m
THE BATTAU
d by
ama
nzar to show ther t
to Paya. Alacaz
nilitaries took
n as they atta,
bout 12 miles in
that he later escaj
y sources specu!
nilitaries wanted
Indian villagefo
operation with It:
n guerrillas,
ities reported
y phone was on
d attempts tocor
were unsucces
also said t!
an Indians were
om Paya during
id may have It
it report couldna
however,
ities searching 5
nd another ban
I been attacked.i
the body of onet
e.
a rushed squad
the Paya region
inday's attack. Tt
nanent police
is there a high
to the rest of
irder area has k
f frequent incur;::
ibian paramiliu
ing Colombian g
cent years.
om page 1
e Gulf War, when
â– d access to the fc
the Pentagon w
mber of journalist'
is sent into comla
Iraq, and their rep:
>red.
something w
we allow unfettf
ic can judge whi
lach their own coa'
k
ed from page ij
EDITORIAL
Achieving diversity
Forced multiculturalism will fail
The controversy sparked by Walton Hall's "ghetto Party" has been use
ful as a focusing event — underscoring why race lingers as a difficult
issue at Texas A&M and identifying the two main obstacles to achieving
a truly diverse and welcoming environment.
Racial insensitivity toward minorities is an old problem, and one that
the Aggie community has worked tirelessly to eliminate. The alleged
activities that took place at the "ghetto Party," not to mention its timing,
are certainly inappropriate and encourage the perception that the
University is hostile to minorities.
Yet, there is no reason to believe the organizers' intent was malicious
or racist: they publicly apologized for any misunderstanding and reaf
firmed their commitment to making all Aggies feel welcome. This situa
tion should be viewed not as a setback, but as a teaching opportunity
to increase cultural sensitivity.
However, comments made by those such as Dr. Marco Portales, an
A&M English professor, to The Bryan-College Station Eagle represent a
more alarming threat to genuine diversity. Portales said the students
involved in the "ghetto Party" should be expelled, adding that if a view
point is maligning without provocation, it is not constitutionally protect
ed.
Statements like these give rise to fears that recent diversity initiatives
are little more than political correctness run amuck. Those who, in the
name of diversity, would punish views they deem unacceptable, do
more to create an atmosphere of intolerance on campus than the
organizers of the "ghetto Party." Forced adherence to a dogmatic multi
culturalism will stifle free debate and breed division and rancor. Diversity
must be a positive force for change - an appeal to reason and con
science, and should not degenerate into a purge of unorthodox or even
distasteful opinions.
A&M President Dr. Robert M. Gates has reassured critics that his efforts
to lure more minority students are aimed at making Aggieland a more
welcoming place and do not involve quotas or preferences. Gates has
presented a positive agenda worthy of support, but students and facul
ty should repudiate those such as Portales who advocate coercion and
intolerance to advance the cause of diversity. True diversity and plural
ism must be built on consensus.
THE BATTALION
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
Neivs Editor
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brandie Liffick Asst. News
Sommer Bunge Member
George Deutsch Member
Sarah Walch Member
Melissa Sullivan
Brieanne Porter
Matt Maddox
Rolando Garcia
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
less and include the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submit
ted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be
mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843-11 1 1. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 11 • Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Percentage plans
Top 10 percent plan poor way to diversify campus
■■■■BBHIlHHHHnm WT~..... J.U:.. 1, I, 1 inHivirliinl cr-hrvrtl’c frtn ctiirle>nfc ’LL nii£>ctinn muct ncV
STEPHANIE
PALMER
'magine a student in high school with aspira
tions of becoming a surgeon. He wants to
.attend the best university to prepare for med
ical school, so he is likely to choose Texas
A&M. He knows that to be assured acceptance
he must graduate in the top 10 percent of his
class, so he decides not to take aa anatomy class
because it is impossible to get a grade higher
than a B. There is no need for him to worry,
because it is not a requirement to graduate.
Besides, he only need outrank other minorities
to be in the top 10 percent of his class. This should not be too dif
ficult, because they are all struggling through Advanced
Biochemistry Honors.
While a bit exaggerated, this story illustrates the mind-set of
many students who must deal with the realities of Texas’ top 10
percent law.
Unfortunately, the arguments supporting the
Texas state law, which allows high school stu
dents in the top 10 percent of their graduating
class automatic admission to public universities,
are convincing, but truly flawed. The well-inten
tioned main objective of this law is to counter the
disbandment of affirmative action laws in regard
to college admissions by augmenting the number
of minority students in the nationVpublic univer
sities.
Currently, the issues of affirmative action and
college admission standards are in the midst of
political debate due to the Michigan court cases,
Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger.
President George W. Bush has said on numerous
occasions that he adamantly believes the racial
quotas used by the University of Michigan are
unconstitutional. The president’s assertions are
correct.
