Wednesday, June 25,
Opinion
The Battalion
5 • Wednesday, June
)0 or less (price must
fering personal possess*
rge. If item doesn’t sell,
md to qualify for the 5
is cancelled early.
PETS
iale AKC Golden Retreivei(«.
weeks old. $300 O.B.O. SIS
)
a very sweet and playful Se,
>y mix, is available for adopfc
old. The Cat’s Cradle, 97%
REAL ESTATE
drm/2bth home, buy or fe
$900/mo., Bryan. MaikMt
ROOMMATES
;tian roommate needed tori
a. $275/mo +1/3 bills. On
379)680-8797.
nd new 3/3/72 brick Ixts
. S375/deposit. 832-642-OKf
toking female roommateswr:
new 3bdrm/2bth townhoiM,t»
ve-in, year lease, S375tE
minutes from campus. (361)W
ites needed for a 1900®!
Bryan. College studentsprkf
ct Matt 979-257-9985.
ites needed for a 1900®!
Bryan. College studentspralf
room and hot tub. Contadlte
'985.
i 3/2house, large backyards
io smoking/animals $325-Sii
22-3355.
Affirmative
action equals
discrimination
MATTHEW MADDOX
M onday’s Supreme
Court decision
allowing renewed
affirmative action in higher
education has produced
more questions than
answers. What percentage of
one’s heritage must be minority to qualify for racial pref
erences? How will government-sanctioned racial discrimi
nation cure the problem of racial inequality? Can some
one define the term “critical mass” without using circular
reasoning? And will racial preferences ever end?
In two conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court
announced on Monday that it would effectively uphold
the use of racial discrimination in college admissions, so
long as universities weren’t too obvious when doing so.
The court not only made the problem of racial prefer
ences worse, but it rewrote the Constitution in the
process.
The two cases were from the University of Michigan,
one involving undergraduate admissions and the other,
school admissions. On one hand, the court ruled that
the undergraduate system is too much like a racial quota,
was therefore unconstitutional. On the other hand, the
court upheld the law school’s use of race in admissions
because it uses the term “critical mass” instead of a
tales needed for 4bdrm tw
i. On Southgate. $2fflra
832-282-79§]
'©aol.com
h apartment. Furnished, f,
d. 210-326-2420.
8/1 or earlier, non-smota
3 for 4/3 new home, 904 to
w/d, S400/mo. +1/4utilitie$.Cil
2-396-0766.
i/25. Male non-smoking nee*
td Spring, 2bd'/1ba Briar**
s. On bus stop, $295/mo45
avid 694-7171
ie needed 3bd/3ba duplex6?
-03. $380/mo. If interest#
185.
ommate needed. ForAnjS
mobile home. $275lm.M
1 696-2119.
one M/F roommate. Vetyr*
large rooms. SminfromM 11
tOO/mo. Please call Call#
tie for 2bdrm/2bth confc
1/2 bills. Call 2 1 8-5734.
rte, 2/2 house, new, furnislwl
Uilities paid, 979-218-6288.
mate needed ASAP! 1-ttot
JS. Call 979-224-1071 for*
roommate for fall seme#
apartment. Call (713)72k
message. $35(Vmo.
aser in 4bdrm/2bth apartmen
ing, summer. Call 979-23t
needed ASAP. Lartf
house, $350/mo. + 1/4 #
4-2971.
wanted. 4bd/3ba., $400/«
lice house, close to camp#
!0, 979-696-7817.
SERVICES
Defensive Driving. Lots-o 1
i-lotl! Ticket dismissal/in#
unt. M-T(6pm-9pmj, W
), Fri.&Sat.- Fri(6pm-8pf
!:30pm), SatfSam^SOp* 1
ofAmerica. Walk-ins #
ash. Lowest price allowedl!
liv. Dr., Ste.2 1 7. 846-611/
min. early.
TUTORS
- Algebra through Calculus!
ive message.
JATTALION
lassifieds
ce an ad, phone
15-0569
“quota.”
Essentially, administrators chose a target number of
favored minority students, called a “critical mass,” and
admitted minority applicants to achieve a goal. In other
words, the court’s decision means that schools may not
openly use racially discriminatory methods, but they may
use subjective and ambiguous methods to take race into
account. During Supreme Court testimony, representatives .
for the University of Michigan could not even define how
a “critical mass” differed from a quota. And for very good
reason.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opin
ion of the court stating, “In summary, the Equal
Protection Clause (of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution) does not prohibit the (University of
Michigan) Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in
admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in
obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a
diverse student body.”
Up until Monday, affirmative action was only allowed
as a temporary violation of the Constitution to remedy
past racial discrimination. Now that O’Connor has justi
fied the suspension of constitutional rights on the never-
ending cause of creating racial diversity, there will be no
stop to racial discrimination by the government as long as
the ruling stands.
O’Connor, a self-admitted product of affirmative
action, supports racial discrimination on the false assump
tion that by simply being of a minority skin color, a stu
dent contributes something to the educational experience
that other students cannot. Compare that with O’Connor’s
ruling in Metro Broadcasting v. FCC.
