won.
imtu,
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 11 • Tuesday, October 18, 2003
ta weto
tad retumej'
“Theiii
ves Mat;
M ourfjj
ddam Hasti
ch more set
: could oi
1,
li, 26,
troops fon
18 Sr
er in h
AK-4U
naiic rifle
want to deli
said.
the troops t
ere offered
s,
5," said La®
m the side
ers after Iks
EDITORIAL
Aggies united
Students must not forget
The Aggie Bonfire stack collapsed four years ago, killing 12
students and injuring 27. Along with it, a 90-year tradition of
the Aggie Spirit toppled into the dirt of the Polo Fields, holding
hostage the fate of what those who sacrificed the night of Nov.
18,1999, were working so hard for. Once the silent spell cast by
the loss and hurt of the day broke, Texas A&M became a divid
ed campus. Those who wanted to carry on the spirit of Bonfire
squared off against those afraid another Bonfire could never be
safe, including the A&M administration.
The debate will continue until off-campus fires die out or
the University builds its own revamped version of the fire
overseen by professionals. But underneath that debate, the stu
dents working hard to keep the tradition ignited and those who
shrug off talk about Bonfire have a common ground: Their
love for their school.
A&M is about more than a Bonfire that may or may not
continue to burn and will always be a part of the tradition and
lore of Aggieland. The students, the people who work hard
each day to learn and love and share with others, create and
uphold the values Aggies cherish. Remember the Aggie fami
ly’s loss and, in so doing, remember that each student, faculty
and staff member is a part of the family. Celebrate what you
find in each day at A&M.
Those killed and injured four years ago today were work
ing on something they felt passionate about. And that is the
most important lesson that Aggies should remember today:
Pursue life with passion.
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL BOARD
/d
Editor in Chief
IManai’ing Editor
Opinion Editor
Metro Editor
Sommer Hamilton
Elizabeth Webb
Jenelle Wilson
Sarah Szuminski
Metro Asst.
Member
Member
Member
C.E. Walters
Collins Ezeanyim
Matt Rigney
David Shoemaker
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
Jlessand include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
[serves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be sub-
tiitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may
Ibemailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College
IStation, TX 77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
am-4pm
MAIL CALL
tation
ectioni
rient
9.-
99
■
as
15
ss
H
ML
a Lion
kL
Immigrants should
cross legally
In response to a Nov. 7 mail
call:
My family came to Texas
ore than 150 years ago;
nd they did it legally. The
laws as they are today deem
it illegal for people to come to
merica and live without per-
ission.
If illegal immigrants want a
etter future for their children,
hey should be the ones tak-
proper initiative to do so
- not the American tax
payer. But I don’t go out and
do something illegal just
because I want my life to be
better. I work for it, I put in the
time and effort that is neces
sary for it to happen the right
way. I pay my taxes, I abide
by the laws of the state and
nation, so that I, and other
Americans, can receive the
benefits of doing so.
I intend no disregard toward
any ethnicity or nationality; if
you are doing something ille
gal you are slowly destroying
that American dream for the
legal residents, who are the
Jones footing the bill making
1 that American dream possi
ble. Why should illegal immi
grants be able to reap the
benefits of the “American”
way that is being provided by
legal residents who are com-
I
plying with the laws that help
keep this country so great?
Dustin Pratho
Class of 2003
Parents must
teach both sides
In response to a Nov. 13
mail call:
No matter what moral
stances parents may take,
they have a right to teach
those morals to their children.
I also believe that parents
have a responsibility to
explain differing opinions and
why the parents have chosen
their opinion. This allows chil
dren the right to determine
their own beliefs as they grow.
However, using young, unin
formed children to help protest
an idea is irresponsible. Has
the child been provided access
to all the different, unbiased
sides of the idea? Is the child
able to answer difficult ques
tions from someone two or
three times their age? They
should be in school learning.
Parents should teach their
children to question the status
quo, and to stand up for what
they believe in. But it should
ultimately be the child’s deci
sion, not the parents.
Sarah Solis
Class of 2004
The price of beauty
Contestant’s victory perpetuates a long-term loss
Ivan flores • THE BATTALION
M iss Afghanistan,
Vida Samadzai,
has been criti
cized in her home coun
try for appearing scanti
ly clad in a red bikini
during the Miss Earth
Contest. The Afghan
Supreme Court con- lindsay
demned her for display- orman
ing her body in a way
that is against Islamic law, against Islam
and against the culture of the Afghan peo
ple, as reported by state TV in Kabul.
However, Samadzai, who has studied in
America since 1996 and is currently
enrolled at California State University, is
victimized not only by Afghan oppression,
but also by American pressure for con-
fonnity at the other end of the modesty-
promiscuity spectrum.
While Americans may celebrate her lib
eration from the tyrannical restrictions of a
culture that marginalizes women, a photo
of the beauty queen on CNN.com — in
which her ribs can literally be seen pro
truding from her side — suggests that her
liberation is no more than adherence to
ridiculous standards of emaciated and
exposed beauty so widespread in the
United States.
The opportunity to plead the plight of
Afghan women and children to a world
wide audience is available at an odd price
— the sight of Samadzai’s bare stomach.
The Miss Earth contest requires all con
testants to take the stage in a two-piece
swimsuit; and Samadzai, eager for a
chance to air her plea, agreed to let her
participation fly in the face of all the tradi
tional modesty that marks her culture. She
admitted, though, that she felt uncomfort
able in the revealing bikini, according to
The Associated Press.
