Thursday, October 9,!
its toda]
allenges
AIDS
jnt for half
:he United
>tate of the
I million
worldwide,
th HIV/AIDS
Idwide
million
] Male
3 Female
strialized
tries
100
1.1 million
to,000
it Asia
Pacific
8.6 millioi
South
Asia
Sub-
Saharan
Africa
E: Bars not to scale with pie chart
enage mothers are twice as
to die in childbirth as
:n in their 20s, girls
; five times more lilt
an women in their 20s, and
11ion young mothers
give birth each
5 million girls between
j 19 undergo unsafe ate
/ery year, the report says,
tudies show that money
to delay births to
md prevent HIV ii
id many times overindireci
s and indirect economic
' the report says,
aabling young people to
or avoid pregnancy, con-
vith education and jot)
unities and respect for
ights, can have enormous
nic benefits for families,
mi ties and nations and
leviate poverty at all let-
says.
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B
Thursday, October 9, 2003
Dates that live in infamy
Student-faculty relationships should not be strictly prohibited by universities
E
arlier this summer, the
University of
California system
adopted a new policy that
prevents faculty members
from having a “romantic or
sexual" relationship with stu
dents, according to The New
York Times. This policy is
one in a growing trend of
universities' attempts to curb
Ihe liability such relationships encourage.
Policies like this inhibit the freedom of
students and faculty of universities and
should be repealed so as to leave only a
skeleton of rules that regulate student-fac
ulty relationships, instead of the corpulent
mass of rules that now exist.This type of leg
islation attempts to legislate personal lives,
instead of professional.
The UC system policy bans faculty having
relationships with students whom they have
direct authority over. This rule, if by itself,
is perfectly acceptable for a university to
adopt. Many workplace policies inside
and out of academia enforce similar
rules. This ensures that there is no spe
cial treatment for a student who is
engaging in a relationship with a pro
fessor, protecting the other students in
the class. This type of rule also protects
against any backlash from the faculty
member or student if the relationship
was to turn sour.
The UC system rule does not stop at simply
prohibiting authoritative relationships, accord
ing to The Times. Faculty members cannot
engage in a relationship with any student who
they “reasonably expect” to have authority over.
This means that no student with a history
major could engage in a relationship with any
history professor. What’s uncertain is how the
policy will extrapolate to relationships outside a
single department.
One example is how an
English graduate student of
British literature may not be
allowed to date an assistant
professor of history, accord
ing to The Times.
This broad wording
could cause confusion for
those attempting to interpret
the rules. Students are able to
take many types of classes
because many majors
allow for free elective
hours. An engineering
major might take an
, English class as an
elective, so by
these broad stan
dards, he may not
date any professor
or assistant profes
sor of English.
According to the
Daily Californian,
Tony Piedra • THE BATTALION
the student newspaper of UC- Berkeley, the
rules do not include prohibiting graduate stu
dents from having relationships with undergrad
uate students. In many under
graduate classes — especially
at large universities such as
the University of California
or Texas A&M — teaching
assistants or graduate stu
dents are responsible for grad
ing quizzes, assignments and
even tests. If professors are sub
ject to such stringent policy,
graduate students should be sub
ject as well.
Other universities have
much more practical poli
cies for governing profes
sor-student relationships.
Duke University, for
example, requires that if a fac
ulty member and a student
become involved in a relationship,
the faculty member must report it to a dean,
who will remove the professor from all con
trol over the student. The university only
“strongly discourages” relationships between
faculty and students, according to The Times.
This type of policy achieves exactly what it
was meant to: Keeping a level playing field
between students and faculty. It does not
intrude needlessly into the personal lives of
faculty or students, but keeps the policy on a
professional level.
Strictly prohibiting relationships may not be
the most effective way to guard against a rela
tionship of this nature. If a university wanted to
discourage them, it could release a statement of
discouragement such as Duke.
These types of solutions are some
times more effective than black-and
white-banning. For example, there
is no A&M regulation that states
students must take their hats off
inside the Memorial Student
Center, but everyone complies
with this tradition, if not out of
respect for what the gesture
supposedly means, out
of fear of being
scourged by
other students.
This type of
social unaccept
ability might have a
greater effect on the behavior of pro
fessors than an outright ban.
The type of far-reaching policy that the UC
system has adopted steps too much on the person
al liberties of the faculty and students. A modem
university should realize that the students who
attend are adults capable of making their own
decisions, and it should stick to making policy
that only affects the students’ education.
