SPORI
FHE BATTALM
beaten
Opinion
sled to center
n Bobby Kieltyhj
•p grounder to
:ouldn’t scoop
;ore.
'•un homer to
career-high
inings.
The Battalion
TS IN BRIEF
un control laws
oposed bills infringe on Second Amendment rights
on Bowl to
d Dec. 30
“he Houston Bowl
ristmas time off.
le, which for its fit
|he American political landscape is full of
wacky groups, perhaps none more so
than the gun control crowd. But what this
pecious contingent lacks in reason is more
tian made up for in resilience and creativity.
Seeking to capitalize on President George W.
ush’s war on terror, a bill recently proposed in
s has fallen on ft lie Washington State Legislature sought to
ter Christmas,
th ESPN to play ti:
of Dec. 30 this yet
on December!;
tly enhance title
>wl president Jen
together and
ouston."
own, director of pe
and acquisitionsfn
i the network
I doubleheader fee
Houston Bowftti?
ay Bowl. Both %
l 12 teams.
d from page 7
the weekend,
ore second bases;
egory, senior sk
d Martin and ses
ids at the plate
, and they h
oonsistency ii
ist Texas,
llins, getting
llassify guns as weapons of mass destruction,
iccording to Foxnews.com. This argument is
|idiculous to the point of being shameful.
The bill sought to define a weapon of mass
lestruction as a “device, object, or substance
hat a person intends to use to cause
id. "And now k ptiple human deaths,” according to
ill be able to sper; he Seattle Times. A group of
)emocrats has also proposed an
imendment that would have included
hrase “including, but not limited
d, a firearm.”
While the bill likely had
roblems to begin with, seeking
o classify firearms as weapons
if mass destruction, possession
If which would become a class
i felony, is a pitiful attempt to
neak unpopular gun-control
objectives into a bill intended to
btect citizens from terrorism.
Jun-haters cannot sidestep the
Constitution with their state laws,
nd these Washington Democrats
hould be ashamed.
Other gun-control advocates have
rought lawsuits in many cities
JERAD
NAJVAR
A recent decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, United
States v. Emerson, confirmed what most honest legal scholars
and regular citizens have understood for centuries: the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, not a
militia’s. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Justice Department
has supported this view, as have the respected legal scholars
Laurence Tribe of Harvard, a liberal, and Akhil Amar of Yale,
according to Robert Levy of the Cato Institute.
Besides being a long-standing and essential right protected
explicitly by the Constitution, the freedom to keep and use a
firearm has proven invaluable in self-defense. According to crim
inologist Gary Kleck, firearms
ena Collins all b [gainst firearms manufacturers,
eeking damages for the crimes
ommitted with their products.
These cases have been promptly
brownout, and the U.S. House of
Representatives just passed a bill
le game against» hat would ban any such future law
should not be suits, according to Foxnews.com. It’s sad that Congress has been
specially since :w orce (i to stop people from suing the makers of a product that is not
will be facing artBjnlylegal and well regulated, but essential for the exercise of a con-
crowd. , ■stitutional right.
excited to ge/«# What these implausible and desperate attempts reveal is that
lity to playltau more gun control does not resonate with the public. The fact is
our crowd and oi hat Americans support the Second Amendment as it is written
llins said. n the Constitution, not as the gun control lobby would have it.
e split the sen n a Gallup poll in December 2002, 65 percent of Americans
wa State, we si ipposed a law banning the possession of handguns except by
led some lolice and other authorized personnel, according to Canada’s
did a great jobli r he Gazette. And when one looks at the evidence, it’s not hard
II, and even tho«; to see why.
;arly and kindol
: second game,
he end and
ile, Longhorn Hit
inie Clark
are used defensively 2.5 mil
lion times every year, almost half of the time
by women and usually without a shot being fired.
Another study by John Lott of the University of Chicago
found that, among other things, 1,600 murders and 4,800
rapes would have been prevented if all states not already
doing so would have instituted concealed carry laws,
similar to those in Texas.
These studies should open the eyes of gun-control advocates
everywhere, because their efforts to control are dangerous. They
are seeking to make it difficult or impossible for average, decent
people to defend themselves against attackers, and they are pur
suing goals that directly conflict with an explicit constitutional
right. Americans should let these people know that their selfish
and unfounded policy aims will not be tolerated.
Jerad Najvar is a senior
political science major.
Graphic by Ivan Flores.
hard fought
;gies.
s a quality c
“It’s always a
:hup when we|
I expect a j>
e had the first lit#
wans will have I#
ed, and we hope
face the challeif
:king up with
the Aggies «i
: turnaround
ay lor on Thursd?
m. at the Agp
nplex.
from page 7
tie
a Louisiana
Hammond, La.
cats lost games l»‘
T the series ' !
and slams by
ly, Sam Houston!'
>r catcher Andre }
ho leads the
le runs and a .1
ge.
kats are hoping
the winning tra
eing swept by t
ie second censed'
>aid A&M
i can play well.b 1
be ready.
