JseH;
ai lo®.
tsOK.is
!■ Sbduii
Hi,
s,gr6
ebus.
Jbdini
ses, Ih
lo camp,
ceiling in
iTS
yard,
i, bafDw
Jdes Inn
canw
idiase,?
ept.
(MOOS 711
gtoltei
79-268-m
alocami
$47ta
itmenua
SSSttw
mm.
rSart
sa SOT
ulabie Si
lectaCi
Irtba, !•«,
Apatei
re-in W
10 9794
Treeltes
1 S4«n
Is Aug
EDITORIAL
Coming clean
Administration must consider student
input in decision-making process
Recently, Texas A&M’s Council on Built Environment announced its
decision to close Hotard Hall and use it as offices as part of the Faculty
Reinvestment Plan. Pressure from students, however, motivated
University President Robert M. Gates to postpone those plans for a
year. Although this represents a temporary victory for the interests of
students on campus, it does not address the deeply-flawed process
that brought the A&M administration and the students to this juncture.
That process was one where administrators made decisions
affecting the current and future students of A&M without asking for
input from students or any other stakeholders. Making a decision
to close any residence hall should not be taken lightly and should
not be made without consulting the residents and presenting evi
dence to support the University’s recommendation. Administrators
should remember that a dorm is a home for students and that, for
many, it is not simply a place to sleep at night.
In the case of Hotard, it was a dorm with the highest retention
rate on campus, a place with strong traditions and a sense of
unity. It was a place that, for better or worse, symbolized the things
that make A&M unique.
The University’s frantic scrambling after the decision was
announced indicated that even the administration was aware of its
poor decision-making process. The University’s attempts to pro
vide the residents who would have been displaced with first-prior
ity housing was only an attempt to buy their silence in a pro
ceeding that was undeniably mishandled.
The CBE’s decision-making process was never accountable to
those affected by their decision, much less visible to the rest of the
campus. The process by which the CBE decided Hotard was the
best choice for closure has yet to be explained. The CBE never
explained if the closure was the most cost-effective option, or
meant to keep as many staff members on campus as possible, or
anyone of many other possible reasons.
The University should learn from this embarrassing episode and
change its process for the future. From now on, A&M should allow
all affected constituencies to have input into any such decisions
and should hold open meetings and provide documentation to any
interested persons. Gates has taken steps toward this by holding
open tuition forums and a student has been appointed to the CBE,
but more must be done. The administration cannot continue to
make important decisions in relative secrecy.
h at C«<
re-in tai*
M. 979-75
1/2 aniS
. caL*
12 apal
D, furasX!
August f#
575-758
viPi
The Battalion
I w*
Pnce'l ^
intis Aug*
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
Metro Editor
Elizabeth Webb
Kendra Kingsley
George Deutsch
Melissa Sullivan
Opinion Asst.
Member
Member
Member
Matt Rigney
Collins Ezeanyim
Chris Lively
David Shoemaker
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
lessand include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be sub-
mittedin person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may
bemailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111. Texas A&M University, College
Slation.TX 77843-1 1 11. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
in 3W
979-S
MAIL CALL
n/lba
1250 (W
^ iome 'ready for sex before marriage'
I, Don't*
/month
xal,
In response to Matt Younger’s March 11 column:
m
urn. Cu
-tanU
do. 512'
The Houston Chronicle recently reported a study that seems to
ave been ignored in writing your essay. It turns out the same
trcenfage of people who make an oath of celibacy until mar-
igeget STDs as those who do not make such an oath.
The reason for this is pretty obvious: you cannot prepare for
omething and ignore it at the same time. Things happen, rela-
anships change, and not surprisingly, some people are ready
-^|rsex before marriage.
Runs
when we look at the statistics involved, it would be bet-
rto prepare for the worse and hope for the best. It’s not in the
bvernment's best interests to blind students to all options of sex
978,1 ducation, both from moral and health-based arguments. In the
shed,
3.574-^
Rolling 9
dislwif
bet the kids who have STDs wished someone had handed
em a condom beforehand.
Kevin Reilly
Class 2006
top napping in the MSC Flag Room
1 response to a March 10 mail call:
ora
; than *
718-6®
/le
'/caps *
3-3663
I felt it necessary to write in about what is going on in the MSC
lag Room.