Matt Rigney is a junior
journalism major.
Commentary made by Limbaugh is offsides
ool Day
ofEdu.
W hat would be the reaction of the
Aggie faithful if Texas A&M started
Reggie McNeal not because he is the
tet played suited for the job, but if his skin
; color was the determining factor? This,
.according to rhe flawed logic of Rush
limbaugh, is exactly the case in Philadelphia.
Limbaugh had been hired by a foolish
ESPN to give football commentary from a
fan’s perspective on the network's “Sunday
NFL Countdown” pregame show. During last
week’s program, Limbaugh uttered the now infamous racist com
ments that ended his blessedly short sports commentator career.
Limbaugh called Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan
McNabb, who happens to be black, overrated. He said, “1 think
what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The
media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks
doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb, and
he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he
really didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”
Limbaugh’s racist comments were defended by ESPN. ESPN
executive vice president Mark Shapiro told USA Today TV
Sports columnist Rudy Martzke, “Rush was arguing McNabb is
essentially overrated and that his success is more in part (due) to
the team assembled around him.”
But by last Wednesday, Limbaugh had resigned and ESPN
seemed to have changed its position, “Although Mr. Limbaugh
(now has) stated that his comments had ‘no racist intent whatso
ever,’ we have communicated to Mr. Limbaugh that his com
ments were insensitive and inappropriate.”
ESPN shouldn’t have given time for Limbaugh to resign.
Upon hearing his blatantly insensitive remarks,
they should have fired him immediately. Even
three Democratic presidential candidates —
Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and A1 Sharpton
— called on ESPN to fire Limbaugh.
Limbaugh’s comments were startlingly stupid
on a number of levels. For one, it was simply an
inept football opinion. Anyone who listens to
Limbaugh’s radio show regularly knows
Limbaugh erroneously claims to be a football
expert. But by calling McNabb — who has led
his team to two NFC championship games and
was runner-up for the Most Valuable Player
award in 2000 — overrated, Limbaugh shows he
knows embarrassingly little about the game he claims to love. But
claiming McNabb was overhyped by the media is not the problem.
The problem is that Limbaugh had to inject race into his opinion.
This is especially troubling considering Limbaugh’s past neg
ative remarks about blacks. This is well-documented by the
national media watchdog group Fair and Accuracy in Reporting.
According to FAIR, Rush once told a black caller to his radio
show, “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”
Limbaugh’s defenders claim the firestorm of criticism fol
lowing his comments is further proof that “political correctness”
is robbing freedom of speech from conservative white males.
This is nonsense. Limbaugh has the right to say anything he
4^
ESPN shouldn’t have
given time for Limbaugh
to resign. Upon hearing
his blatantly insensitive
remarks, they should have
fired him immediately.
wants. Members of the media in turn have the right to call his
comments wrong and bigoted. This is the same argument
defenders of the president used against the Dixie Chicks earlier
this year.
In an ideal world, Limbaugh would apolo
gize to McNabb for his mistake. He would
also apologize to all black athletes for suggest
ing their accomplishments are made, not
through hard work and talent, but through
complicity by the media.
Ideally, Limbaugh would also apologize to
conservatives for dealing such a serious blow
to their movement. Some conservatives and
Republicans are trying to show blacks and
other minorities that their movement is not
hostile to minorities. But it’s difficult when
conservatives such as Trent Lott and
Limbaugh poison the conservative movement with their ven
omous racial rhetoric. It is not difficult to imagine why, despite
their agreement on many issues, so many blacks have such a
difficult time trusting conservatives.
But it’s not an ideal world and McNabb and others will never
hear the arrogant and overrated Limbaugh utter an apology. Most
likely, he’ll find a way to blame his idiotic remarks on the Clintons.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.
nedical Sci.
Antonio
airs
m
-San Antonio
San Antonio
health Sci.
sfSoc. Work
£ Biomedical Sci.
MAIL CALL
YCT demonstration
! doesn't belong at A&M
I While walking on campus
I Wednesday, I saw a number of pick
\ up trucks displaying paper signs
I emblazoned with the Texas A&M
j Young Conservatives name. One of
: these signs featured the slogan
: "Texas A&M: Where girls like guys,
; and guys like girls.”