'W they are inf
ir conference ai#
their conferee
Johnson sail
>dy shoots forll ,!
. I saw where tltf! Jos,
kice last week an* of
' got our attentio 11
ig to have to ^
nd play well.” pnt.’
ivil liberties are in danger
(U-WIRE) CAMBRIDGE, Mass. —
Ithough the war to topple Saddam
ilHussein is winding down, the war on terror
rumbles on. And while American forces
m a rapid victory in Iraq, signs from the
ome front have been distinctly worrying.
flnSept. 12, 2001, the United States began
i war to safeguard the American way of
fe. Yet in spite of the military successes of
epast year and a half, American values
'emain under attack-not only by al-Qaeda,
iut also by our own government.
Civil liberties are the bedrock on which
\merica was born, as the Founding Fathers
ealized in 1789 when they enshrined those
fundamental protections in the Bill of
Rights.
But today, U.S. citizens can be jailed
ndefinitely, without charge, if they are sus-
)ected of terrorism. The FBI can now
nvestigate American citizens without prob-
ible cause of their involvement with a
rime. And the mere accusation of being an
enemy combatant” is enough to land you
n a Navy brig without access to a lawyer.
The Bill of Rights is unequivocal. “The
ight of the people to be secure in their per-
ions, houses, papers, and effects, against
inreasonable searches and seizures, shall
lot be violated.” Yet the FBI now enjoys
xpanded power to search private homes
Jl and download information from a computer
without notifying the occupant. The FBI
an also demand access to personal records
held by a third party, such as a University,
Without showing reasonable suspicion that
he target individual was involved with a
rime. These changes apply to all criminal
nvestigations.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the
tccused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
tnd public trial ... and to be informed of the
lature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him;
lohave compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the
issistance of counsel for his defense.” Yet
ie Padilla, an American citizen suspected
trying make a “dirty bomb,” was arrest-
id in Chicago almost a year ago on secret
vidence and declared an “enemy combat-
” He has yet to see an attorney or
ippear in court; no formal charges have
been brought against him.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle
have eagerly passed legislation that abro
gates civil liberties with only a cursory
glance at the consequences. One of the first
sweeping assaults on freedom was the USA
PATRIOT Act, which passed the Senate by
a 98-1 vote on Oct. 26, 2001. Republicans
and Democrats were complicit in support
ing the bill as neither side was willing to
appear soft on terrorism so soon after Sept.
11, 2001; little seems to have changed
since then.
It is reasonable to expect some restric
tions of civil liberties during a time of war,
and some of the PATRIOT Act’s provisions
are necessary to help law enforcement offi
cials deal with changing technology. But
America will never be able to declare vic
tory in the war on terror; this conflict,
unlike a conventional war, will never end in
unconditional surrender. Any sacrifices we
make will be permanent.
The government has argued that these
infringements on civil liberties are narrow
measures needed to combat terrorism and
has assured the public that people will only
be declared “enemy combatants” in legiti
mate cases of national security. But even if
the government honors its pledge, it has
exceeded its constitutional authority-all
Americans deserve the liberties afforded to
them by the Bill of Rights, whether they
are accused of terrorism or tax evasion.
Yet there is ample historical precedent
to doubt that the government is willing or
able to restrain itself from harassing its
opponents. It was not so long ago that the
FBI was spying on “suspicious” individuals
like Martin Luther King Jr. and “commu
nist-infiltrated” organizations like the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
The FBI is currently combing the tran
scripts of foreign college students for sus
picious courses (as if biology classes were
a short step from bioterrorism). Police
departments in New York and Colorado
have been monitoring the activities of
peacenik demonstrators, and only recently
ended those programs under outside legal
pressure. How long will it be before the
FBI turns its eyes towards other groups
unpopular with the incumbent administra
tion? Under a future liberal president, could
mainstream anti-abortion organizations find
themselves investigated for ties to abortion
clinic bombers?
But few people seem to have noticed the
government’s power grab; the international
aspects of the war on terror and the inva
sion of Iraq have monopolized America’s
attention.
The media has been filled with pictures
of American soldiers, not with detailed dis
cussions about the ramifications of the
PATRIOT Act. Very few commentators
have felt the need to speak out about the
theft of civil liberties. One of the excep
tions is former New York Times columnist
and Crimson executive Anthony Lewis ‘48,
who said at a recent Lowell House dinner,
“If I were editing the editorial page of a
newspaper, I’d write an editorial about it
every single day.”
The curbing of civil liberties is not a
new phenomenon. “Unpatriotic activities”
— broadly construed and ill-defined —
were outlawed during the Civil War and
World War I. Even World War II saw the
internment of over 100,000 Japanese
Americans. But all of those pieces of legis
lation died with the end of the conflict in
question, and none lasted for longer than
five years.
The war against terror is different. It is a
war that will be impossible to conclusively
win. But it is a war that it will be eminently
possible to lose. And if America perma
nently forfeits its commitment to civil lib
erties, it will have lost, regardless of the
fate of Osama bin Laden.
