the
I'M
team]
bun
t0 COn ie- Sofj
x ^teamti^
:e f° be recl^
lcm t vicion;,
iam it fell ton
In the sa t ,
ladies succr^
°- 6 SMU&
ggies.
,gies haves
in confeimp
itches i
2 waytoiMs'i|
'omnnnee
o these iKP
win andcK^
hesei
show the
road."
m. in the i
I.
r.
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 * Friday, November 22, 2GQ
he right fel
1 s head coatljJ
‘They've
ason has
' n g for thejitj
a best times,"
tms are loofcj
gainst somel
1 this fejj
docile climairi
orium. Tlie y
be facing ftt a
h, Michia- id
of Buffalo a: J
f Connectici
‘petition wil \
span the |
)n Sunday, at
'ggies
oeet will hey
' semester t'd
ien have me a
fore the end d
dnst the Li
Lawrence te'l
Bis 12 cons;
Thanksgiving Holidays?
,&M administrators should cancel classes the Wednesday before Thanksgiving
SARA FOLEY
t is a worthy
debate: whether
to skip
fednesday classes
:o see more of your
amily, but risk
nissing valuable
nstruction, or to attend classes on Wednesday and
ake the long drive home after classes, risking
atigue and cutting time spent with family short,
ome students are fortunate enough to have class-
s that are cancelled on the Wednesday before
hanksgiving, but some could miss tests, quizzes
r extra credit by skipping class.
Almost all public schools and most universities
in Texas give three or more days off for
hanksgiving, allowing time to travel and visit rel
atives not frequently seen. But for some reason,
exas A&M has remained stubborn, denying stu-
lents and faculty a holiday this Wednesday. To
further complicate the situation, much of the deci-
[sion-making lies in the hands of the professors.
Whether class is held is left up to them, and it is
this inconsistency that not only leaves traveling
plans in jeopardy, but poses numerous inconven
iences to students and their families. The
Wednesday before Thanksgiving must be declared
a holiday.
i It is obviously a convenient situation for the
professors. If they have impending traveling plans,
they can cancel class and go on with their person
al lives. However, students often suffer when they
are required to attend class on this day, forcing
them to put personal obligations on hold. If a stu
dent’s hometown is more than a few hours away,
he has little choice but to skip class, unless he
wishes to drive at late hours or arrive late on
Thanksgiving Day.
Additionally, if a student intends on traveling
with his family to another location, he may have
to miss two days of class. For those professors
who cancel class or allow students to skip class
without penalty, this eases holiday stress. Some
professors, however, are not forthright about their
intentions of holding class, causing some stu-
de/tfs’traveling plans to be ambiguous.
Whether class is held or not, most students
either travel home on Wednesday or
leave on Tuesday, ignoring classes
that might be held and any pun
ishment that might occur.
Nevertheless, there are those
professors who insist that
class cannot be missed.
For students who have
these professors, they have
no choice but to attend,
even if their earlier classes
were cancelled. It is unfair
for those who are required to
attend certain classes because of
an inconsiderate professor or a
difficult course load and ridicu
lous for a student to put traveling
plans on hold because of a 50-
minute class that might be held later
in the day.
It has come to the point that we practically
do have the day before Thanksgiving off, except
for the unfortunate few. It is for this reason that
the University must intervene. By officially
declaring the day before Thanksgiving a holiday,
the University eliminates the guessing, the
debate over scheduling flight times and the
inconsistencies that exist now.
It assures safe holiday travel, and eases any
guilt felt by the professors who do choose to
hold class on this Wednesday. Thanksgiving is
one of the few times during the year when a stu
dent can come home and be reunited with family
he may not have seen in a long time.
By the University making the decision for the
professors, decisions will not be based upon the
professors’ traveling schedules, the difficulty of
the course, or the amount of work needed to get
done in the class before finals. Instead, the holiday
will become not a rushed traveling nightmare,
but a retreat at home spent with family,
refreshing students before the stress of finals
begins.
Sara Foley is a sophomore
journalism major.
JEFF SMITH • THE BATTALION
Internet filters do little to
protect First Amendment
MAIL CALL
Religion not really an issue RHA dress code not needed
L ast week, the Supreme Court
agreed to review a federal law
that requires public schools and
libraries to install Internet filters on
their computers if they are to receive
federal money, according to The New
York Times. A three-judge federal court in
Philadelphia declared the Children's Internet
Protection Act (C1PA), which was signed into law on
Dec. 21, 2000, unconstitutional last spring for block
ing speech protected by the First Amendment in
public libraries. The section of the law that pertains
to schools was not challenged and remains in place.
Libraries depend heavily on government subsidies
to serve the American public. They should not be
forced to install Internet filters - which are notori
ously inept at blocking “objection
able” material - on their computers
and to violate the First Amendment
rights of their patrons in order to
keep the doors open. The Supreme
Court needs to uphold the lower
courts' decision to assure that consti
tutionally given rights are protected.