“Social scientists may debate how people's thoughts
and behavior reflect their backgrounds, but the
Constitution provides that the government may not allo
cate benefits or burdens among individuals based on the
assumption that race or ethnicity determines how they act
or think,” wrote O'Connor.
Her contradictory statements imply that she believes
the Constitution should change to fit the political ideas of
the day rather than be the unwavering foundation of
America’s laws. O’Connor demonstrated this again at the
end of Monday’s ruling. “We expect that 25 years from
now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be nec
essary to further the interest approved today.”
The 14th Amendment means the same thing today that
it will in 25 years. Either this form of discrimination is
always constitutional or it is not. Taking a lesson from
history, racial preferences will not disappear as long as
the court manufactures a way for their existence.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist was also critical of
O’Connor’s ruling. “The (University of Michigan) Law
School has managed its admissions program, not to
achieve a critical mass, but to extend offers of admission
to members of selected minority groups in proportion to
their statistical representation in the applicant pool. But
this is precisely the type of racial balancing that the Court
itself calls patently unconstitutional ... here the means
actually used are forbidden by the Equal Protection
Clause of the Constitution.” Rehnquist’s assessment is
exactly correct. To reach their decision, the majority of
the justices had to overlook years of precedent as well as
common sense.
By allowing discrimination to take place whenever an
administrator wishes it, the Supreme Court has left the
constitutional rights of individuals unprotected in the
hands of unaccountable officials. This action has undone
years of progress toward the color-blind society pushed
by Martin Luther King Jr. and established by the
Constitution. Because of this, the American people and
government will have to address the issue of race more
now than ever before.
Justice Scalia poignantly summed up the rulings.
“(They are a) split doubleheader (that) seems perversely
designed to prolong the controversy and the litigation.”
All today’s university applicants can pray for is that by
the time their children are of college age, their skin color
will not be held against them. Like King before me, that
is my dream too.
Matthew Maddox is a senior
management major.
No-Call list a fraud
Many residents still receiving unsolicited phone calls
U pon first glance, the Texas No-Call List, a
service provided by the Public Utility
Commission with the intent of removing res
idential phone numbers from telemarketers’ databas
es, appears to be an attractive offer. Residents are no
longer bothered by unwanted phone calls, and tele
marketers save time by removing those from their lists who do
not wish to be contacted.
However, once residents sign up, they may be surprised to dis
cover that despite the fee they paid, the calls will keep on com
ing, thanks to numerous loopholes within the law. Companies
with state licenses, such as insurance or real estate agencies are
exempt from the rule, as well as charitable organizations, political
organizations, or any company that the resi-
. . . dent has bought something from before.
// r I realit y’ ft * s The PUC that comes out of
I J 1 the process on top, collecting millions of dol
lars for a service that is not fully provided.
Even if the company that is soliciting hasn’t
managed to use any of these easy excuses, it is still
unlikely to be prosecuted. Within the first 15 days of
activation of the service, 3,813 complaints were
filed by Texans angered enough by the lack
of change in the frequency of telemarketing
I calls that they contacted the agency,
I ] according to The Houston Chronicle. A
J) No-Call list, to be true to its name,
should result in zero unwanted calls:
there have been 3,813 too many complaints.
However, since the first two weeks of service, only 11
investigations of violating companies are pending, with
only four staff members on the enforcement team.
Without an effective monitoring system on this law,
telemarketers can easily toss the list aside and con
tinue to aggravate residents who do not wish to be
bothered at home.
According to subscribers to the service such as
Tracy Jackson and Wendy Tiderman, who were
interviewed in a Chronicle article, this indiffer
ence is what appears to be happening. Both of
them, along with many other frustrated cus
tomers, still receive a significant number of
unwelcome calls despite the addition of their
names to the list. Imagine how many cus
tomers didn’t even bother to complain. The
PUC promised users that calls would be more
or less eliminated, when evidently, the fre
quency of them has not decreased.
Still, the PUC continues to collect money,
with more than 920,000 subscribers paying a
SARA FOLEY
fee that varies depending on the term length of the
service, according to the Chronicle. As money rolls
in to the PUC, telemarketers keep calling, leaving
almost a million Texans out of a few dollars and still
being inconvenienced by plenty of sales calls, inter
ruptions and growing anger.
The mere necessity of this service, despite its uselessness, is
enough evidence that companies have far too much access to pri
vate life. Paying to remove unwelcome calls on a private line
that the resident pays for is a contradiction within itself, but even
more so when the payment doesn’t eliminate the calls. The num
ber of complaints itself speaks for the futility of the service.
Residents are left with few options to ensure that their privacy
and time are protected. Choosing to pay additional fees to have
their number unlisted, using only wireless phones or simply
screening calls are all methods of avoiding the problem that the
PUC was supposed to solve. House Bill 472, the Texas
Telemarketing Disclosure and Privacy Act, which established the
No-Call List, was signed in 2001 but has been overlooked for
long enough. The PUC must find a way to effectively prosecute
and charge companies violating the law and give customers the
benefits they paid for.
