Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 9, 2002)
Opinion l X’ July 9,; P I The Battalion Page 5 • Tuesday, July 9, 2002 symbolic gesture og running for Congress displays public distrust of government 250. 764.:;;. RICHARD BRAY TATE jme. 25 Enclosec or those who felt Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura’s election in 1998 following Ammai |is career as a professional 'pets.org wres tier was an embarrassment to the U.S. political scene, the elec- lion campaign of Percy the dog for K seat in Congress must be infuriating. I Charter boat captain Wayne Genthner from Sarasota, Fla., who named himself Percy’s campaign manager, has created a campaign which includes slogans such as “Never made a mess in the House! Never will!” and “Percy! Putting the lick back into Republican.” He also says Percy has never been involved in a sex scandal due to his “timely neutering” and will “personally chase down any criminal he sees.” I Genthner says he started the campaign to draw attention to voter dis- ige 77K*;ontent with the current state of American government, including such Bssues as corruption and injustices in campaign finance. So 'eiss Sutc ■ar. Genthner has only spent approximately $600, com- yaejf^’jftared to the $1.7 million raised by the front-runner for 76 B* 16 P os *ti° n ’ current Florida Secretary of State on aWlKatherine Harris. “No one has a realistic expectation that a dog can fTES *et elected,” Genthner told Reuters, “but plenty of )eople will be willing to vote for a dog to represent |their discontent with the political system.” Genthner is correct in seeing a public distrust in the government. According to a 1998 survey con ducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the per centage of the public expressing “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the government was below the percent expressing the same confidence in such notoriously untrustworthy institutions such as major corporations, the media, the military and higher [education. In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter I Registration Act under the belief that declining voter participation Iwas due to the difficulty in registering for voting. The act required [states to provide voter registration cards at driver’s license and motor vehicle bureaus, welfare offices and military recruiting sta tions. While this act made it easier for voters to register, it had no sig- | nificant impact on voting participation. This leads to the belief that voter | participation is primarily affected by voters’ trust in the political system, and the only reason to account for the decline in voter participation is pri marily due to distrust in government. Through this logic, researchers have determined that voter participation is one sign of distrust in the government, and according to a 1998 Bureau of the Census study, the percentage of the voting-age population casting votes I 'm presidential elections has steadily declined, from 60.9 percent in 1968 to 49percent in the 1996 election. The numbers are even lower in state and local elections. In the wake of such scandals as California congressman Gary Condit’s possible connection to Chandra Levy’s death and former President Bill Clinton’s sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, political scandals have been prevalent in the news during the past few years. As a result, it is little wonder that Genthner is disillusioned with the current lead ership and believes that others in Florida would be willing to vote for Percy in order to express similar discontent. Political leaders need to acknowledge that individuals such as Genthner are bringing the issue of political scandal to the public’s eye. While scandal [is certainly not new in American government, politicians must take note that the American public is taking note and finding new ways in which to protest the political system. Government officials just might be surprised to dis- Icover how many votes Percy gets. p. Fur. nV2btH» : i326/'m: to irst iwtsK ed. L ‘ ,ce to catfF 3ne bloc*" 3 . 695-9 48; 3 unfurl' lls. 0? I Female ; tOO/mo # Richard Bray is a senior journalism major. ADRIAN CALCANEO • THE BATTALION Retardation must be defined Supreme Court ruling is not specific in guiding judge r'S ince the June 20 Suoreme Court decision to b y the decision. While the ruling cited a S ving. LOIS' jismissal#' prn-9pm). Fri(6pt™ (8am-2:W Walk-ins rice allo^; 7 846- 8! S ince the June 20 Supreme Court decision to ban the execution of mentally retarded con victs, courts nationwide have been inundated with appeals. Naturally, the new line of defense in these appeals is mental retardation, something that opposers have feared would result from such a iruling. Before the June 20 ruling, 18 of the 38 states allowing capi- jftal punishment had restrictions on executing the mentally retarded. These states, which did not include Texas, had [statutes applying to the ban, such as proof that the disability [appeared early in life, usually no later than 18 years of age. This ruling, however, applies retroactively, which means [existing statutes will be affected by it. The problem is the Supreme Court gave no statutes to replace the existing ones, I so legal experts all over the country suspect death row inmates |will now claim retardation although it had never been a pievi- ous defense. The Supreme Court’s decision offers states almost no limi- [tations or guidance on who must be considered retarded and [who must make this determination. The generally accepted [standard of mental retardation is a person with an IQ of less [than 70 who shows signs of other social disabilities. Under this definition, convicts could easily prove them- Iselves to be retarded, particularly the very intelligent ones who know how to perform poorly on an IQ test. In recent attempts to prove retardation, attorneys have put relatives and co-workers on the stand, asking such questions as Can this Person handle money?” and “Is this person able to sustain I relationships?” Under these kind of guidelines, most college students would be determined mentally retarded. The dissenting opinions of Chief Justice William Rehnquist I and Justice Antonin Scalia refer to other flaws of the decision. Rehnquist focuses on the influence foreign opinion had in the final decision. A powerful line of argument Rehnquist objected to was Amnesty International’s claim that the United States is only one of three countries in the entire world that al ows execution of the mentally retarded. Scalia focused more on the power taken away from states CHRISTY RUTH by the decision. While the ruling cited a “national consensus” for the banning of execu tions of the mentally retarded, Scalia pointed out that less than half of the states had outlawed it on their own. Perhaps the most serious incongruity of all was left out of Scalia’s and Rehnquist’s dissents. Namely, the threat to society anyone convicted of a capital crime poses, whether they are retarded or not. Yolanda Cruz has expressed her bittersweet feelings over the ruling. She is happy about the ruling, but it came too late for her son Oliver, who was executed