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