Responsibility for that defeat will not lie
with al-Qaeda and its terrorist brethren. It
will not lie with the Bush Administration
for its overzealous interpretation of execu
tive power. It will not lie with the members
of Congress who passed legislation to
restrict civil liberties. It will lie squarely on
the shoulders of America’s citizens who
witnessed the erosion of the liberties on
which their country was founded — and
did nothing.
David M. Debartolo and
Anthony S.A. Freinberg are columnists
at Harvard University.
Page 11 • Tuesday, April 22, 2003
What Texas
bosses want
Diversity makes students
attractive to employers
M any Aggies laud “The Other Education” that
occurs outside of Texas A&M’s classrooms. But a
major component of this experience is missing:
living and learning in a racially diverse environment. A&M
President Robert M. Gates has made it his mission to bring
more minorities to A&M. However, many Aggies have crit
icized Gates and don’t see the need for a memorial to
Matthew Gaines or events such as UniDiversity Day.
What they don’t realize is that A&M’s lack of racial
diversity has negatively impacted many employers’ impres
sion of Aggie graduates. In a report titled
“Changing Employment Demands and
Requirements for College Graduates:
Focus Group Interviews with Industry,
Agency, and School District
Representatives in Texas,” Mary Zey,
Alvin Luedke and Steve Murdock of the
Strategic Policies Research Group per
formed focus group research with repre
sentatives from many prominent employ
ers in Texas.
They found that “without exception the
groups discussed diversity as a needed characteristic in their
work forces and the ability to work in diverse groups as an
ability to which all of their employers must have.”
Apparently, many Aggies did not have this ability, with the
authors concluding, “The lack of diversity among the stu
dents at Texas A&M University . . . was deemed by some
representatives as translating into a lack of ability to deal
with diversity in the work place.” The entire report may be
downloaded at http://sprg.tamu.edu/reports.html.
Any Aggie who still needs convincing that diversity is
important to today’s employer only needs to look at the
action of dozens of important companies that have filed a
friend of the court brief supporting the University of
Michigan in its Supreme Court battle to preserve its affir
mative action policies, according to The New York Times.
These companies include those that recruit heavily at
A&M, such as Microsoft, Ernst & Young, KPMG
International and PepsiCo.
A. Dwain Mayfield, vice president of marketing initia
tives for the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, tells
Texas A&M Engineering News that Lockheed “. . . hires
more students from Texas A&M than from any other col
lege or university in the nation.” Yet Lockheed requires that
its employees be able to work in a diverse environment,
they are highly dedicated to ensuring their employees’ abil
ity to do so. Lockheed serves as a board company for the
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering and
has received numerous awards praising its diversity efforts.
Any Aggies hired by Lockheed must be able to adjust to
this diverse workplace.
Aside from the disadvantage of being less attractive in
the eyes of employers, the lack of diversity at A&M allows
the ignorance of Aggies who harbor false stereotypes to
flourish.
This writer was once prevented from entering his fresh
man dorm, Lechner Hall, by a resident who didn’t believe
he lived there. Lechner is an all-honors dorm for freshman
scholarship recipients. It never occurred to the resident that
a black could be an honor student at A&M.
Another example concerns the “ghetto” party planned
by some Walton Hall residents earlier this year. It’s obvious
the Walton residents had so little contact with blacks that
they thought such an offensive event would be okay.
While at A&M, the perpetrators of these examples are
to be forgiven and, more importantly, educated and led
away from their ignorant ways. But it must be emphasized
that this leniency does not exist in the real world. If these
Aggies were to prevent a minority co-worker from entering
the workplace or planned a “ghetto” party while on the job,
many employers, ever anxious about their public image,
would suspend or fire them without a second thought.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule that affirmative
action programs are constitutional so that institutions such
as A&M will have the green light to implement even
stronger minority recruitment efforts.
Those who criticize Gates and his diversity plans should
be thanking him instead for making their degrees more
valuable and making them better Aggies.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.
COLLINS
EZEANYIM
MAIL CALL
Proposed bills could hurt graduate students
On April 16, The Daily Texan
talked about the pending bills
that are on our Legislature's
plate. Senate bill 1866 and
House bill 3441 "targets gradu
ate students specifically; the
state will 'reduce expenditures
by ... eliminating state contri
butions for graduate teaching
assistants at institutions of
higher education.'" This bill will
affect graduate students at all
state universities, which is why
students, faculty and adminis
trators at Texas A&M should be
concerned.
There are few incentives to go
to grad school, considering the
fact that graduate students are
not paid enough to cover tuition,
rent and groceries. Health insur
ance is not something graduate
students can afford, which is why
the state offers this benefit to
them. This is why these pending
bills are detrimental to graduate
students, and thus a detriment to
A&M. All graduate students, fac
ulty, and everyone else who may
be concerned about these issues
need to react to this by contacting
their representatives or contact
ing the group mentioned in The
Daily Texan that is speaking out
against these bills: GrEAT@topi-
ca.com.
Mandi l/esf
Graduate Student