In a nationally televised speech. Bush said, “The method used
by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal
(racial diversity) is fundamentally flawed. At their core, the
Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards
or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race.”
Bush is opposed to racial quotas, but he endorses Texas’ top 10
percent law. As a result of legacies and other forms of institution
alized racism, affirmative action is perhaps the more equitable
solution. The alleged benefits of the top 10 percent law often
backfire and cause deeper problems for students.
Those in favor of this policy believe that it rewards Texas’ top
high school students for their academic superiority. One major
flaw is that it does not reward the state’s top students but rather
Minority
students who
attend
predominately
white or diverse
high schools that
cannot attain a
status in the top 10
percent may he
tempted to take
yy
easier courses.
each individual school’s top students. The question one must ask
himself is, “What if the student attends a challenging school?” It
is quite possible that a student who performs only in the top quar
ter at one school would perform in the top 10 percent at another.
Furthermore, this can only aid minorities if Texas’ schools are
subject to de facto segregation. This may be true for inner-city
schools but this is not a statewide case. Although the state’s top
universities are in need of diversity, racial segregation is not a sit
uation that deserves incentive by law.
People who defend the law may argue that it urges students to
excel to reach the top 10 percent of their class. While some may
strive for excellence, others will be encouraged to take an easier
course load fo maintain their class status. Where is the incentive
for students to take college preparatory classes if it will hurt their
chances of getting into college? Unless high school students are
forced to compete on an equal playing field, they will continue to
find shortcuts.
ThiV-sitUation causes more damage to minority
retention rates. Minority students who attend pre
dominately white or diverse high schools that cannot
attain a status in the top 10 percent may be tempted
to take easier courses; Students who have taken an
easier course load may gain admission, but it is
unlikely that they are prepared for the demands of
college life. V. ifr
The University Texas has boasted of restoring
its minority enrollment^o pre-affirmative action level
but at the cost of dramatically lowering the academic
qualifications of entering freshmen and rejecting oth
ers who are adequately qualified. If minority stu
dents are not qualified, retention rates are lowered
and, in the long-run, minority enrollment will also
drop. gj I
“The twin goals of equity and high quality
schooling have profound and practical meaning for
our economy andlsociety,” stated The National
Commission on Excellence in a press release. “We cannot permit
one to yield to the other in principloor in practice.”
In principle, this laws seems credible, beneficial and equitable,
but in practice the faults become evident. Americans must exam
ine the laws that govern their society and trust the reality, not the
fallacy. A law that harms the people it was intended to help is not
worth the paper on which is was written. Concerned citizens must
petition the government to amend this law.
Stephanie Palmer is a junior
journalism major.
Graphic by Angelique Ford.
\ software tecta
elp military plain 1
and gather infer
r San Diego-b
aid.
is survived by
aughters, ages 12
stry spokesmansi
re stunned by
ict of violence w
a great man
m our family,"
mg. Tapestry
MAIL CALL
Ghetto party in no way
supported racism
aiti security c
shooting was
The government
denounce the
o portray it as
ent.
puty prime min®
gn minister,
dimed A1 Sabah,?
es to Secretary
n Powell, expres?
“strong conde®:
:h criminal acts
historic relations I
s between the:
itions.”
Parliament Sps
1-Kharafi said
as “an act of an if
doesn’t represent
the Kuwaiti peop
critical to any 1 '
st neighboring If
welcomes Amerk
gering gratitude
led coalition
raqi invaders in
War.
e only Persian
lere large number
ground troops;
r desert warfare'
tack on Iraq.
o-American attW
my of Kuwait^
izens is unusual
aslini world, wf
entiment and opf
in Iraq run high
its prove the eim'
une to attacks, sf
1-Qaida.
Marine was k ;
»nd wounded Od
i Kuwaiti Mu
, who were
ned fire on
eak from trainini
When is the oversensitivity going to end?
Any reasonable person would realize that
the ghetto theme planned for Walton's party
did not show support for racism, honor past
wrongs, or say anything negative about any
one at all.
It didn't hurt anybody but instead provided
a way for all races to come together laugh
ing at the old misguided ways.
Outrage over this kind of thing only
) increases racial tensions, carrying forward ill
feelings that would otherwise fade out.
As a minority student myself I’d encourage
Walton to proceed with such plans in the
future despite criticism. They are, after all,
the ones who will lead to true healing.
Chris Carlin
Class of 2003
Apologies stemming from
ghetto party warranted
The opinion of Boo Boo Davies, in
response to the "ghetto party" is not repre
sentative of the opinion of the majority of
the black students on campus. We do not
believe that the whole thing was blown out
of proportion and all apologizes were war
ranted and necessary.
Jessica Thompson
Class of 2003
Planned Parenthood is pro
abortion, not pro-choice
As the anniversary of Roe v. Wade
arrives, I ask that everyone consider this:
"is Planned Parenthood really pro-choice
or merely pro-abortion?" To truly be pro-
choice, Planned Parenthood should allow
women to be fully informed about abor
tion and accept their decision to either
have the child or have the abortion.
