Opinion
axes
cks
?ton and Net]
1S found in-v
J Majority
reed shutdci'
e x, disruptt;
sense of#
Jitol Hill. ’
se by lawn,
attacks was*,
ling activity
lays, Cfaj
540 billioi!
se, counter;-:,
ilding Ne«
m as partis,
Lawmakers;;
nse of fe
florists, nei|
spying anc-
sm at hotn;
is and gra®
ig airlines
partisan m
ear, a fresh Si"
or package
record $35
mg federal::
sm prograr.sj:
action by
The Battalion
Scours HonorP
Boy scouts correct to exclude atheist member
y was also Si-
tween Bushs
publicans -
r reezinginh
t wanted fotr-
Dther pnor:
s early net! -:,
olicans nam-
: — the latter
•breaking voe:
was in coirs
im his top in
i-year tat cu
nont Seals
senate cor:
that in tlx w
:s this month
ition grew :-'
lulus pads:.': 1
',nm Coy A
nd apprerr
g down«.3f
t anothfi
he presifc!*
I of federal
ampaig^ K '
; produced-
'arm bill.
If
of
N ineteen-
year-old
Washington
Eagle Scout and
atheist Darrell
Lambert was
expelled from the
Boy Scouts of America (BSA)
last week after refusing to
acknowledge his belief in
God. The decision to remove
Lambert, made by the Chief
Seattle Council, deserves
national applause.
Discriminatory indignation
aside, there is no question of
the legality of his dismissal.
Under the First Amendment, a
private organization is entitled
to be as selective in its mem
bership as it is narrow-minded
in its creed.
Nonetheless, the gay mem
bership ban in 2000 and now
the atheist controversy aren’t
winning the BSA any new
friends — the price paid in this
country for taking a moral
stand. Emphasis on political
correctness in the United
States has eroded the core val
ues of organization after
organization to a homogeneous
mainstream — political parties
and the national defense serve
as prime examples.
The BSA is one of the few
organizations that has refused
to compromise its beliefs,
however “anti-progressive” or
“intolerant”they are labeled
for the sake of lukewarm pub
lic appeal.
My question to the
American press, who is quick
to illustrate Lambert as a vir
tuous citizen of exemplary
moral character, is this: just
^ow impressed should the
public be with Lambert’s 37
merit badges if they were
earned not only under false
pretenses, but also in defiance
of “Scout honor?”
Intentional or not, Lambert
has been deceptive about his
atheistic beliefs, maneuvering
his way through the ranks.
Numerous times over the years
he has recited the Scout Oath,
including its promise to do his
“duty to God and country.”
While believing in God is
hardly a measure of a person’s
LEANN BICKFORD
worth, to the
BSA, it is a
valid measure
ment of its
members.
Lambert
had no respect
for any this.
He is a liar who has misled
his troop. The fact that
Lambert and his supporters
have the nerve to appeal his
expulsion only reinforces the
reason he was expelled — the
values of the BSA aren’t up
for negotiation.
The ban on homosexual
membership should be exam
ple enough for Lambert. Does
anyone really expect the
Scouts not to go to the time,
effort and expense to take its
case all the way to the
Supreme Court? It happened
in 2000 and it will likely hap
pen again.
In the words of Chuck
Egar, president of the Gulf
Stream Council, “if we
espouse to a system of values
that we will change at the least
bit of pressure, then what
good are those values?”
If Lambert is reinstated, it
would only undermine the
freedom of association of any
non-profit organization or
church in the nation.
Even if a ruling is issued in
his favor, the organization
itself would teem with resent
ment. If Lambert has half as
much respect for the BSA as
he claims, it is curious to
know why is he placing his
personal agenda above the
organization’s agenda.
The organization he so des
perately wants to be a member
of would not remain the same
if it compromised its values.
Lambert will undoubtedly
have countless organizations
seeking his membership — the
Seattle Times reports that
Lambert has already been in
contact with the ACLU
(American Civil Liberties
Union).
When Lambert attended a
training session and the dis
cussion turned to faith last
fall, Lambert admitted to
being an atheist. He got into
an argument with the leader of
the training session as to
whether the faithless should be
allowed in the BSA. Angered,
Lambert stormed out of the
room.
Lambert’s lack of faith
was reported to Scout execu
tives. In the words of BSA
National Spokesman Gregg
Shields, “since we were
founded, we have taught tradi
tional family values. We don’t
feel an avowed atheist is a role
model for those values.”
Sadly, the participation of
President Bush as ex-officio
head and signer of Eagle
ATTALION
Scout certificates must now
come into play, lest this be
establishment of religion. It
can be expected that other
governmental ties with the
organization will be closely
examined as well.
It must be distinguished
that this is hardly a case of
unconstitutional religious
intolerance.
