111 readiis
nezuel),
b fire
^nezutla ||
rec ov3re(j m
rom the debris j
-aracas njof;' 1
a ts said Moffi|}|
ily engulfed tbf
With hurts;;,
acking emerg,
§ a panicky®
'day. Twelve^
at La Goajirjy
sly discarded c,
Dossible cajv.'® 116 Soviets attempted Communism and the
h erupted ne<'
. Lire Chief fir
Environmental Protection Agency created a 55 mph
peed limit in Houston. Just last week, the list grew.
The invest® ^P 01 "^ rc]eased by the U.S. Commission on Civil
lay.
ids recover n
romen and a
Monday,
)f dead to j
Centeno, d©
: forensics api
sted Press, fey
jccumbed
Ians fail
istory's list of
failed govern
ment policies
s a mile long. Rome
md lead plumbing,
ortugal refused to
tack Christopher
Dolumbus, Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler,
MATT MADDOX
D
- • 1
'SS
;h
all
Station
IAL •
• ■ J
• *
13/02
irsday
iSow"
aJJOU-
ics 202
a201_
iosT
101
. J
1
*
lights (USCCR) state that percentage admissions
arograms at colleges erne another failed policy with
tudents suffering the loss. Texas, California and
lorida universities cannot get rid of them soon
nough.
In those three states, percentage programs were
nstituted after affirmative action in education
became illegal. Texas' version guarantees applicants
admission to public state universities if they gradu
ate in the top 10 percent of their high school class.
Percentage programs have a disparate impact or use
neutral factors to discriminate. Much in the way
loll taxes were intended to disenfranchise blacks
and poor whites, percentage programs are intended
o block qualified students at competitive high
chools in favor of top 10 percent students from
uncompetitive schools. The Texas Legislature
approved the plan after alarmists claimed the
Hopwood ruling would drastically reduce the num
ber of minorities in higher education. According to
the USCCR. the alarmists are wrong and the pro
gram they helped create is ineffective.
The USCCR's reports criticizing percentage
plans sound like what conservatives have been say
ing all along. Despite this, the leader of the USCCR
is liberal Mary Frances Berry, whose recent obstruc
tionist tactics have proved her ideology. According
to a White House letter, after President Bush
appointed conservative Peter Kirsanow to fill a seat
on the commission. Berry informed White House
counsel A1 Gonzales it would take armed federal
marshals to install the appointee. Berry's staff, in
violation of rules, then issued a USCCR report enti
tled, “Beyond Percentage Plans: The Challenge of
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.” The con
clusion of the report is that percentage programs are
failing at their intent of raising non-Asian minority
enrollment rates and affirmative action is needed to
boost those statistics. For perhaps the first time, a
die-hard supporter of racial preferences has criti
cized percentage programs.
This criticism comes shortly after Texas A&M
considered enlarging its automatic admissions
through the “Top 20 Percent Plan,” a program that
would have created easier admissions requirements
| for students at 253 “diverse” high schools. The pro-
jgram, which was scrapped last year when questions
I of its legality arose, is no longer being considered
Jby the University, according to Dr. Frank Ashley,
I Director of Admissions.
Since the Texas Automatic Admissions program
I was enacted, uncertainty has become a common
| fear of A&M applicants. A&M's admissions are
now so swamped and inefficient that many qualified
j applicants are placed on waiting lists for up to six
months. Ashley said many high school counselors
now instruct their students not to bother applying
unless they are in the automatically admitted range
°f their class.
The primary problem with the program is that it
places university applicants in competition with
their high school classmates for admission instead
°f the entire college applicant pool. This means
there is no uniform standard for admitting a stu-
tfont, since high schools vary drastically as to how
competitive their curriculums and students are. An
added side effect of the policy is the 100 percent
emphasis on a student’s grades rather than on being
W'ell-rounded in the areas of academics, leadership,
and service. This encourages high school students
to inflate their grades through easier class loads and
I to abstain from extra-curricular activities. Children
I | are thus penalized for learning in a competitive
I environment.
