NATION
THE BATTALION
urt OKs
otests
nization for Women,
heidler said the
ibly draw new adherents lo
ause, but is not likely to
a new round of violem
sm outside clinics,
fhat’s in the pasi,"
dler said. “Now we
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B • Thursday, February 27, 2003
Facing united Korea
outh Korea's friendly new policies toward North Korea could prove bad for U.S.
otesting and counseling
the clinics,
doing
INQUtST
ffl|
things that we';
do. We’l
much
freedom.”
The
ends a
begun in
1986, when
NOW and two
ion clinics in Wisconsin
Delaware went to court
ing racketeering andextor-
aws should protect tasi-
s from violent protests that
away clients,
ey accused the groups of
ing clinic entrances, men-
doctors, patients and din-
ff, and destroying equip-
during a 15-year campaign
lit abortions. The demon-
rs were ordered to pay
$258,000 in damages,
hnquist said there is in
:e that abortion protesters
ered with clinic opera-
and in some cases com-
1 crimes.
ut even when their acts
erference and disruption
/ed their ultimate goal of
ing down’ a clinic that
med abortions, such acts
ot constitute extortion,”
ote.
! offices could not be com-
because of busy circuits
will let out fingers ink
ing and demand thM
be heard," said 1®
ms, the national dire*
n for War, the group tint
zed the protest,
ews said about 400,0011
: had registered through
oup's web site for the call-
npaign. By Wednesday
oon, he projected the
er of calls made and faxes
cceeded 1 million.
ifty years ago, the United States came to
the aid of the young Asian country South
Korea, and ever since, the United States
and South Korea have presented a united front
against North Korean aggression. But recently,
South Korea has turned its policy in a new
and dangerous direction. By pursuing the
“Sunshine Policy’’ of engagement with
North Korea, they risk worsening
relations with the United States,
lengthening North Korea, and possibly bringing
lin to their country and others.
South Korea decided that by opening ties
nth the North Koreans and offering them aid,
insions will be eased between the two coun-
iesto build a more favorable relationship,
lements of this policy have included food aid to
[orthKorea, opening transportation lines and
lowing families on both sides to be reunited,
ccording to The Houston Chronicle. However,
orth Korea has not shown any signs of yielding nor
ivenany reason for South Korea to believe it is look-
igfor a peaceful resolution. In South Korea’s eyes, it is
eonly way to ensure peace. Thus South Korea would
ither continue this policy than join with the United
Jaies in standing up to North Korea’s development
inuclear weapons.
In fact, South Korea is so sure about this policy
latit would deny North Korea even has any nuclear
[capons. According to The Chronicle, South Korea stated
pit believes there is no proof North Korea has built
|ucbr weapons, contradicting the United States, which
lieves that North Korea currently has at least two corn-
weapons. U.S. efforts to make North Korea see the
rrorof its ways by all means necessary have been consis-
underminded by South Korea. It seems that South
would rather have a false peace with North
loreathan defend their country alongside the United
.If South Korea continues to place a high
lie on appeasing North Korea than trying
Blind a joint policy with the United Stapes, the
’S. government may eventually decide to
move its troops from the Korean peninsula and leave
doth Korea defenseless.
MAIL CALL
By feigning friendship with South Korea, North Korea hopes
to melt icy international relations. This will allow it to import
the technology needed to modernize its military and build more
sophisticated nuclear weapons. It has no
intention of reuniting the peninsula
ex
except under the rule of Jong II or his son Kim Jong Chul, who
is now the focus of a media campaign to paint him as successor
to the elder Jong, according to The Houston Chronicle. There is
no sign that the North Korean dictatorship has decided that it
should eventually step down and reunite its impoverished
country with South Korea due to it’s Sunshine Policy. And
by using its acceptance of the policy as a tool against
South Korea in disputes with the United States, North
Korea seeks to separate South Korea from its
staunchest ally and defender.
By allowing its pursuit of a sunshine policy to
separate it from its allies. South Korea is setting
the stage for instability. Besides raising the risk of
an eventual armed takeover of Sout Korea, a penin
sula united under North Korea would pose a serious
threat. A united, hostile Korean peninsula would be a
dagger pointed straight at the heart of the
Japanese.
According to an article on janes.com, Japan
has already considered buying North Korea’s
medium range missiles and paying it not to
make more after North Korea launched one on
a test that passed over Japan. If the North were
allowed to progress unchecked, the Japanese
might also be forced alter their defensive mili
tary stance and consider developing nuclear
weapons of their own to deter North Korea’s
regional ambitions.
The United States would also be at risk, as North
Korea has been continually improving its missiles and
will eventually field one capable of reaching the United
States. This ability could be used as blackmail by North
Korea to prevent American intervention in its activities.
Eventually the desire of North Korea to dominate its region
al arena could be fatal for Russia and China.
All of these possibilities should make the countries of the
region aware of the risks South Korea is taking. By con
tinuing their Sunshine Policy of appeasement, South
Korea is flirting with danger and destruction for
itself, its allies and its region.
David Shoemaker is a junior
management major.
Graphic by Josh Darwin.
MY
on-3
nament
i“
games)
i, One Army
nu.edu or the
mament
i
ims of 4
UZES
:ek Ranch
am
lec Center fee will directly
befit student body
■
In response to the Feb. 25 Rec Fee
jJitorial:
'Is a full-time student and a part-time
jdent worker, I understand as well as
lyone that frugality is a necessary evil
iring these tough times. However,
lore you vote on the Rec Sports Fee
ierendum, let me remind you all of a
w key points left out of Tuesday's
litorial.
