9
Opinion
The Battalion
he fate of affirmative action
iversity needed, but race-based admissions programs wrong way to achieve it
Page 11 • Tuesday, December 10,
T
he U.S.
Supreme Court
agreed last
erson wboci
lim to be the':
a holy place*
jemonstraie-
;ked respec:
week to review a case
that could reshape col
lege admissions. The
case, Grutter v. Bollinger, will likely
decide the fate of affirmative action pro
grams in the nation’s universities. This
case will hopefully bring an end to the
string of ambiguous court cases that have
dragged the admirable goal of diversity
through the mud of race-based admission.
Although this case is very choreo
graphed — USA Today reported the group
behind the white students’ lawsuits chose
Grutter as the best case from a list of 70
names - the fact remains that race-based
admission programs will always be
potentially discriminatory to white stu-
dents.
Although ruling that race-based
{ affirmative action programs are
unconstitutional would definitely be
! the right decision, such a ruling
| would further malign public opinion
I toward diversity. This is a serious
% problem.
A complete education requires a
T diverse student body. Judging from
discourse on campus, a large number
of students are still not aware of the
inherent value of having a diverse campus.
To accept that interaction with students of
different economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds is imperative to be a success
ful leader and citizen has nothing to do
with the status of affirmative action.
Diversity is needed, but race-based
admissions is wrong. It is a simple con
cept to sum up, but one many students do
not want to accept. At Texas A&M for
example, many who oppose affirmative
action would like to build momentum
to oppose diversity in general. These
critics say there is plenty of
diversity already within the
MARIANO CASTILLO
predominantly white A&M
student body. Even if A&M
is 86 percent white, they say,
there is diversity in this
group’s economic, social
and political backgrounds.
They are absolutely right.
However, to see the diversity that exists
among the white majority, but be blind to
how students of different ethnicities will
enhance those types of diversity, is indeed
myopic.
If the Supreme Court rules to end affir
mative action, as it should, the challenge
to diversify is more important than ever.
What is missing from the national debate
are proposals for diversifying campuses if
affirmative action is overruled. It is certain
that schools such as Michigan will experi
ence a sharp decline in minority enroll
ment, much like A&M and the University
of Texas witnessed after the 1996
Hopwood decision.
Schools across the nation, including
A&M, are lagging behind the curve.
Instead of defending affirmative action
programs, the diversity movement should
shift its efforts to programs that are not
legally dubious. The paradigm of quotas
and admission based on race should right
fully die in the chamber of the Supreme
Court. New, bold initiatives are necessary
to convince the student body that diversity
is a positive goal.
Fortunately at A&M, President Dr.
Robert M. Gates is moving quickly to
meet these goals. His announcement that
he will appoint a vice president for institu
tional diversity is a great first step. By
committing resources, such as this new
position, A&M will hopefully come closer
to reflecting the demographics of the
state, without resorting to programs that
are unfair to any group.
Mariano Castillo is a senior
international studies and journalism major.
California courts threaten Second Amendment
133orvi$ii
1S P
W0
S ometimes it is not
a surprise what
type of decisions
come out of the
California courts —
land this case is no dif-
|ferent. In a federal
■appeals court decision on Dec. 5,
Ithree appeals court judges handed
I own an opinion which states the
pecond Amendment to the U.S.
I onstitution does not say people have
| a right to bear arms. Instead, the
Ijudges say it only allows for states to
Pise and maintain a militia. While
I e three California judges look to the
historical context in which the
pecond Amendment was written, it is
|o vious to most that historical con-
I ext aside, the Second Amendment
IProtects an individual’s right to bear
jarms.
! The case concerns California’s
°an on semiautomatic assault
capons. Gun owners filed suit,
| a yng the Second Amendment pro
BRIEANNE PORTER
tected their right to
own weapons that the
1999 amendment to the
1989 California law
banning 75 “high pow
ered weapons that have
rapid-fire capabilities”
allowed, according to The
Associated Press. In the court’s
unanimous ruling, “the amend
ment’s operating clause establishes
that this objective was to be
obtained by preserving the right of
the people to ‘bear arms’ to carry
weapons in conjunction with their
service in the militia,” wrote Judge
Stephen Reinhardt for the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals. When the
Second Amendment was written, it
was clearly meant to protect the
right for militia members to be
armed; it is not entirely clear how
this amendment affects today’s
society. Many argue the Second
Amendment is obsolete because
there is a standing military to pro
/jevva^"
ids: I
donate
tect the nation. When the amend
ment was written, the founders were
protecting the rights of states
against the power of the federal
government. It is still true today
that many people are wary of the
federal government and look to
intrusions into the private realm as
proof that people’s right to own
guns is still necessary. Without the
ability to own guns to protect them
selves, many fear the federal gov
ernment’s power to become as
tyrannical as the British govern
ment’s was during the American
Revolution.