Lambert should take his 37
merit badges and run with
them.
Leann Bickford is a freshman
business administration major.
Dress code gives meetings
a professional atmosphere
In response to Colin Eazeayim's Nov. 20
column:
As the RHA Delegate from Aston Hall, 1
applaud the dress code for General
Assembly meetings.
We represent a very large number of
people, and need to look and act profes
sionally. If Mr. Eazeayim would bother to
look over how the dress was before, he
would notice the unprofessional setting,
not to mention one member wearing a
shirt that read, "Howdy f kers!"
MAIL CALL
Also let me point out that the Clements
delegate was removed from the meeting
because of her dress code violation, not
because of what her shirt said.
If people choose not to follow the rules
or to forcefully rebel against them, the
heads of RHA have no choice but to keep
their promises and remove them- no mat
ter how nice their message may be.
Instead of insulting RHA, Mr. Eazeayim
should look into the fact that we are mere
ly trying to make ourselves look more
mature for the work we do. I do not know
of one respectable workplace or decision
making body that allows its members to
dress like they just got out of bed, so this
change should be cheered, not shot down
like some sort of rights infringement —
there are bigger things to worry about in
the world. Many other organizations have
dress codes, including the Student Senate
and fraternities. We have had a dress code
in the past, and are bringing it up again
because it has been abused. Telling a body
of student leaders to dress nicely is not
"mandating what our members should
wear," and we are not looking to change
the world or our complete image with this
change. We are merely taking steps to
make our important organization look
more presentable and professional.
Michael Vargo
Class of 2006
Page 5B • Thursday, November 21, 2002
Drug makers should
test for child safety
(U-WIRE) SAN LUIS
OBISPO, Calif. — Let’s do it
for the children. How many
times have we heard judges
and politicians singing that
tune? What, exactly, are they
doing for the children?
Last month, a Federal
District Court struck down the
Food and Drug
Administration’s 1998
Pediatric Rule, saying that the
agency did not have the
authority to require drug mak
ers to test some of their medi
cines for childhood use.
I assume they want doctors
to use guesswork and estima
tion when prescribing children
drugs that may be life threaten
ing. The Pediatric Rule was
designed to provide health care
professionals with the informa
tion necessary to prescribe
medications more safely for
children age 16-and-under
when treated with drugs that
are primarily tested in adults.
The web
site parent-
ing.com
asserts that
the vast
majority of
prescription
drugs current
ly on the
market still
lack informa
tion about
appropriate
use in chil
dren, and fur
ther clinical trials are neces
sary. While the thought of test
ing medicines on children may
be discomforting, it is extreme
ly important. Nearly 75 per
cent of medicines used to treat
children are not FDA-approved
for them. Without controlled
studies, doctors often lack
accurate information about
how large or small a dose to
give.
Drug companies generally
test prospective products on
adults and seek approval from
the FDA to market them for
adults. But once a drug is on
the market, doctors are free to
prescribe it for anyone they
please. When they want to give
a drug to children, they typical
ly cut the dose and assume that
it will work well and safely.
But the doctors may guess
wrong. They may prescribe too
small a dose to be effective or
too large a dose, causing harm.
There also may be unexpected
side effects in children. Take
the case of 10-year-old Shaina
Dunkle, for example - she had
been taking the psychiatric
drug Norpramin for her atten
tion-deficit/hyperactivity disor
der, when she suddenly fell
and had a seizure. She died
within minutes in the arms of
her mother. Shaina’s autopsy
revealed Norpramin as the
cause of death. Norpamin is
just one of many drugs that
received FDA approval for
treatment of an adult condition
- in this case depression - but
were then used on a child.
In the ruling by the U.S.
District Court striking down
the pediatric rule. Judge Henry
H. Kennedy Jr. wrote “This
court does not pass judgment
on the merits of the FDA’s reg
ulatory scheme, the Pediatric
Rule may well be a better poli
cy tool than the one enacted by
Congress; it might reflect the
most thoughtful, reasoned, bal
anced solution to a vexing
public health problem ... The
issue is the rule’s statutory
authority, and it is this that the
court finds lacking.”
The 57,000-member
American Academy of
Pediatrics has already started
to lobby Congress to codify
the Pediatric Rule.
“It’s very clear now what
Congress has to do,” said pedi
atrician Philip D. Walson, who
serves on the
AAP’s
Committee on
Drugs and
Clinical
Pharmacology.
“They have to
make it clear that
the FDA has to
protect children.”
Walson said
even those in
pediatrics who
thought they
were making good,
educated decisions have found
some major surprises from
things they didn’t predict.
For example, I have my
own experience with the dam
age caused by tetracycline, an
antibiotic commonly pre
scribed to but never tested on
children in the 1960s and ‘70s.