People are taking naps. I am trying to play Moonlight Sonata or
laire de Lune and somebody has the nerve to start snoring in
lie corner.
Now don't get me wrong. I love sleeping and do enjoy the occa-
gj/sional cat naps or even benefit from power naps, but please stop
eeping during my “classical noise.” There are plenty of other
aces downstairs where you can sleep instead of attempting to
serenade" us with your snoring while I play the piano.
Yes, Chuckie, I’m mocking you. Gig 'em Ags.
Nick Foreman
Class of 2004
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be
200 words or less and include the author’s name, class and
phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit let
ters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in
person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters
also may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1 111. Fax: (979)
845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5 • Friday, March 12, 2004
Goodbye, Dick
Bush should drop Cheney for his 2004 reelection bid
p
jresident Bush better prepare for a long,
hard election year. His credibility has
suffered several blows recently, and his
running mate isn’t helping to balance out the
problem.
Vice President Dick Cheney no longer
appears to provide an air of wisdom to the
Bush administration because several controver
sial elements have transformed him into a lia
bility that the president must cut loose, or he
may be found guilty by association.
Consider the weapons of mass destruction dilemma. Clearly,
it has been beaten into the ground, but it still delivers a powerful
credibility punch to the president. However, too much blame is
ascribed directly to Bush because of a spillover effect
caused by Cheney’s rhetoric.
Arguably, out of all the staunch supporters for uni
laterally going to war with Iraq, Cheney beat the war
drum the loudest, never missing an opportunity to
chime in on the dangers Saddam Hussein posed.
Consider this quote, “There is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction and
that he will use them against our friends, against our
allies and against us.”
As a result, these allegations have become a
source of political ammunition against the Bush
administration.
Another problem plaguing Cheney pertains to the
Energy Task Force meetings he conducted
with elites from the oil industry, an
industry near and dear to Cheney's
heart. The catch is, these energy
meetings transpired behind closed
doors and the records regarding the
discussions remain undisclosed.
Rightly, this has elevated con
cerns and marshaled enough
attention to thrust the issue into
the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling
on disclosure.
Now one would assume that
Supreme Court justices should strive to
remain impartial and avoid carousing
with individuals directly involved in
cases, right?
But when you are Dick Cheney, sec
ond in command, no one tells you who
you can or can't associate with, even if it is
a judge preparing to make a critical decision
regarding politically-sensitive matters. Thus, in
Cheney’s world, it’s OK to take one of the jus
tices, Antonin Scalia, duck hunting in Louisiana
just prior to the court’s decision.
Is anyone else disturbed by this?
Looming even larger over Cheney is his
Halliburton connections. Halliburton is an enor
mous engineering company that Cheney headed
for five years before Bush selected him for the
vice president slot. However, some ties are hard
to sever. Cheney still receives $180,000 in deferred
compensation from the company yearly. But what looks suspi
cious is that while Cheney was out ranting and raving over
WMDs, Halliburton stood to benefit immensely from the war.
The United States hired Halliburton to supply oil to the mili
tary in Iraq and even provided the company with some attractive
rebuilding contracts without having to compete against other
companies.
Lately, though, reports of pricing errors are surfacing and
Halliburton is under investigation for overcharging the U.S. gov
ernment by some $61 million.
Another dilemma is the grand jury investigation regarding the
blown cover of CIA operative Valerie Flame with some allega
tions connecting the leak to Cheney.
Even if these examples are disregarded, Cheney’s sketchy
health status still remains.
Cheney suffered heart attacks in the following
years: 1978, 1984, 1988, 2000, and in
he twice checked himself
into a hospital for
chest pains.
Perhaps a few
years of rest are
long overdue.
So who should
take over if Cheney
gets the boot? This
part is easy. Bush has
numerous individuals at
his disposal capable and
qualified to assume the
role. Consider these
examples: Secretary of
State Colin Powell,
Homeland Security Head
Tom Ridge, or perhaps,
Condoleezza Rice. These
could work well.
But the president’s goal should
be to select a candidate who can bal
ance out weaknesses and appeal to a
state rich in electoral votes. The best
candidate for this would be former mayor
of New York Rudolf Giuliani. Think about
it: small talk is already being made about
him seeking the presidency in 2008. He
might as well get his feet wet.
Cheney isn’t necessarily a bad guy,
bui his record contains a few blemishes.