in Texas in August 2000. Oliver Cruz was sentenced to death because he brutally raped and murdered 24- year old Kelly Donovan. His IQ was either 64 or 76, depend ing on which version of the IQ test is considered. Regardless of whether his IQ was below or above 70, Cruz carried out a heinous crime. If the purpose of the death penalty is to rid society of threats against it, why should it matter if that threat is considered legally culpable or not ? If mentally retarded inmates are as capable of murder, rape and robbery as their mentally “normal” counterparts, they deserve equal punishment. Some legal experts are now suggesting that courts consider school records when determining mental retardation, but defense attorneys claim that many defendants’ records will not show such markings. This is because labeling children as men tally retarded damages self-esteem, which motivates schools to avoid labeling children as such. Although this defense is ridiculous, it could hold up in court. The most fatal flaw of this decision is it leaves too much room for arbitrary assignments of what is mentally retarded. Obviously, most people do not think that someone who cannot discern right from wrong should be executed, but the line is so loosely drawn now that almost anyone can prove themselves to be retarded. The system will be easier to beat now than ever. Christy Ruth is a senior journalism major. Vouchers not the solution W hen it comes to school vouchers, just about every American taxpay er has an opinion. According to Education Week, vouchers are “A document or chit, usually issued by the state, that can be used by parents to pay tuition at an out-of-district public school, a pri vate school, and/or a religious school.” The impetus behind voucher programs is to give children the opportunity to escape from under-funded, low-performing public schools many see as shackles. Vouchers are a good solution for each individual student that may receive the edu cation of their choice, and in many cases, a better quality edu cation. But on a grand scale, the institution of vouchers do a great deal of damage to both public and private school sys tems. It is almost universally accepted that the public school system needs reform of some kind, but the voucher program simply is not the answer. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled the use of vouchers is constitutional and does not violate the principle of separa tion of church and state. This hotly contested decision will allow the voucher program currently in place in Cleveland to continue in the fall. According to The Associated Press, Cleveland has rated one of the worst public school systems in the country. Cleveland's six-year-old program gives each of the program’s approximately 4,000 students $2,250 of gov ernment funds to put towards paying tuition of a public, pri vate or religious school. There are also several other existing voucher systems, in cities such as Milwaukee, which will undoubtedly benefit from the precedent set by the high court’s ruling. Along with the news that the Supreme Court decided to maintain the Cleveland voucher program came several images of elated Cleveland families whose children will be able to receive what they feel is a better education. In fact, the Department of Education has said that nine percent — or, 8,600 — of the public schools in the United States do not meet learning standards. This staggering figure should cer tainly relay the message that reform is necessary, but this reform should not come in the form of vouchers. Vouchers pose a severe threat to the current public school system. For each student choosing to attend an alternative school, an already under-funded school loses money. For example, Milwaukee’s voucher program is diverting $25 mil lion that could otherwise be spent on public schools. It is hard to get teachers to work for the low salaries offered now by these poor, low-performing schools, and decreasing the employees’ salaries will exponentially increase the shortage of teachers. The idea that competition between schools for funding will force some schools to raise their standards of education is valid in principle. But it is not practical. Taking money away from schools that need it the most, and at the same time expecting these schools to raise the bar on the type of education they are providing, is illogical at best and some might even say impossible. Vouchers also put religious schools, and even the principle of separation of church and state, into jeopardy. Religious schools were established for families who wished for their children’s education to include a religious aspect that public schools cannot provide. Religious or private schools are privately funded, therefore giving them the right to educate children without governmen tal interference. Vouchers allow government funding to infil trate religious schools, giving government the right to monitor and possibly restrict the schools’ activities. According to Supreme Court Justice Souter, 96.6 percent of voucher money goes to religious schools. It seems dubious that government checks being handed directly to religious schools in 96.6 per cent of cases does not violate separation of church and state. It is extremely disheartening that the children who attend the bottom nine percent of schools may have no access to a decent education. Indeed, families participating in the current voucher programs would probably describe them as a sort of godsend, because vouchers could very well be their child’s only ticket to a higher education or greater achievement of some kind. But even if the voucher system works for individ ual children, the system as a whole is inherently flawed. The well-intentioned voucher program brings to light several gap ing flaws in the public school system that must be addressed, but any program that promotes intimacy between government and religion puts one of America’s most cherished, basic con stitutional rights at risk and therefore cannot be seen as a viable solution. Lindsye Forson is a sophomore journalism major. LINDSYE FORSON MAIL CALL Constitutional interpretation wrong In response to Michael Whitlow's July 8 column: Michael Whitlow states that the opponents of the recent rul ing regarding the Pledge of Allegiance "ignore the cultural history of this nation." I find it ironic that Mr. Whitlow makes such a claim considering that his interpretation of the Constitution and fundamental history of this nation is quite distorted. It is very clear through many writings and statements of the Founding Fathers that our nation is founded upon Judeo- Christian ideals. Further, there is no "wall separating church and state." This is purely a figment of the atheistic and humanist mind of today's judicial society. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from creating a national church — it does not create a Godless zone of protec tion for those who deny a Creator. Mr. Whitlow, I suggest that you reread your American history and if you give this issue an honest analysis, then you will reach the same conclusion that I, and millions of Americans, have reached. Jason Poole Class of 1994