Commissioners Abigail Themstrom, Jennifer
Braceras, Peter Kirsanow and Russell Redenbaugh
issued a statement disagreeing with the report’s rec
ommendations for affirmative action, but agreed
Percentage programs don’t work. “Neither racial
double-standards nor X-percent plans solve the trag-
lc Problem of non-Asian minority students entering
college unlikely to succeed,” said Themstrom.
National Assessment for Educational Progress data
forSth-graders in Texas are available. In the year
2000, 60 percent of black students, 41 percent of
Hispanic youngsters and 17 percent of whites tested
Below Basic’ in math,” Themstrom explained.
Only better K-12 education can level the playing
field. X-percent plans, like preferential admissions,
^e an ineffective effort at damage control."
The solution for the three states currently using
Percentage programs is simple. There should be no
a utomatic admissions of any kind. Applicants
should be evaluated on a range of academically rel
evant criteria. This will yield a class of students far
more diverse in their interests and backgrounds than
u nder the current system, without the pretense of
racism. The K-12 education system produces such
Poor math scores and those parents who allow their
children to slip through the cracks must be fixed.
should stop passing the buck of social engi
neering and demand only the most prepared stu-
e nts, regardless of race, become Aggies.
.
. J
Matt Maddox is a junior
management major.
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Tuesday, December 3, 20(X
Driving the divine
‘What Would Jesus Drive?’ campaign disrespects Christ
MARK WOOD
I n today’s
world, where
an activist
group exists for
just about any
thing one can
imagine, the
new “What Would Jesus Drive?” campaign
should come as no surprise. It was merely a
matter of time before a group got together
and came up with an idea as extreme as
this one.
The group comprises representatives from
a variety of Jewish and Christian organiza
tions and is sponsored by the Pennsylvania-
based Evangelical Environmental Network,
according to foxnews.com. The group uses a
spin-off of the popular “What Would Jesus
Do?” movement, which makes items such as
bracelets and shirts with the letters WWJD
on them.
According to foxnews.com, the group
met with executives and top officials at Ford
Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and the
United Auto Workers, petitioning them to
start producing vehicles that are kinder to
God's creations and to urge the faithful to
buy them. The “What Would Jesus Drive?”
campaign specifically opposes the popular
sport utility vehicle, which it says pollutes
the earth and causes global warming.
According to the ad campaign, Jesus
would not drive one of these vehicles.
Rather, he would choose a small, fuel-effi
cient ride. The group’s commercial, which
according to abcnews.com will run in
Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and North Carolina,
says, “Too many of the cars, trucks and
SUVs that are made, that we choose to drive,
are polluting our air. And endangering our
health, especially the health of our children."
This campaign is full of controversy in
the religious world, and many religious lead
ers are surprisedly taking to it. One propo
nent of this notion is the Rev. Jim Ball. In an
interview with “Good Morning America,”
Ball said, “When you look at the impact of
transportation on human health and on glob
al warming and Jesus was the great physi
cian of body and soul. The most basic teach
ing of Jesus is to love your neighbor like
yourself. How can you do that when you are
filling your neighbor's lungs with pollution?”
On the other side of the issue is Rev. Pat
Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting
Network. Also in an interview with “Good
Morning America,” Robertson said, “I think
the concept of linking Jesus to an anti-SUV
campaign borders on blasphemy, and I
regard it as a joke.”
The Rev. Robertson is correct. The idea
Jesus would have a preference
on what vehicle he drove is
outlandish. How can one
even begin to associate
Jesus with a car made
by humans? This
group is taking
advantage of Jesus’
name to push its
own agenda.
In an interview
with The
Washington Post,
Ball said, “Jesus
wants his followers to
drive the least-polluting,
most efficient vehicle that
truly meets their needs.
He'd definitely be in favor of us taking pub
lic transportation.” .
