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