NEl
THE BATTali
Dennis Wall • KRT CAk ,:
ndia in Longwood, Flo '
she said.
Wolfram, an avid si
e intense yoga ‘‘reaU)l
sonality as far as nei
, hard physically to geii
effect. I really enjoyed!
at it made me feel i
uently, the subsequa
vas that 1 felt more mem
k peace or whatever)!
37-year-old was i
i that he spent nine weet
\ngeles, training forata
ours with Choudb
opening his Longwod
idio in 2001.
nctors recommend tairi
;ses three to four times
\t the Longwood studii
s pay $ 12 a session, wi
its available for multipi
A year’s worth of ctai
\15.
ntilatd
motion in theiuratsaw
improved response I)
:s from the family ml
am. They are in critici
condition in the pedi
sive care unit,
leurosurgical and mei-
are very pleased wil
progress so far
id.
; said Ahmed has i»
peat of a seizure he sii
ry night. A lumbardras
ved Sunday after 0
zed no accumulation)
d. Mohamed’s lumfc 1
ins in place,
ns, joined at the top^
» when they were bfi \
)n June 2, 2001, «
Oct. 12 during a 3 1
tion.
pital said the boysccI
i a low-grade fever,! I
:tr to have an infect#
October 2i
Moon-Time Concen
Mariachi Ban)
@ Langford AtriuJ
Opinion
The Battalion
Monday, October 20, 2003
Preferential treatment
Legacy admissions are just as biased and unfair as affirmative action
MIDHAT
FAROOQI
A n article in the Oct. 7 issue of the Fort
Worth Star-Telegram told the story of
two applicants to Wesleyan University,
a prestigious liberal arts school in
Connecticut. Student One had straight ‘B’s
with the exception of a single ‘C’ during his
high school career and an SAT score in the
high 1300s (Wesleyan’s average is 1410).
Student Two had decidedly better grades:
straight ‘A’s and ‘B’s and an SAT score only
20 points lower than that of her classmate.
Both students were from the same public high school and had
participated in extracurricular activities. In the end. Student
One received an acceptance letter, while Student Two was
turned away.
The deciding factor between the two applicants was not race.
Student One was not a minority applicant who “stole” the posi
tion from a white Student Two. Rather, the only difference
between the two candidates was that Student One was a child of a
Wesleyan graduate, while Student Two had no family connection
with the university. This admissions policy, known as “legacy
preference,” is just as unfair and biased as affirmative action.
Almost all major schools, from Harvard to Texas A&M,
include legacy preferences in their admissions process.
According to A&M’s admissions Web site, applicants are asked
to share their alumni relatives with the admissions committee in
an optional application essay. If they indicate such a Connec
tion, it plays a role in their admission.
Sons and daughters of graduates enjoy sharply higher
rates of acceptance. Harvard has an overall acceptance
rate of 11 percent, but accepts 40 percent of legacy
applicants. The University of Pennsylvania takes 41
percent of legacy applicants, compared with 21 per
cent of all other students.
Furthermore, just like the University of
Michigan gave extra points to minority applicants
under its well-known 150-point “Selection Index,”
children of alumni are automatically awarded
bonus points as well. There is no basis in merit for
these points: Such students just had the luck to be born to
the right parent or with the right skin color.
Legacy preference is just as biased as affirmative action. The
policy, written in the early 20th century, was intended to limit
enrollment of Jews in Ivy League Schools, according to The Wall
Street Journal. Hence, the very foundation of legacy preference is
steeped in racial discrimination. Even today, the rules overwhelm
ingly benefit white applicants as opposed to all other races.
At the University of Virginia, 91 percent of legacy applicants
accepted are white; of the others, 1.6 percent are black, 0.5 percent
are Hispanic and 1.6 percent are Asian. Also, con
sider Texas A&M, an all-white school until
1963, and where today, 76.4 percent of Aggies
are white. It doesn’t require much thinking to
figure that legacy preference at A&M over
whelmingly benefits g , ^ >
white appli
cants, too.
Still, many students call for A&M to stop supporting affirma
tive action without mentioning legacy preference. Since they
feel the admissions process should be race-neutral and based on
merit, a valid opinion as opponents of affirmative action, they
should be against legacy preference as well.
But some argue that universities can keep legacy preference,
while doing away with affirmative action, since the former is
necessary to keep alumni happy and more willing to donate.