For the past 60 years, the U.S.
Supreme Court has avoided the
issue of Second Amendment rights.
In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled
the amendment was a prohibition on
the federal government and states
had a right to regulate the sale of
guns in between states. This case
dealt with the selling of sawed-off
shotguns across state lines. The
MAIL CALL
court held that “possession of such
a weapon has no relationship to pre
serving a well-regulated militia,”
according to The San Francisco
Chronicle. Now, the Supreme Court
may be forced to revisit this issue,
because the California ruling is at
odds with the position held by the
Justice Department and Attorney
General John Ashcroft. In a letter to
the National Rifle Association,
Ashcroft said, “the Second
Amendment gives individuals the
right to bear arms,” as printed in an
Associated Press article. Many legal
scholars, while still in the minority,
agree with Ashcroft’s interpretation
of the amendment. In the Supreme
Court case, Printz v. United States
in 1997, Justice Clarence Thomas
wrote in his concurring opinion a
footnote that stated “marshaling an
impressive array of historical evi
dence, a growing body of scholarly
commentary indicates that the ‘right
to bear arms’ is, as the amendment’s
text suggests, a personal right.” For
many, this comment leaves hope
that if this case reaches the
Supreme Court that an individual’s
right to own guns will be protected.
While California’s law has been
upheld, many states still protect gun
ownership rights within their state
constitutions. As NRA spokesman
Andrew Arulanandam said about the
ruling, “From an organizational
standpoint, for 131 years we’ve
been standing steadfastly to protect
the freedoms of all law abiding
Americans and stand steadfastly
that the Second Amendment is an
individual right and will continue to
do so,” according to The Associated
Press. For Americans, it is not the
end of gun owning rights, but the
continuation of a long legal battle
to prove their case.
Brieanne Porter is a junior
political science major.
pCLU is for all who
See k rnembership
I response to Leann Bickford's
Dec - 9 column:
Ri!u Saddens me tha t Ms.
vin| kf ° rd does not consider the
L 3 l0n the Bill of Rights a
Cn Se ^31 is truly worthy of
c °nservatives.
J^t, I think her definition
L a at is conservative is total-
wlu n u SerVative ' not a liberal,
ud ,i 6 tk,e f' rst one t° stand
" tight against a large
government.
^ also needs to check her
DirkV eCause Bob B arr and
-in the ? 67 Wil1 not be servin §
ie Congress next term. So
Will ^ SSer t ion that the ACLU
effert V° me kind of direct
‘V Wrong federal polic V is total-
$olek/ A< r L,J does not promote
fonie of |if''' bera * Yes,
them are, but trying to
keep the federal government
from spying on American citi
zens is hardly liberal.
I am proud that there are still
true Republicans out there
who stand up for the tradition
al philosophy of that party.
I believe that the federal gov
ernment Ms. Bickford wants for
the world would be about the
furthest one could imagine
from the traditional conserva
tive ideology. Dissent encour
ages democracy, it does noth
ing to hamper it.
Chris Cole
Class of 2005
Kudos to Leann Bickford for
her incisive reminder of the
threat posed to all Americans
by those "pesky liberals" at the
ACLU. Their advocacy of civil
liberties cannot be tolerated in
a free society, particularly
when those liberties run con
trary to majority opinion.
Their fervent advocacy of
Constitutional rights is absurd
and runs contrary to the inten
tion of the Founding Fathers.
The thought that people
should be free from govern
ment interference in their lives
clearly runs contrary to conser
vative thought, particularly
regarding laissez-faire eco
nomics.
Conservatives must particu
larly protect all Americans from
the dangers of gay rights, as
the right to privacy cannot be
extended to intimate relations,
and certainly should not
infringe upon the right of
Americans to fire people
because of their lifestyle choic
es or even to violently protest
those choices if they see fit.
This country was founded on
Judeo-Christian principles, and
were Jesus here, he clearly
would be the first to condemn
and physically attack those
who would engage in those
behaviors.
Nicolas Rangel Jr.
Ph.D. student and lecturer
Students tired of
petty harassment
I should not have to remind
the College Station Police
Department that their job is
not to harass the youth of
College Station in their mis
guided efforts to get money.
The system set up by the
municipal court to have an
undeserved ticket dismissed
resembles an elaborate sys
tem of extortion in which only
the police can come out on
top.
As a working, married, twen
ty-one-year-old student at
Texas A&M, I have better
things to do with my money
than pay College Station for
frivolous and unwarranted
parking tickets.
Casey Cockrell
Class of 2004