However, women will often pull into
Planned Parenthood's parking lot, come
to those of us praying on the sidewalk,
and ask for some of our information.
Planned Parenthood has a woman whose
job is to intercept her from us and
instruct her to give the information back.
This is not pro-choice as the woman isn't
being allowed to be fully informed on
both sides of the issue.
How can an organization that is "pro-
choice" be angry with someone's choice
to have a child?
Cody Sain
Class of 2006
President Lieberman?
Religion, bipartisan dealings hold him back
W hen former Vice
President A1
Gore publicly
announced he would not
run for president in 2004,
his former vice presiden
tial running mate. Sen.
Joseph Lieberman (D-
Conn.) announced that he
would.
Freed from the impro
priety of running against his for
mer running mate, Lieberman
believes he has what it takes to
win the Democratic nomination
bid and march his way into the
White House to “fight for what's
right for the American people.” It
would be a major improvement to
American society to have a presi
dent who could do just that, but it
will not be Lieberman.
Lieberman’s primary faults lie
within his multi-faceted political
agenda, among other things. He
tickets himself as a “different
kind of Democrat,” whatever that
means. Perhaps it is supposed to
be a euphemism for his mostly
traditional values within the
Democratic Party coupled with
his Republican tendencies.
It is true that to be an effective
policy maker, politicians need to
cross partisan lines and compro
mise to create effective govern
ment for all Americans.
At the same time, too much
middle ground implies an insin
cerity of a party member toward
the party’s goals and objectives.
Playing the part of the conserva
tive Democrat, Lieberman looked
into efforts to suspend parts of
Bush’s tax cut and was a major
player in calling together hear
ings on homeland defense and
Enron’s collapse.
Switching hats, however, he is
the leading proponent of war in
Iraq within his party, wants to see
Democrats speak out more about
faith and morality, has pro-busi
ness economic views and even
puts himself at odds with the lib
eral wing of his party by
condemning the enter
tainment industry for its
use of sex and violence.
Conservative Democrat
or liberal Republican?
Your guess is as good as
mine.
Politics aside,
Lieberman’s major hin
drance will not be his
fence straddling, but his religious
fervor and how this could poten
tially cause harm to the
Democratic Party.
The debate stems from the
1960 presidential election when
John F. Kennedy Jr. became the
nation’s first Catholic president.
Many thought that the pope
would control Kennedy and lead
this largely Protestant country
astray. That did not happen and
he won anyway.
This time, it is not the general
public that is shying away from
Lieberman, but American Jews.
“Joe Lieberman speaks too much
of religion and faith. Jews were
always the first ones to defend
the 'sacred' separation between
religion and state,” according to a
report from the Jewish Post of
New York. This thought was
shared by Abe Foxman from the
Anti-Defamation League who
praised the historic choice of
Lieberman as a candidate for vice
president in 2000, and now criti
cizes him for endangering the
vital separation between religion
and state.
Lieberman openly told the
press that he is not running on
his faith, but that his faith is at
the center of who he is, and he is
not going to conceal that. That is
admirable and noteworthy of a
man who only 50 years ago
would have received maybe only
40 percent of voter support
because of his Jewish back
ground, but Lieberman is no
Kennedy and there are some
examples where his religion will
clash with his politics.
The first and most obvious is
his dealings with the Middle
East. People must first establish
the fact that not all Jews are pro-
Israel, and not all who are pro-
Israel are Jews. Lieberman is
both Jewish and relatively pro-
Israel. Many American Jews are
unhappy with Lieberman’s criti
cism of Bush’s policy toward the
Middle East and were thrown
into a spin when Lieberman
expressed support for a
Palestinian state, something a
true pro-Israel supporter would
never stand for. Regardless, he
still receives an estimated
$86,000 from pro-Israel political
action committees. “For
Orthodox Jews, Lieberman is not
pro-Israel enough. For extreme
anti-Israel critics, he is too pro-
Israel,” wrote Seth Gitell of the
Boston Phoenix.
Something else that is bother
some about Lieberman’s entire
religious stance is his blatant
hypocrisy. He observes the
Sabbath, he believes in faith,
morality and values. But when
asked about whether a Lieberman
White House would have a
Christmas tree, he responded by
saying “Obviously, I'm running
as an American who happens to
be Jewish and not the other way
around.” But if his faith is the
center of who he is, as he says it
is, then such an attempt at main
stream assimilation negates his
personal moral convictions, espe
cially as an Orthodox Jew. If
Lieberman is as observant as he
has claimed to be all these years,
then we should expect to see a
White House Passover Seder in
lieu of the annual Easter Egg
Hunt.
Lieberman is not the
Democrats answer to George W.
Bush. Let’s hope they find one.
Melissa Fried is a freshman
international studies major.
MELISSA
FRIED