Under ordinary election circumstances '
this wouldn’t be a big deal, but when
the two running mates striving for re-
election both have substantial credibility
baggage to declare, there comes a time when you
must drop some dead weight. And Cheney appears to be the
source of a substantial amount of it.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
Graphic by Rylie Deyoe
Catholic dogma in danger?
California ruling violates the First Amendment
S hortly after being elected
president, Thomas
Jefferson, in a note to a
group of Connecticut Baptists,
wrote that the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution has
created “a wall of separation
between church and state.”
The true meaning of the First
Amendment and this “wall of sep
aration” has been a subject of heat
ed debate ever since its adoption into the
Constitution. In recent times, this has been
interpreted by teachers, school boards and
the courts to mean that religion is a taboo
subject not to be discussed in school, that
Christinas trees, Menorahs and nativity
scenes are not allowed on government
property, including public schools, and that
the Ten Commandments cannot be present
in court houses.
Christians are often accused of oppos
ing this part of the First Amendment and
wanting the government to endorse
Christianity or even make it a state reli
gion. The vast majority of Christians,
however, recognize that if the govern
ment exerts too much control over a reli
gion, it is the church that will be corrupt
ed and fail.
A recent example of the government’s
intrusion into religion occurred in
California on March 1, 2004. CNN.com
reported that the state’s Supreme Court
voted 6-1 to force Catholic Charities to
provide birth control coverage to its
employees, despite the fact that the
Catholic church’s dogma has, for cen
turies, considered artificial contraception
to be a mortal sin. The ruling is capable
of affecting the policies of Catholic hos
pitals and other church-based organiza
tions across California.
The issue is not birth control, but
whether the courts have the right
to force a religious-based charity
to go against its own teachings. It
does not. If today Catholic
Charities is forced to provide birth
control coverage, it is quite, possi
ble that tomorrow the courts will
force coverage of abortions on
health plans.
This is a blatant violation of the
First Amendment, which says that,
in addition to having no law establishing
religion, there should also be no law “pro
hibiting the free exercise thereof.” The
court’s ruling essentially says that this part
of the First Amendment can be ignored, or
possibly even “negotiated,” when it is con
venient and popular to do so.
The precedent has been set for
increased government involvement in reli
gion and increased restrictions on the right
to worship freely. Churches and believers
must be aware and cautious. It is a bless
ing to be in America, a country where reli
gious freedoms are much greater than
other countries’. But this freedom and lib
erty must be protected at all costs lest
those in power try to steal it away.
Due to the continued opposition to
abortion, contraception and homosexuali
ty, the Catholic church is often accused
of “forcing its morality” on others.
Despite the fact that the church also
teaches free will and redemption, these
issues are rarely preached from the pulpit
and many Catholics ignore the church’s
teachings (indicating that it is apparently
doing a poor job of “forcing” its morality
on people), this unjustifiable accusation
is still made.
However, to the many faithful Catholics
in America and the rest of the world, the
courts, and organizations such as Planned
Parenthood that, according to Zenit.org,
have pushed for contraception mandate
laws, are the ones pushing their morality
(or lack thereof) upon the Catholic church.
This is exactly the reason for the First
Amendment: to protect American churches
from these kinds of activities and rulings.
The justification for the court’s ruling is
that since Catholic Charities employs non-
Catholic workers and provides help and
counsel to people regardless of their reli
gious beliefs, they are not qualified for a
religious exemption. Herein lies the prob
lem. Those who support the California
court’s ruling also fight against laws that
allow faith-based organizations to hire
only those who follow their doctrines. This
places Catholic charities and similar
organizations in a catch-22 that restricts
the free exercise of their religious beliefs.
Again, similar organizations around the
country should pay attention to current
legislations and court cases and be pre
pared to fight for their liberty.
Furthermore, anyone who works for a
faith-based organization should realize and
accept that he might not get the same cov
erage on his health plan due to the organi
zation’s religious beliefs. Someone work
ing for a Catholic-based organization
should not expect contraception coverage
just like someone working for a Jehovah’s
Witness-based organization should not
expect coverage for blood transfusions. If
this is a problem, then work should be pur
sued elsewhere.
Religious freedom is perhaps our great
est freedom and it must be protected at all
costs, but always through kindness, under
standing and non-violence.
Cody Sain is a junior
philosophy major.
CODY
SAIN