Samadzai, the first to represent
Afghanistan in 30 years, justified her deci
sion when she told the AP that the Miss
Earth Contest “gives me a chance to speak
up and send my voice out there and let
people know that the Afghans are in great
need of help.” She was even recognized
with the pageant’s Beauty for a Cause
award, which was introduced this year.
Judges chose Samadzai for the prize as
a symbol of the newfound confidence,
courage and spirit of today’s women,
according to the AP. But the world is too
busy staring at that little swimsuit to
notice that she also supposedly represents
a victory of women’s rights and various
social, personal and religious struggles, as
the judges noted.
A victory of women’s rights? Most
women would not cite an uncomfortable
instance of bikini modeling — used as a
means of achieving a higher goal — as a
victory for women’s rights. Rather it’s
another example of the way in which this
Hollywood culture objectifies women and
encourages the use of sex appeal to get
ahead in the world.
The message sent by the Miss Earth
competition is that only women willing to
bare most of their bodies — extremely
thin, anorexic-looking bodies — can be
beauty queens. Despite her discomfort at
appearing in the two-piece, Samadzai
viewed the pageant as a “celebration of
freedom, a message that Afghan women
no longer must cower in submission,”
according to Newsday. However, in the
excitement of losing her burka, she may
not have noticed that she is hardly stand
ing in triumph. Rather she is being
attacked by some of the women she seeks
to help.
Many politically active Afghan women
admonish Samadzai, sharing the senti
ments of Sima Wali, who believes that she
is providing an argument for the extrem
ists to sideline women and women’s imag
inations. The president of Afghanistan’s
Refugee Women in Development said
Samadzai’s pageant notoriety “becomes a
powerful excuse for those who want to
keep (women) from winning power.”
Unfortunately, Samadzai’s cause seems
to be drowning in the controversy swirling
around her provocative swimwear. If Miss
Afghanistan has failed to send her voice
out there, she has certainly succeeded in
getting her red bikini into the spotlight.
Surely there must be better ways for
women to change the world than by parad
ing around half-naked, hoping that their
high heels and tiny bodies in still tinier
swimsuits are a step toward remedying
such ills as the female oppression they
ironically perpetuate by subscribing to
such notions.
Lindsay Orman is a senior
, English major.
Removal reinforces Constitution
T he Alabama Court
of the Judiciary
removed Supreme
Court Chief Justice Roy
Moore from office
Thursday after it found
that Moore had violated
the Canons of Judicial
Ethics in defying a jenelle
court order to remove a wilson
5,300-pound Ten
Commandments statue from the rotunda
of the state Judicial Building. Moore had
been suspended from the bench on Aug.
22, after the state Judicial Inquiry
Commission, a panel created by the state
Constitution to act as a grand jury when
allegations arise against the judiciary,
filed a formal complaint against Moore.
The monument was moved out of sight
on Aug. 27.
While the decision to remove Moore
from the bench may have angered Moore’s
supporters, it was the only option the
Court of the Judiciary had, and the panel
should be commended for making what
was, in reality, a courageous — and
unpopular — decision. Moore took an
oath of office requiring him to “faithfully
and honestly discharge the duties” of his
office and to uphold the Constitution of
the United States and of the state of
Alabama. He failed to do so by defying
the order to remove the statue.
A man with such little respect for the
rule of law should not have the job of
interpreting it.
The Judicial Inquiry Commission
charged Moore with six violations of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics, including fail
ure to uphold the integrity and independ
ence of the judicial system and failure to
uphold a respect for the law. During his
testimony, according to the Los Angeles
Times, Moore said his acknowledgment of
God “cannot be a violation of the Canons
of Ethics. Without God there can be no
ethics.” However, this acknowledgment
was not made by just verbally expressing
his opinion; it was made by secretly put
ting a 2 1/2-ton granite statue in the State
Judicial Building, where everyone entering
the building would be forced to view it.
His acknowledgment was
using his power as the
state’s top judge to force
his beliefs onto others.
However, Moore’s case
is no longer about whether
a massive statue of the Ten
Commandments qualifies
as an establishment of reli
gion; it’s about whether he
did what he was required
to do as a judge, an
upholder of the law, and
the answer is a clear and
resounding no.
Federal courts ruled that the monument
violated the U.S. Constitution and needed
to be removed. Moore had his appeal; he
lost. He asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
hear his case; he was denied certiorari on
Nov. 3. The Supreme Court let the lower
court opinion stand.
Moore was obligated by his oath to
support this decision, whether he agreed or
not. Moore, however, did not support the
decision; therefore, he violated what he
promised to uphold and he frequently said
he would do it again if given the chance.
Unfortunately, the panel did not have
the power to bar him from running for the
office of chief justice again.
Moore said removing the statue “would
have violated my conscience, violated my
oath of office and violated every rule of
law I had sworn to uphold,” according to
The Associated Press. One has to wonder
exactly which laws Moore is talking
about, though, because the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is
clear in prohibiting his behavior, as is
Article 1, section 3 of the Alabama
Constitution, which prohibits the state
from giving preferences to
one religion over others.
As a judge, Moore cannot
make up his own rules, he
has to follow the ones laid
out for him.
The reasons for
Moore’s removal from
office are clear. He was
required by his office to
respect the law and deci
sions from federal court
interpreting the law. Once
the federal appeals court,
which interprets U.S. constitutional
issues, handed down its decision that the
monument violated the First Amendment,
he had to follow it. No one asked him to
deny his God, only to remove a monu
ment from a building, which he publicly
refused to do. For the court system to run
effectively, government officials have to
obey even the orders they dislike; Moore
didn’t, and now he has to face the conse
quences of his decision.
Jenelle Wilson is a senior
political science major.
a
A man with such
little respect for the rule
of law should not have
the job of interpreting
it.