Opinion
The Battalion
Member 19,2!
ice
to then
ill be able to tellys
ts and help you find
ng C. Evans Libran
iirce. Library staff
lents excel in all arei
athways Researd
w.tamug.edu/syinpfr
Research Wed
provide venues fora;
e their efforts,
is the opportunitytoie
ontribute to the bene-
ier it is curing cancel
olicy or discovering
now for all Aggies c
of their education.
il President Josh Pack,
gricultural engntm.
ind the missing tt
ing link because
says there should be
e, but we haven!
i/idence to positively
lustralopithecene ot
me between us and
:he chimp familyand
Billy BrantinghdB
Class of 200!
Page 9 • Friday, September 19, 2003
Pregnancy discrimination
Universities need to ensure policies on pregnant students do not violate Title IX
JENELLE
WILSON
L ast March, lara Brady filed a lawsuit
in federal court against Connecticut’s
Sacred Heart University for violating
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
A decision in Brady s tavor could have impor
tant and far-reaching consequences for a group
of students whose needs are often overlooked
by educational institutes: pregnant women.
Unfortunately, discrimination against preg
nant women still exists in America’s education
system, despite being expressly prohibited by
federal law. Schools, instead of forcing a woman to choose
between carrying a pregnancy to term and her education, should
be doing everything within their power to ensure pregnant
women opportunities to complete school. Universities should
not be in the business of enforcing the "M.R.S. degree” stereo
type that still haunts women seeking an education.
Brady said in the summer of 2001 while working at a sum
mer basketball camp, she revealed her pregnancy to her basket
ball coach. After talking to university officials. Brady’s coach
told her she should leave the school because she would be a
"distraction,” according to Law.com.
Brady asked her coach to register her as a “medical red-
shirt.” which would have given her a chance to makeup the time
spent not playing basketball due to a disability. She claims this
was never done, and her full basketball scholarship, which cov
ered almost all of her expenses, was revoked.
She later learned from a basketball game program that she
was listed under redshirt status, but she was not receiving any
benefit from the classification.
In May 2002, her scholarship was reinstated by Sacred
Heart, as was her status as a member of the school’s basketball
team. However, she alleges that after her reinstatement, her
coach refused to speak with her directly.
She ended up leaving Sacred Heart to enroll at another university.
This case is important because it's one of the first to test a
school’s obligations to pregnant women under Title IX. Most
pregnancy discrimination cases have been decided under Title
VII, which prohibits discrimination in employment, but little
has been done in education.
According to the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of
Education, Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on
sex, requires three things from institutions receiving any
amount of federal money.
First, a school cannot treat a woman worse than normal stu
dents because she is pregnant, meaning a pregnant student
cannot be excluded from any program or activity based on her
condition. The second requirement is that schools must
accommodate pregnancy as though it were a temporary dis
ability, which means that pregnant women are entitled to the
same insurance benefits, leave policies or modified course
requirements that temporarily disabled students are entitled to.
The last requirement — and this is the big one — is that
schools are required to allow a pregnant student to take tem
porary leave, and when she returns, she must be reinstated to
her prior status, regardless of whether the school allows tem
porary leave for other conditions. The length of a pregnant
woman’s leave is to be determined by her doctor.
At Texas A&M, if a student misses an entire spring or fall
semester — for whatever reason other than an officially
sponsored program — they must reapply in order to return.
A student does not have to reapply if they withdraw from the
University after the census day, or day 12 of classes, but the
withdrawal will be on their record.
The University of Texas has a similar policy, according to
its re-admission Web site. UT students must be readmitted
before they can enroll in classes, even if they missed only
one semester and left in good standing.
This is not to say that universities are intentionally discrimi
nating against pregnant women; they simply may not be aware
that they’re violating Title IX. If that’s the case, universities
must reevaluate their policies. State and federal lawmakers
must also ensure that Title IX is being applied correctly.
Universities that do not have specific policies regarding the
leave policies and treatment of pregnant women must correct
this. They must develop uniform policies that apply to pregnant
students; and the policies must meet the Title IX requirements.
Pregnant women need these policies. Pregnancy, especial
ly toward the end of the term, can be difficult to handle, with
doctor appointments, possible complications and the birth
itself. It is not fair to force women immediately back into
classes after giving birth if they want to remain in school.
It is not fair to make a woman choose between family and
educational opportunities.
Jenelle Wilson is a senior
political science major.
Ivan Flores • THE BATTALION
t your
p in the
eland
book?
sse easy steps:
d a contract from
ieland.tamu.edu
ne up in
I McDonald
3ur contract and
vith payment to
i Reed McDonald
•NTRACTS
JE BY 5 P.M.
\Y, SEPT. 30.
Zall 845-2681.
land 2004
KM:
attalioN
as si fie ds
e an ad, phone
5-0569
Protecting Americans Demanding too much
Bush administration policies are
putting homeland security at risk
Salary disputes leading to excessively
high, undeserved paychecks for actors
JONATHAN
STEED
A s if lying to the
American public
about reasons for
going to war with Iraq isn’t
enough, the Bush adminis
tration is now misleading
people over its efforts to
sufficiently protect
Americans at home.
President George W. Bush
has requested $87 billion for
military and nation-building operations in
Iraq. While Congress must now decide
whether to grant this request, many members
have a request of their own: that Bush put the
money where his mouth is and adequately
fund homeland security.
Bush and the Republicans have led the
country to believe they are doing all they can
to protect Americans against future terrorist
attacks. Yet the issue of home
land security, which was once
considered to be Bush’s
strongest re-election issue,
might come back to haunt him
and others in the administration.
