it is likely the “American tradi tion” argument was used against abolitionists. The habits of founders and years of accepted activity do not make something right, nor do they excuse activists from changing things. The final argument is that this is an unpatriotic act in the middle of trying times. With our soldiers fighting abroad and our citizens in danger at home, this is not the time to attack American traditions. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. Attacking, suing, and protesting are American traditions. Whether right or wrong, protesting the activity of the government is not un- American. It is decidedly patriotic because it is an exercise of the very rights that make our country great. Taking these freedoms for granted and never exercising them is the quickest way to lose them, especially in times like these when the natural inclination is to crack down on certain liberties in the interest of securities. More than anything though, all of these are ideological, not legal, argu ments. The pledge, an official govern ment activity, endorses religion. Therefore, it violates the Constitution. For the ruling to be overturned, the justification is going to be flawed because it is going to draw on those ideological principles that have no bearing on a judge’s job. They are going to have their minds made up about what they want to do, and then figure out how to go about doing it. If Americans want the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, they should make a constitutional amendment to preserve it. Then the ideological principles they are using to defend it will have full bearing. But before they do this, they need to be wary of the Pandora’s Box this will open. Once one exception for the “church and state” division is written in, a second and third will quickly follow. After that, amendments against flag burning will ensue, then against other forms of unpopular speech. Soon we will start scrapping the unreasonable search and seizures to assist our agents in the war on terrorism, then activists will go after the right to bear arms. Eventually we will have nothing left. Michael Whitlow is a senior English major. Ruling fails student privacy MAIL CALL I Hams )wing ll |1 ip to Hants tltf order io osed a s : none of >/. but lie ies and 406. ; merits u any cW' n ■lation- poind 11 : 1 to tip mie run career, and at 2 at s ng out at ; a in. o the le?' owing icter. f a il 0 ; a m n June, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 deci sion that students cannot use the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to [sue schools that violate the law by releasing private .information without a student’s permission. The decision allows an educational institution to violate the law with little consequences by dramatically lim iting the options students and parents have if they are wronged, nd it puts student privacy at risk. Passed in 1974, FERPA, which covers all educational institu tions from kindergarten through graduate school, was designed to give parents and students control over educational records. According to the Department of Education FERPA fact sheet, par ents or students over the age of 18 have the right to inspect and review the records kept by their school. If they disagree with infor mation in the records, they have the right to request a hearing to correct the information, and if the school does not correct the record to their satisfaction, parents or students have the right to insert their view of the contested sections. FERPA allows educational institutions to release selected directory” information, including name, address and telephone number without prior consent. It also gives schools the right to release educational records without permission to other schools to which a student is transferring, to appropriate parties in connection with a student’s financial aid and to comply with a subpoena. The act also allows schools to release information about disci plinary action taken against students to other schools if the other institutions have a “legitimate” educational interest in the behavior of the student. It does not, however, allow educational institutions to release unproven allegations against a student, allegations that can ruin a person’s career. Argued last October before the Supreme Court, the case of s Gonzaga University v. Doe involved Ru Paster, a recent graduate ; of Gonzaga University in Washington. According to court papers, in late 1992 Paster was intimately involved with another education major, “Jane Doe.” In October of 1993, the university s teacher certification specialist overheard a third party discussing the rela tionship between Paster and Doe; this third party claimed that Paster had raped Doe. , . The university began an investigation into the matter and inter viewed the alleged victim multiple times. She refused to press charges against Paster, denying the allegations. In February of 1994, the Dean of Gonzaga’s school of education reviewed the written reports about the alleged rape and decided not to support Paster’s application for his teaching certification I he school denied providing Paster with a letter confirming e a no been convicted of a crime or that he does not have “serious behav ioral problems,” which is required in the state ol Washington to become a teacher. JENELLE WILSON The allegations were also passed on to the state’s licensing agency, in violation of FERPA. Paster was never granted his teaching certification. Paster was never interviewed about the allegations or investigation. He did not know anything about the proceedings until March 4, 1994, when he was told that not only was he not getting his certification, but he also had no means of appealing the decision. He sued the uni versity for defamation, invasion of privacy under FERPA and neg ligence and won. Gonzaga went too far in releasing the unfounded allegations against Paster, especially when university officials never interviewed him about the third-hand accusation. On June 20, the Supreme Court overturned the. lower court’s ruling on the grounds that the law fails to specifically allow private lawsuits for violations. According to The Associated Press, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the privacy act gives “no spe cific, individually enforceable rights.” The ruling prohibits lawsuits for violations of laws that do not contain clear, specific language allowing litigation. Two dissenting justices, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned the ruling puts more than student privacy at risk. Stevens and Ginsburg criticized the court for ignoring a “new cate gory of second-class statutory rights” that can now no longer be enforced. In the dissenting opinion, Stevens said that if Congress did not intend for parents or students to have the right to sue, it would have added this restriction during one of the six times FERPA has been changed since it was passed. There is no point to a federal law designed to protect a stu dent’s privacy if nothing happens to the schools that violate the law. Under FERPA, schools that have a “policy” of violating stu dent privacy rights, may lose some federal funding, but, according to a Seton Hall Law School professor, punishment for violations of the privacy law is extremely limited. Even if a claim is made and investigated, the results are usually along the lines of “sin no more.” The punishment is even more limited now. Students have a right to keep certain information private, and the Supreme Court, in its decision in this case, puts students in all grades and educational institutions — including Texas A&M — in jeopardy of having their personal information released with no consequences. With the lack of punishment in the form of lost funding, the fear of lawsuits is the only way to ensure that schools adequately protect the rights students are entitled to by law. The removal of this option unjustly restricts the choices parents or stu dents have to protect their education records. Jenelle Wilson is a junior political science major. Construction on campus necessary In response to Andi Baca's July J column: Everyone knows that there will always be construction on campus. It is part of attending Texas A&M. That means that yes, we will probably have to deal with construction this summer. A&M got one thing right in having more construc tion during the summer because there are less stu dents here. It seems rather log ical to me. Would you rather have construction when there are more than 90,000 people on campus during the fall for football games? Granted, there are lots of people on campus for various reasons, but at least the new students know what they are getting into. Driving on Bizzell Loop before they started repaving it would tear your truck apart. I personally was happy to comply so as to drive on a smooth road. There aren't many students actually living on campus this summer, and most of the Northside resi dents go to Northgate anyway. Would you rather have one construction job completely finished before starting anoth er? If that were to happen, everything would be com pletely ruined and beyond repair before you got around to it. How hard is to enter campus from either University or Bush? A&M had the right idea in completely tearing campus apart this summer when there are so few students, so that come this fall, our campus will look better than ever. Jessica McDaniel Class of 2004 Pledge is the way the people want it In response to the July 1 mail call: We say the pledge because we want to. Of course the Constitution does not require the words "under God." It is there because the majority of Americans want it there. That is what America is all about . . . ruled by all the people . . . not by a sad few who feel that freedom is getting everything their way. A Marine, of all people, should understand the impor tance of the active encourage ment of patriotism in our coun try when so few ever break out side of the American bubble to realize what it takes to preserve the rights that we everyday take for granted. How can you say the world hates America when all who understand it only want to be a part of it? If you want "God to bless your homeland again" maybe you should try respecting Him and professing that you are truly "under God." It saddens me to think that somehow you can't see the fruits of your work for our country. I am sorry that per haps we as Americans don't show our gratitude often enough. I am extremely thank ful for your service to the United States of America. Matt Warner Class of 2002