According to the Philadelphia
court opinion, more than 143 million
Americans use the Internet; for 10
percent of these Americans, libraries
are the only way to access the
Internet and the information avail
able online. While many library
patrons are children, adults also use
library computers to access the Internet. Yet because
of the filters, information that may be seen as harm
ful to minors is blocked from adults.
What is and is not harmful to minors or objec
tionable material is subjective.
Few would argue that children should have access
to pornography, but that is not the only material
blocked. Information about birth control, sexual ori
entation, abortion and other controversial issues may
be blocked because a filter company employee
believes it to be harmful. An Internet filter has no
r tght to make that decision. The First Amendment
assures individuals and parents the right to make this
decision for themselves.
According to the court opinion, Internet filters
operate using categories of lists containing web
addresses. If a URL is on one of these lists, which
can contain between 200,000 to 600,000 web
addresses chosen by the company that produces the
filter to be “objectionable,” it is blocked. However, it
is estimated that only 100,000 Web sites contain free
sexually explicit material. The filters end up block-
JENELLE WILSON
Few would argue
that children should
have access to
pomography y but that
is not the only materi
al blocked
ing many sites that minors should be
able to have access to in a public
forum.
The court opinion contains many
examples of “overblocked” sites.
Surprisingly, several of the blocked
sites had content related to religion or churches. The
Web site of a Catholic men's group in Nevada was
blocked by the Cyber Patrol Internet filter because it
inexplicably fit the program's Adult/Sexually
Explicit category. The Web site for Orphanage
Emmanuel, a Christian orphanage in Honduras, was
blocked for the same reason.
Other erroneously blocked sites include local
government Web sites, home education information,
hockey teams, the Wisconsin Right to Life site and
even a Web Site with information
about allergies.
Learning about allergies is in no
way harmful to minors, and this
example shows just how problematic
Internet filters are. Internet filter
companies do not properly explore
the content of a Web site before it
adds the URL to one of the lists.
Internet filters also fail to proper
ly block the sexually explicit materi
al they are designed to block. The
filters offer a false sense of security,
but with the Internet constantly
changing, filters fail to keep up.
With an estimated two billion web
In response to Leann Bickford's Nov. 21
column:
I am somewhat concerned with the
views espoused against differing religious
and life choices in Ms. Bickford's article.
She feels that it is OK for an organization
to discriminate against atheists or homo
sexuals if their beliefs violate some
obscure "moral code." By this same rea
soning, corporations could discriminate
against atheists or homosexuals by citing
the same type of violation. They could
take it even further, discriminating
against Jews, Muslims or Buddhists
because they do not share some
Christian value that the corporation was
founded upon.
I also find the character assassination
performed by Ms. Bickford on Darrell
Lambert very misguided. 1 think his per
sistence speaks to his respect of and faith
in the Boy Scouts of America as an impor
tant and relevant organization in the lives
of young men. As society progresses
socially, though, those organizations that
do not progress will eventually become
irrelevant. Mr. Lambert does not want to
see this happen to the Boy Scouts.
Nick Anthis
Class of 2005
In response to a Nov. 2 7 mail call:
Yesterday's mail call was quite
appalling to me. As the Moore Hall RHA
Delegate and the individual who wore
the shirt saying "Howdy F ckerl," I am
strongly against the RHA dress code and
Mr. Vargo’s attacks upon myself and oth
ers that don't happen to agree with his
opinions.
First off, let me clarify that this shirt
actually read "Howdy F cker!" That's
the singular form of the "F" word, for
those incapable of quoting a shirt. Also,
I have never defended my wearing of
the shirt as any sort of guaranteed right.
I'll be the first to admit that the shirt was
inappropriate, but wearing that shirt did
n't make me any less professional in
manner, nor did it make my voice at the
RHA general assembly any less valid.
Second, Mr. Vargo, in his attack, made
a comment about people who "force
fully rebel." I don't know what Mr. Vargo
considers forceful, but if I'm not mis
taken, those that are visibly against the
dress code have only peacefully
protested.
Jeremy Burns Minnerick
Class of 2005
pages already in existence, and 1.5 million pages
added to the Internet every day, underblocking is
also a large problem with Internet filters. Children
are not protected from the material CIPA seeks to
protect them from.
Internet filters are simply not effective. They
block Web sites that are not harmful to minors and
allow access to sites that are.
Libraries should be places of intellectual freedom.
An employee at a company that makes Internet fil
ters does not have the right to determine what infor
mation society should be able to see. Adults must be
able to determine the information that is appropriate
for them to view, and parents should have the final
say in what their children may see. To do so is con
stitutionally guaranteed. To restrict speech protected
by the First Amendment because it may be seen as
controversial or goes against popular opinion is
unacceptable.
Jenelle Wilson is a junior
political science major.
J