Recent intelligence reports
allege that the potential for
rocket-propelled grenade
attacks against U.S. airlines
remains high. In 2002, an
Israeli airliner barely missed
such an attempt by terrorists in
Kenya during a routine takeoff;
Israel, however, has special
radars on many of its airline
planes to detect and repel such
grenade assaults. Airline offi
cials here in the states recommend such tech
nology, but admit the cost would be some
where in the ballpark of $10 billion to install
these radars on the domestic fleet, according
to Aviation International News. The Bush
administration says this cost is too high,
ignoring once again the warning signs posed
by the intelligence community.
This is an outrage.
While Americans help rebuild the Iraqi
infrastructure they destroyed during the war,
domestic infrastructure is being neglected pro-
With most local
governments strapped
for cash, the United
States is seeing fire
house closure, police
department layoffs
and a dramatic short
age of nurses.
fusely. With most local governments strapped
for cash, the United States is seeing firehouse
closures, police department layoffs and a dra
matic shortage of nurses. These first respon
ders, the people who will be needed the most
if another terrorist attack hits American
shores, are being denied necessary funds to be
fully prepared for any tragedy in the future,
according to MSNBC.com.
This neglect toward basic homeland secu
rity needs represents the misplaced financial pri
orities of the president and his administration.
The president has valued tax cuts for his
country club friends over increased airline
security. He has chosen to build new firehous
es in Iraq while allowing firehouse's to be shut
down at home. Bush has diverted America’s
attention toward Saddam Hussein, a man not
responsible for the 9-11 attacks on American
soil, while failing to bring Osama Bin Laden
to justice for his crimes. Now al-Qaida is
regrouping, American soldiers
are open targets in Iraq and the
president still refuses to provide
required resources to help make
the nation safer and more
secure.
Perhaps the American public
will one day wake up and real
ize what is really going on in the
United States. Once the glitzy
photo ops and fresh tax rebates
fade from memory, the harsh
reality of this new era in world
history will set in. Americans
watch on TV almost daily con-
tinued terrorist attacks taking
place around the globe, from the
resorts of Indonesia to the streets of Jerusalem.
Some experts believe similar attacks are being
plotted against the United States. But if Bush
doesn’t provide the necessary funding and
place a new emphasis on homeland security,
Americans may not be prepared to deal with
the disaster that could follow.
Jonathan Steed is a senior
political science major.
n
A ctors are revered
as smart, funny
and, on the whole,
entertaining. They are paid
quite well to take the aver
age person’s mind away
from the stresses of everyday
life for a few hours. How
much stress relief is worth is
starting to come into play
more and more often, with many actors
demanding more money for their humor and
expertise.
While people enjoy watching television and
going to the movies, the amount that actors are
paid is becoming excessive. There is no justifi
cation for being paid $20 million for working
on a film for three months, while, most of the
time, living in an exotic location.
People’s talent is not worth that kind of
money.
There is a huge amount of talent in the arts
business that could complete a film for
$500,000 and perform just as well as the person
making $20 million for the same film.
The U.S. Department of Labor reports that
the average income for an actor in the year
2000 was $25,920, with the highest 10 percent
earning more than $93,000 and the lowest 10
percent earning less than $13,000. There is a
surplus of people to take over positions when
big-name actors demand too much; they just
need the chance to prove themselves.
Actors are demanding more money now
because they can. The consumer is willing to
keep watching them, so the producer is willing
to increase the pay to keep the actor in his pro
duction and maintain network ratings, which, in
turn, earns money.
In the end, the consumer is the one who ulti
mately decides how much each actor is worth.
The consumer watches the shows, purchases
the tapes and sees the movies. The market as a
whole needs to take a step back and put the
actors in their places.
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
the average household income in the United
States in the year 2001 was $42,000 to
$43,000. Now, how much did Jennifer Aniston
make last week filming “Friends?”
For most people, the amount of money a
significantly famous actor makes in one week
of work can greatly outweigh the amount a
middle-class family makes in a year. An actor
can make more in a day than the $12,000 fam
ily of two at the poverty line makes in an
entire year.
The most recent example of an actor’s
“strife” was the squabble between Brad Garrett
and CBS about how much money he was going
to be paid for the upcoming season of
“Everybody Loves Raymond.” To prove a point
and to show the producers that he was serious
about a pay increase, he boycotted the show’s
rehearsals and said he would not return until
his salary was increased.
While the writers did edit his character out
of the first episode, they later presented a new
salary to Garret, which he accepted.
How someone could actually protest his
salary in the manner that Garrett did is incon
ceivable, unless his annual pa^ for a full-time
job is less than the nationally set poverty level.
But Garrett was protesting because of a
$150,000-per-episode salary, an amount he
claimed was too low.
Because of his protesting and the demand
for the show, Garrett ended up with a raise that
almost doubled his paycheck. He now makes
almost $300,000 an episode, which comes out
to about $7.2 million for the year.
When the majority of working-age people
wake up in the morning, they get dressed and
head off to their jobs. The amount that each
makes is different, but each person is always
hoping to make enough to keep his families fed
and housed for a lifetime. For the average per
son to get a raise takes time and effort, not just
a temper tantrum.
Yes, the arts industry is needed, and is much
enjoyed, but the demands of some actors are
getting out of hand. Everyone can be replaced,
no matter how talented they are. This is how
the industry has survived for centuries. Talented
people have come and gone, and most have not
made the kind of money that actors are
demanding today.