The Rec Center is one of the most visi
le signs that a student fee is being put
use.
ow many other fees do you see direct-
jhelping students on a consistent basis?
panted, tuition will probably increase,
[it how many people would make a big
ss about a $310 tuition increase, but
"ot a $300 one?
■he expansion of the weight room
(one could mean the difference
tween paying $10 per semester more
r a less crowded workout and paying
e more expensive membership to
old's Gym and other fitness centers.
It would also keep student money with
Winstead of private businesses.
you play intramurals, exercise at the
ec, work at the Rec or play on a sports
ob, this choice should be a no-brainer.
^ even if these do not apply to you,
rails, lakes and picnic tables" are some-
ing anyone can enjoy,
hshort, vote yes today and eat two less
lue meals at Wendy's.
Todd Alsup
Class of 2004
m
Student Services fee does
not fund vital programs
In response to the Feb. 26 Student
Services Fee editorial:
Gabby Oroza, the chair of the Student
Services Fee Advisory Board, says that the
increase is "to provide services vital to
student life." While some of the ways in
which the additional fees are going to be
used are definitely worthy of the
increase, "Choral Activities" and "Aggie
Nights" are clearly not vital to student
life.
"Aggie Nights" alone gets almost
$200,000 from the increased fees.
Secondly, the report mentions that the
SSFAB had a $1 million windfall in 2001
when the transportation fee was
approved. There is another windfall that
the report fails to mention — the one that
came about because of the previous Rec
Sports Fee referendum, in which students
voted to increase the actual fees by $7
and consolidate that with $21 the Rec
Center was getting from the Student
Service Fee into one fee totaling $78.
Students were supposed to see a
DECREASE of $21 in their Student
Services Fee, a point stressed several
times in the days leading up to the above
mentioned referendum, but they never
did.
The proposed fee increase just barely
breaks the current cap of $150 (SSF
would come to $150.84). Could the
SSFAB not have managed with $0.84
less?
Vinod Srinivasan
Graduate Student
Prison violating First
Amendment rights
E arlier this month, an advocacy group
sued members of the Iowa state
prison system, contending that a
Christian inmate rehabilitation program
funded by state tax dollars violates the
idea of separation of church and state,
according to The New York Times.
Americans United for Separation of
Church and State argued that because the
program, called Inner Change, receives
state tax dollars, it violates the idea
behind separating church and state as implied by
the First Amendment. This group should be
praised for defending a fundamental right of
American citizens.
The first and most important strike against
Inner Change is that it is simply -
unconstitutional.
The First Amendment clearly out
laws the type of bfehavior in which
Inner Change partakes. The amend
ment reads: “Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment
of religion ...” By providing state
tax dollars to the Christian program,
the state clearly endorses
Christianity over any other religion,
which is unconstitutional.
Americans United also claims
that the prisoners involved in this
program receive special privileges,
such as televisions, keys to their cell
doors, and free phone calls. These
privileges also reward a state-sup-
ported religion because of the benefits inmates
receive while participating in Christian activities.
Not only does this program violate a fundamen
tal right, but other programs have proven more
effective.
Mark Earley, president of the group that funds
Inner Change, told The New York Times that three
other states have adopted the program, including
Texas, and that all of the states excep; Texas pro
vide state funding for the program.
Earley responded to the lawsuit on Feb. 12. In
his group’s defense, he cites a recent Texas
Criminal Justice Policy Council publication
reviewing the effectiveness of inmate rehabilitation
programs. “Of the Inmates who completed the
Texas Inner Change Freedom Initiative program,
only 8 percent returned to prison within two
years,” he said, “compared to a 22 percent return
rate for inmates who were eligible for the program
By providing
state tax dollars to
the Christian
program, the state
clearly endorses
Christianity over
any other religion,
which is
unconstitutional
but did not participate.”
On the surface, this seems like a miracu
lous achievement for the program, but a
closer inspection of the report reveals the
truth. Earley’s claim only takes into consid
eration inmates who completed the pro
gram. All participants in the program suf
fered a 24.3 percent re-incarceration rate,
which is actually 2 percent higher than the
control group that Earley cites. In other
words, the inmates who began but did not
complete the program were actually more
likely to return to jail than inmates who were never
exposed.
According to the Inner Change Web site, the
program “utilizes a transformational model of
change rather than a therapeutic
model.” These models differ in how
they attempt to rehabilitate the
inmate. Inner Change focuses on
rehabilitation through reading,
understanding, and applying the les
sons taught in the Bible; whereas
therapeutic programs focus on inter
action with people. However, in the
Texas report, a therapeutic model
boasts better results.
The In-Prison Therapeutic
Community program shows only 5
percent of inmates who completed
this program returning to jail —
three points better than Inner
Change. This improvement contin-
ues throughout the program.
Overall, all participants only returned to prison
12.1 percent of the time — nearly half that of the
Inner Change program.
IPTC is a program for serious drug abusers and,
for most participants, is a mandatory step in the
parole process. Inner Change is a voluntary pro
gram. If IPTC can achieve better results using
inmates who have more serious problems and are
participating in a program they were forced into,
imagine what a similar program in Iowa could
accomplish with more funding.
Because Inner Change violates the First
Amendment, it should be stopped. The extra state
funding should be spent on other programs that do
not violate the Constitution and are more effective
in rehabilitating inmates.
Matt Rigney is a sophomore
journalism major.