Sara Foley is a junior
journalism major.
Graphic by Gracie Arenas.
Deregulation decision valid
T uition deregulation, which Gov. Rick Perry
rightly signed into law last week, has become
a controversial topic in recent months. The
arguments against deregulation, more often then not,
exude a chicken-little philosophy. Those who have
fought deregulation have done so by claiming that
tuition left in the hands of the Board of Regents
would skyrocket and force Texas' middle class into an
inescapable squeeze play. This argument, along with its subse
quent corollaries, is fraught with hysteria rather than logic.
Texas A&M needs money. After years of what The Houston
Chronicle has called “artificially low tuition” at public universi
ties in Texas, it is time that the students of A&M start paying
more for their education. Tuition deregulation presents itself as
an imperfect but equitable solution to these challenges. No one
will be paying inordinate tuition prices, and those who use the
University's resources will be those who pay the most for them.
The major myth surrounding deregulation is that it will lead to
unlimited tuition expenses — an unfounded proposition. In a free
market, which is a consequence of deregulation, there would be a
ceiling on tuition and a low one at that. “They are not going to
price themselves out of business,” Perry said of state universities,
according to The Associated Press. “The market will work.”
If the current tuition cap is removed under deregulation,
A&M students will set a new cap. Capitalism will drive stu
dents' decisions. If the regents of A&M want to raise tuition,
they will have to ensure a proportional increase in the quality of
education. Much to the dismay of those opposed to deregula
tion, other schools whose academic prowess is unquestioned
have kept their tuition low. And while this new “natural” tuition
cap will be a bit higher than it is currently, a breakdown of sim
ilar state institutions around the country would suggest that the
increase will be small.
Currently, A&M charges students about $2,000 per academic
year in tuition. This stands in stark contrast to the Universities of
Virginia, California and Michigan which respectively charge stu
dents about $6,000 and $4,000 each. Incidentally, tuition deregu
lation has taken hold in the latter two schools. By what logical
method does one conclude that, given the power, the A&M
regents would exceed these figures? Academically, the breadth
and depth of these schools’ programs are far richer than what
A&M currently has to offer. If the regents charge more than what
A&M is worth, students will necessarily look to other academic
institutions for an education.
“But only rich kids (per their parents) and poor
kids (per scholarships) will be able to afford to
attend Texas A&M,” shout the critics of tuition
deregulation. Really? Then one supposes that only
the rich kids and poor kids go to UCLA or
Michigan. That is hardly the case. Even in
California, where the cost of living is twice that of Texas, middle
class students can still afford to attend UCLA. UCLA’s campus is
almost 80 percent white and Asian — which is primarily
California’s middle class — and two thirds receive financial aid,
according to www.ucla.edu. Clearly, the middle class can still
afford college.
What about the struggling student of today whose parents are
unable to offer any financial assistance and must forge ahead,
alone, with grants, loans and a job? Deregulation will surely
affect this student. But the ignorance espoused within these ideas
is most troubling.
Do Aggies fail to realize how economical their tuition is
already? Even if tuition went up $1,000 tomorrow, every student
here would be paying at least $1,000 less than other students at
state schools around the country. An Aggie who works 40 hours a
week and has $10,000 in loans is not going to find much sympa
thy from a Cavalier in Virginia who works the same hours, with
the same debt but pays twice as much in tuition.
A college education is neither a right nor an entitlement. One
must pay for the services rendered based on the quality of the
services. As such, most would agree that Joe Taxpayer would
rather Bob Aggie pay for Bob Aggie’s education. If an A&M edu
cation costs a little more then one can be sure that, under the
leadership of President Robert M. Gates, the money will be put to
good use. Whether the result is more professors being hired, a
decrease in the student-to-teacher ratio, or any of the vast arrays
of opportunities that an influx of money would provide, the extra
cost will be reflected in the quality of the education that was pur
chased.
There is no perfect solution to the budgetary crisis; however,
tuition deregulation and the subsequent tuition increase reflects
the best attempt at harmonizing the many facets of higher educa
tion in the public sector.
Michael Ward is a senior
history major.
MICHAEL WARD
Juneteenth should be an
official A&M holiday
The fact that Texas A&M doesn't observe
many holidays - including federal and
state holidays - is a known fact.
But in Dr. Gates' great push of diversity
through the system in every way possible,
why was the Texas state holiday of
MAIL CALL
Juneteenth left out?
Juneteenth has been observed all over
the world since the Emancipation
Proclamation was read in Galveston on
June 19, 1865. It is the celebration of the
end of slavery that once gripped this
nation.
Now it is easy to understand and rea
sonable for the University to have to
choose very carefully which holidays to
observe, but there should have at least
been recognition of the importance of this
day somewhere in The Battalion. This is
only an observation of how one wish -
diversity — could be expressed by the
leaders at A&M, yet it is a key component
greatly overlooked.
Daniel Kapavik
Class of 2006