Multiple doses left a genera
tion of kids like me with teeth
that were at best permanently
discolored and at worst so soft,
malformed and cavity-ridden
that they had to be replaced.
“If tetracycline had been
part of a clinical trial, we
would have picked up on the
side effects much earlier” says
Dr. Ralph Kauffman, a director
of medical research at
Children’s Mercy Hospital.
“Instead, we exposed millions
of children over 20 years.”
That’s why testing is impor
tant. There are a lot of differ
ences in children. It just seems
absurd to say that it’s not a
good thing to test in children.
Let’s turn it around and
imagine drugs were tested only
in children, and the doctor says
to an adult, “Well, we have a
pretty good idea of how to use
it.” How long would adults
stand for that?
William Reitz is a columnist
at California Poly
State University
it
I assume they
want doctors to use
guesswork and
estimation when
prescribing children
drugs that may he
life threatening.
Definition of inadequate counsel needed
I
•e
(U-WIRE) CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. —From
the snipers in October to an upset gubernatorial
election in November, the state has been a hotbed
of controversy and media attention lately. That
attention grew Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court
decided to review death row cases in which the
convicted person pleaded “bad lawyering,’ begin
ning with the case of Maryland death row inmate
Kevin Wiggins. Wiggins’ case should have been a
non-issue. Any time a man’s life is at stake the
U.S. judicial system should do everything in its
power to ensure it’s punishing the right person and
not wrongly taking the life of an innocent.
Wiggins was convicted for robbing and drown
ing 77-year-old Florence Lacs in 1988. Although
no evidence linked Wiggins to the crime, accord
ing to CNN.com, the 27-year-old was seen talking
to the victim the day of her death and later found
driving her car and using her credit cards to buy
gifts for his girlfriend. Wiggins’ current lawyer,
Donald B. Verilli Jr., claims that Wiggins’ original
lawyer, a public defender, was “inexperienced and
overworked.” Therefore, Verilli accurately con
tends, Wiggins was not awarded his constitutional
right to a fair trial with adequate defense.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to
review Wiggins v. Cocoran, the case may very
well become the cornerstone for deciding ineffec
tive counsel claims in all cases. Anyone charged
with any level of crime that could lead to jail time
is guaranteed counsel, even if they are unable to
afford a lawyer. If that right is denied to them at
any time during the process of their trial, the con
victed should automatically be guaranteed a right
to a new trial with adequate and effective counsel.
This should be especially true in cases dealing
with capital punishment. The sanctity of human
life is a precious thing and should not be easily
disposed of. If a defendant, like Wiggins, can
clearly show that he was at a disadvantage by not
having effective counsel, the inconvenience of a
new trial is small compared to what is at stake. To
avoid the floodgates that a “bad lawyering”
defense could open, the Supreme Court must
establish a clear definition of what exactly consti
tutes inadequate representation.
Of course, all this is much easier said then
done. According to FoxNews.com, the American
Bar Association is already weary of the backup in
courts, and no one likes having their taxes raised.
The government, however, must evaluate the
flawed judicial system and make immediate
changes. To begin with. Congress must stop hold
ing up the nomination process of judges. The
advantages of appointing new judges are undeni
able. In regard to money, the judicial branch will
have to either decide to slim down their expenses
and economize or request a bigger budget. Either
way, the miniscule amount of cash doled out to
help improve the system is well worth it.
Retrials can be prevented altogether, however,
if the root of the problem — inadequate defenses
— is eliminated.
Public defenders in this nation are extremely
overworked, and thus cannot always supply ade
quate counsel. Accused poor people have no real
recourse for a public defender with shortfalls.
They can always request a lawyer from the state,
but that does not ensure they will be given a quali
ty one. As budget deficits increase and hiring
freezes are enacted, public defenders’ workloads
will just grow larger and more overbearing. In a
country where the poverty-stricken account for a
disproportionate number of convicted felons and
are the majority of defendants in capital cases
(CNN.com), the government must do better to
provide the underclass with better representation.
Here, the government is left no choices in their
plan of action. They must hire new lawyers to bal
ance out a substantial workload and allow public
defenders to do their job to the best of their ability.
The judicial system will forever be skewed and
unfair if the less fortunate are denied a right to a
fair trial because they cannot afford a competent
lawyer.
Few doubt Wiggins’ guilt. “My own view is
that [Wiggins] probably committed the heinous
offense for which he stands convicted,” said 4th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge J. Harvie
Wilkinson III (www.cnn.com). Wiggins’ guilt is
not at issue, however.
What matters is that he be given a fair trial. In
reviewing his case, the Supreme Court should
unanimously grant him another trial. That way, if
the verdict is the same, the punishment can be car
ried out with no doubts and no injustices.
Maggie Bowden is a columnist
at University of Virginia.