; Not only is this statement disre-
; spectful, but it also demonstrates bla-
; tant ignorance of homosexual popula-
; tion. It is foolish to think that, although
; the majority of Texas A&M students
; consider themselves to be straight, it
; is acceptable to ignore or ostracize
; the significant percentage of students
; who are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Our
; University promotes diversity, which
means tolerance and recognition of
every lifestyle, culture, and ethnicity.
Are the Young Conservatives exempt
; from this tolerance?
I
Jennifer Dulin
Class of 2005
Parade portrays
immature image
] I am not a homosexual student, but
I was taken aback by the crass dis
play put on by the Young
Conservatives on Wednesday. For
those who missed it, members of the
organization rode around campus
with large banners on their trucks
with slogans such as “Student Fees
should not be for STD’s!” and “Adam
and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
Everyone at this University and
around the world is entitled to their
opinion, and also has the right to
lobby for that view, but that is not the
way to go about it. Their method of
getting the point across was just
rude and intrusive. If they want to
rally support for a cause, they should
hold an interest meeting for their
organization. Those that want to
hear you will come. But the appear
ance of members riding around in a
caravan with people standing in the
truck-bed invokes thoughts of young
and immature high school students
looking for a good rout. Is that the
image the Young Conservatives want
to portray?
Trey Davis
Class of 2005
Hatred and bigotry
shame A&M students
I was shocked and outraged at one
of our campus organizations, the
Texas A&M Young Conservatives,
riding around our campus in trucks
marked with slogans of hatred and
bigotry. The trucks were clearly
marked with their group name and
messages like “One Man, One
Woman, Satan is a Flamer.” It seems
obvious to me that this behavior is a
reaction to Coming Out Week. While
I respect the right of this group to
have their own opinions regarding
the morality of homosexuality, it is
unconscionable for them to parade
around proclaiming their absolute
intolerance and hatred for the way
other students on this campus live
their lives. I have friends at other uni
versities who flatly refuse to even
visit College Station because they
consider this community openly prej
udiced and discriminatory. For the
first time in four years here, I really
understand why. There are a lot of
great things about being an Aggie,
but days like today make me more
than a little ashamed to be a part of
this University.
Adam Rowland
Class of 2004
Sweatshops represent
capitalism at its best
In response to Jonathan Steed’s
Oct. 3 column:
Sweatshops are a great example
of the virtues of free trade and
freemarkets. Consider what condi
tions the citizens of third world coun
tries live in before the multinationals
arrival. Healthcare is non-existent,
and everyone works through subsi
dence farming almost from the time
they can walk.
The multinationals that build facto
ries in poor nations face many chal
lenges: oppressive and unpre
dictable governments, long dis
tances, language barriers, primitive
roads and labor activists back at
home. They choose to do so
because the lower marginal produc
tivity of the workers in poor countries
allows them to save on labor costs.
The workers of the sweatshops
choose to work there because they
consider it better than the alterna
tives: the endless toil of subsistence
farming, prostitution or crime. They
are free to quit or look for another job
anytime, but they remain at the fac
tories because they consider it their
best alternative.
All the efforts to ban, boycott or
otherwise shut down third world fac
tories will do nothing but lead to the
starvation and death of the people
activists claim to protect. The best
thing we can do to help citizens of
third world countries is to support
free markets that bring the wonderful
benefits of capitalism to every pover
ty-ridden country in the world.
David Veksler
Graduate Student
A&M athletics keep
secrets from students
Being on a limited budget, I con
sidered not getting a sports pass this
year. After the hiring of Coach Fran
and not wanting to be heckled about
being a “2 percenter,” I caved. And
here we are, with midseason bring
ing serious whispers about potential
ly losing to Baylor at home. As we all
stand in the sun and bake Saturday,
remind yourself that each of us is
paying nearly $10 an hour for the
privilege. Sorry, too, if you have a
visitor, because they’ll be paying $20
per hour. If that isn’t salt in the
wound of anyone without daddy’s
credit card, consider that you could
be standing in Norman watching an
annually consistent national champi
onship contender for almost half the
price: $107 per season.
Either the Sooner athletic depart
ment has a money tree or someone’s
not telling us the full story. I’ll bet on
the latter. Begin the hissing, and con
tinue to do whatever this University
says without thinking, because that’s
exactly what they want you to do. Oh,
and sports passes have already gone
on sale for 2004. It’s the dawn of a
new era, and you can get them for
only one arm and one leg. Two legs for
all sports.
Kevin Walter
Graduate Student