When you get down to it, every car pol
lutes the earth — even the Prius, the high
gas mileage Toyota hybrid Ball
and his associates drive. The
only way not to pollute the
Earth would be to walk, ride a
horse or ride a bike. This is, of
course, illogical, just as this
activist group’s argument is.
Jesus commands people to
take care of his creations
and car makers should
strive to make the most fuel-
efficient car they can, but
one should not try to corre
late Jesus with things of this
earth. To take this campaign
seriously would open a huge
can of worms, for if people
are to decide what kind of
car Jesus would drive
they must ask themselves
a whole lot more than that.
What other kind of prod
ucts would Jesus not buy?
Certainly nothing that is made
at a factory or is a product that
uses parts made in a factory,
which sends numerous
pollutants into the air. Or
maybe there should be a
group against clothes,
because check out the tags. Most
of the garments people wear are
made in a country where
child labor is accepted or are
made in some sort of a sweat
shop. Or maybe a coalition
against computers should be made
saying Jesus wouldn’t agree with
these because, as of now, computers
cannot be recycled.
No coalition or activist group should
ever associate Jesus’ name with the prefer
ence for a particular worldly possession.
Such a correlation is not only the antithe
sis of Christianity, but blasphemous and
in poor taste.
JEFF SMITH* THE BATTALION
MAIL CALL
Slocum's career at
A&M remembered
When I heard the news today of
Coach Slocum's dismissal, it made
me glad that I am graduating in a
few weeks. I don't really know how
1 would feel as a student if we had
a different coach.
R.C. has been reveled as the win-
ningest coach in school history,
and I think it is wrong to dispose of
him after one bad season. It's not
his fault that injuries on the team
have been rampant, or that we
happen to be competing in the
most difficult conference in foot
ball today.
If it is necessary to fire a coach
after turning in one particularly
bad conference record, then I
guess we should fire our basket
ball coach just about every year.
But what's done is done, and I
want to wish Coach Slocum luck
on any future ventures. In fact,
maybe he should just move up the
road to Waco, take his next recruit
ing class with him, and show us all
what we know he can do.
Thanks for the last 30 years, R.C.,
1 know we all will miss seeing you
on the sideline.
Daniel C. Griffith
Class of 2002
I was disgusted to hear about the
firing of Texas A&M University head
football coach R.C. Slocum on
Monday.
I think we've heard it all before,
but it's worth repeating again:
Slocum is the winningest coach in
Texas A&M history, second win
ningest active coach of the past
decade, faster to 100 victories than
any active head coach, eighth best
13 season start among all coaches,
11 bowl games in 13 seasons, 29-
game conference unbeaten streak
(1991-1995), respected by his
peers in the college ranks and the
NFL, et cetera, et cetera.
But what has he done for us late
ly? A&M has been on the downturn,
and it's only getting worse.
Look, do I need to repeat that last
paragraph again? A man with those
credentials deserves a chance to
turn things around. What about that
idea called loyalty?
Besides, he's been recruiting well;
we all watched the Oklahoma game.
There's some man named Reggie
McNeal and word on the street says
he's going to be good.
But for now, Slocum has been fired,
so there's no use hoping otherwise.
But the way in which it was done
was tactless. It makes me sick to my
stomach to know that he was not
even allowed to finish the season.
Texas A&M is not Baylor, and
thank God for that, so why are we
acting like them? Was our starting
quarterback struggling with sub
stance abuse? No, but it sounds
like the people that made this deci
sion were.
When I heard the rumors that
Slocum was going to be fired, I said,
"No way, not at Texas A&M. A&M is
different from other schools." And
then, when I found out it was true,
it floored me. And to think all of this
happened before the end of the
season.
Now I know that everything those
Aggies say about loyalty, honor and
brotherhood is a lie.
Walter Chen
Class of 2004
1 just wanted to submit a head
line suggestion for tor orrow's
issue: Yay, we fired R.C. Slocum!
Lindi Horton
Class of 2002