John Blackburn, dean of admissions at the University of
Virginia, admits this quite candidly: “In light of very deep budg
et cuts from the state, our private support particularly from
alumni is crucial to maintaining the quality of the institution.
The legacy preference helps ensure that support by recognizing
their financial contributions.”
However, Glynn Custred, a conservative who co-authored
California’s landmark anti-affirmative action initiative
Proposition 209, makes no distinction between affirmative
action and legacy preference. “The mission of publicly funded
universities is to serve the tax payers of a state. Such institu
tions should never grant preferences to one group on the basis
of race, ethnicity or how much money dad gave to
| the alma mater.”
P He is right: The amount of money an A&M gradu-
' ate gives to this school should not help, even indirect
ly, to get that person’s child into the University. If it
does, then A&M might as well sell acceptance letters,
or better yet, auction them off. After all, it seems to be
the money that counts, not the quality of the students.
The next time a group on campus decides to hold •
■V an affirmative action bake sale, they should make a
h stand and include legacy preferences in their prices.
Wf Charge white males $1, white females $0.75, Hispanics
m $0.50, blacks $0.25 and children of A&M alumni $0.10.
W Actually, if the person who wishes to buy a cookie is a
f third generation Aggie, just give it to them for free.
Seth Freeman • THE BATTALION
Midhat Farooqi is a senior
genetics major.
University must take action to prevent sexual assaults
R ecently, Texas A&M
has been making strides
in protecting students
from the many dangers of life.
Presentations on drinking and
driving and even sexual health
have found their way into Fish
Camp and other programs
geared toward Aggies.
Although the University is
working hard to protect the stu
dent body from life’s dangers, it has chosen a min
imalist approach in confronting sexual assault.
Sexual assault has become one more prob
lem people choose to ignore. According to the
National Institute for Justice, over the course
of a college career (average five years), rough
ly 25 percent of women will fall victim to rape
or attempted rape. People tend to find this
number grossly exaggerated, hut it is often
referred to as a conservative figure.
In a recent report by the Institute on
Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault,
researchers found that approximately 20 per
cent of females in Texas reported having been
sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Of that 20
percent, only 20 percent of them actually
report the crime. Every minute, a woman is
raped in the United States, yet sexual assault is
widespread and constantly ignored.
The public must be educated on this issue.
Many Aggies are victims. One in particular,
whose name will not be disclosed, described
the terror and helplessness she felt. She
explained the personal torment, counseling
sessions, feelings of isolation and reaching of
the overall conclusion that she had been a dis
appointment in some capacity. It has been five
years and she is just now beginning to believe
that it was not her fault. She
blamed herself because she felt
she did something wrong. Like
the majority of rape victims,
she had been raped by a close
friend. She thought that some
one so close to her that she
trusted would not do that
unless she had caused it.
The young woman who
shared her story exemplifies
the victim mentality. Young
women face many personal problems after
something so traumatic. In this area, the
University has been exemplary in providing
support services for survivors of sexual
assault. A&M has a host of programs for
women who need them, including support
groups and counseling services, medical assis
tance and housing relocation. While this helps
take care of the problem after the fact, it does
nothing to minimize the number of victims.
A&M must focus more energy on minimiz
ing this number.
Survivors of sexual assault often seek solace in
help from others. A&M has provided services to
fulfill those needs, but by the time those needs are
in place, it is too late. The time to act is before
there has been an assault.
A&M students may not
know the legal definition of
consent or the laws and conse
quences of sexual assault.
Victims may not know their
rights and protections when
they come forward as a sur
vivor in an attempt to bring a
legal resolution.
This is where the University
falls short.
A&M has been content with
the status quo of providing the programs that
others other schools do. A&M has a need to
benchmark other schools in the Big 12 to
decide the direction of policy. It is time to be
the pacesetter.
A&M is one of the friendliest and safest
campuses in America. It is time for the
University to start working toward being the
most respectful campus in America. There is
plenty to gain by publicizing and educating
students about sexual assault. The school needs
to drop the anachronistic policy of reaction and
become proactive in confronting this issue.
College is intended to prepare people for the
rest of their lives. The school can no longer be
content in the suppression of reality. Vision 2020
will be incomplete if there is not a move to
empower and protect the student body. Students
want to leave college not only with an education
but also with a blueprint on reality.
If A&M allows students to leave the
University with no skills and no education on
confronting the true rigors of their lives, it has
done an injustice to its students.
To many, A&M is not only a university, it is
home, and likewise the school officials must
begin protecting Aggies proactively. Programs
aimed at rehabilitation are no longer sufficient.
It is time for prevention. This is an opportunity
to set the standard in sexual assault prevention
and it is time that students and faculty recog
nize this and push for reform.
Justin Hill is a senior
management major.
JUSTIN
HILL
a
To many A&M is not
only a university, it is
home, and likewise the
school officials must
begin protecting Angies
proactively.
m Lunchbox Coned
Live Musi
@ Rudder Fount#
“Carpe Diem”-
film/guest speak)
@ MSC 292 1 17 column:
Teenagers incapable
of making decisions
In response to Chris Lively’s Oct.
C Film Society,
MSC VAC
sity
sty
n featuring
Stubbs,
n
21.
oldus 110
torneys
ir insights
>pes
y!
Mr. Lively seems to live under the
impression that middle and high
school teenagers are capable of
making adult decisions and that the
responsibility of sex can be left up to
them if safe-sex is taught in school.
How far from the truth! If we don’t
expect these kids to make proper
decisions about drugs, alcohol and
smoking, can we then expect them
to make proper decisions about an
emotionally charged action that
effects themselves, their lovers and
potentially unborn children simply
because they are taught the “safe-
way” to be immoral?
Safe-sex education gives a false
sense of security. It tells children
who are already overflowing with
hormones that safe sex is OK
because diseases and pregnancy
can be prevented. However, these
programs fail to address what hap
pens when condoms do break, and
the facts that sexually transmitted
diseases can still be spread by oral
sex and through condoms, and that
emotional attachment is involved
with sex. Sex is an adult decision
with adult consequences that teens
are not prepared to accept. Only
three things will lower teen pregnan
cy rates and STDs in America:
abstinence, will power and a society
that promotes the first two things.
Mike Shaw
Class of 2003
Many of today's youth
lack self-control
There were several things in this
article made me very sad. I am sad
for this country and where it is head
ed and I am sad for the people who
are not going to have the privilege
that I had. I have been married to
another Texas A&M student for
almost three months now, we dated
for four-and-a-half years before we
were married and here is the big
surprise — we were both virgins.
The facts stated in the article by Mr.
MAIL CALL
Lively were somewhat one-sided
and flawed.
He said there is “no scientific evi
dence that abstinence-only pro
grams are effective.” My husband
and I are evidence. Neither of us
have STDs, we have experienced no
unplanned pregnancies or other
physical problems that can come
from having sex. We also have no
emotional baggage that can result
from having multiple sexual partners.
The problem is not with the ideology
of abstinence. The problem lies with
the lack of self-control exhibited by
many young people today.
Ashley Cook
Class of 2005
Religion should not
be used against gays
In response to an Oct. 17 mail call:
Granted, I don’t spend every sec
ond of my spare time reading a
Bible, and maybe even memorizing
it, but there are three things I should
like to point out about everyone who
keeps saying these sort of things
against gays in the name of religion.
One, in the Bible, in the Old
Testament, it says that you should
not eat pork or some seafood, yet so
many Christians see no problem
with it at all. Why? Because in the
New Testament, God proclaimed
that all that he made was clean, to
symbolize that the Gentiles were
just as important as the Jews.
Two, there is so much that is in the
Bible that has been translated into
different languages so many times
that every translation is different. So
how are you to know exactly what
the Word of God is?
Three, you don’t live in the
Diocese of New Hampshire. He was
elected by the people of his diocese,
and they were happy to have him,
not because he was homosexual,
but rather because of his good
works and his ministries. And that is
what you should remember. We are
all given gifts by God, and they are
different, but that makes us no bet
ter, no worse in his sight.
Sarah Fremgen
Class of 2004
The dangers awaiting
bikers on campus
I am a biker who is sick of having
to compete to use the bike lanes.
Usually I don’t mind swerving to
miss a parked car or a group of
pedestrians, but I experienced
something that enraged me. I was
riding to the Read building, and
notice a van parked in the bike lane
(a normal occurrence, mind you). I
am about to go around the van, and
some guy in a Mustang zooms by
me. It’s either get run over by him or
hit the van, so I take a tumble into
the cold steel of an Texas A&M van.
In short, please don’t park in the
bike lane unless you are willing to
part with your side-view mirror or deal
with a few dents in your door. And, if
you are driving an A&M van, please
use your 24-hour “I don’t really park
here anyway but it sure is nice to have
it if I need it” tow-awdy spot.
Lainey Hoekstra
Class of 2004