130,
«
S ■ y.
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Tuesday, March 30, 2004
EDITORIAL
Fee increase
Proposal should pass
As requested by the Student Service Fee Advisory Board, a ref
erendum regarding an increase in the student service fee will be
voted on this week. The proposal comes after the board’s correct
finding that more money is needed to maintain the existing quali
ty of certain services as well as to improve some of them.
Currently, Texas A&M students pay a student service fee of
$11.86 per semester credit hour with a maximum per student per
on a Jsemester amount of $142.32. The cap is set at $150 and any
Is
vo week;
beatf
I') who
should
ig at Tills
ol
their via
em tb
ral fan
we p|;
1A&M
"Wen
ust goioj
h this 3
'epl
vant ii«
dtheyli
'anlage.'
ainst Ti
: Aggie
a court 4:
)f
is capa
r they
ass said,
yedaga
he way
ami and
yedag;
year.lj
A of fra
link Ib
(fonr
attempt to surpass that amount requires a referendum which, if
passed, establishes a new cap of $250. Without the proposed fee
increase, the quality of these services and programs will inevitably
be hindered.
Coupled with tuition hikes, an additional fee increase makes
for an unnerving scenario, and one that many students find to be a
tough pill to swallow. However, as such an increase should not
even be proposed without a rigorous evaluation of all possible
alternatives, a student service fee increase proves necessary given
the present circumstances.
The student service fee is a vital source of income for some of
A&M’s most active organizations. A few of the fee recipients
include the Department of Student Life, Student Government,
Student Activities and the Aggie Band. The Memorial Student
Center also depends on the fee as it is used to fund activities such
as Aggie Nights. CARPOOL, Muster and Silver Taps are also
dependent upon the fee.
A&M may be getting more expensive, but when compared on
a statewide scale, it is not that bad. Schools such as Sam Houston
State University, A&M Commerce, West Texas A&M and
University of North Texas all have a higher student service fee,
even after an A&M increase.
Students should vote for the fee increase as it is compatible
with the University’s vision and is necessary for any improvement
or, in some instances, for maintaining what already exists.
The Battalion
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
Metro Editor
EDITORIAL BOARD
Elizabeth Webb Opinion Asst.
Kendra Kingsley Member
George Deutsch Member
Melissa Sullivan Member
Matt Rigney
Collins Ezeanyim
Chris Lively
David Shoemaker
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
lesnniinclude the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
! reserves the right to edit letters for length, sty le and accuracy. Letters may be sub-
j milted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may
bemailedto: 014 Reed McDonald, MS till, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
10 seconds
IFC endorses
Scher for yell
Recently I have made the
acquaintance of a Mr. Jacob
Scher. He was introduced to
me by some mutual friends
who are working on his cur
rent yell leader campaign. In
the short amount of time that
I have known this man, I have
become overwhelmed at his
love for the university and its
traditions.
He has displayed respect to
all organizations and individu
als he has encountered, and
his energy is truly contagious.
Jacob is very involved with
the campus and the commu-
ity by being involved in
even organizations.
He spreads the Aggie Spirit
rough organizations such
is CARPOOL, Fish Camp
md Parents Weekend
tommittee. Jacob has shown
e ability to reach many indi-
iduals and has already made
m impact on this university.
Because he has shown me
;o much as a student leader,
look forward to working with
lacob in the future. His char-
icter and his qualifications
re unmatched, and for this
eason the Inter Fraternity
touncil has decided to
indorse Jacob for Junior Yell.
Any student
deserves to yell
The Corps of Cadets
believes any and every stu
dent has the right to be a yell
leader. The position of yell
leader should be and will be
held by a student.
Cadets are students just as
those individuals who live on
Southside, Northside and off
campus. This creation of politi
cal parties is tearing apart the
very spirit that inspires stu
dents to run for a position such
as yell leader. Cadets do not
deserve to be yell leaders
solely on the basis of mem
bership in the Corps.
Last year, the student body
elected the five best candi
dates. It just so happened that
those students were in the
Corps, and historically, a great
majority of the elected yell
leaders have been from the
Corps, yell leaders represent
the University to the outside
world. It is not their job to rep
resent the demographics of
the student population.
Let’s stop dwelling on sim
ply who is in the Corps and
who is not, and get busy vot
ing on the most outstanding
candidates. There is a spirit
here that can never be told; it
is a spirit that resides in more
than 40,000 students.
Justin Woods
Class of 2004
Public Relations Officer
Corps of Cadets
Very ignoble program
Special treatment should not be given to minorities
Usually, when one
hears about VIP treat
ment, he thinks of extra
attention, access to the
powerful or popular, not
having to wait in lines,
entrance to restricted
events and complimen
tary perks, all while
non-VIPs look on. This
stereotype is not far
from reality. Texas A&M recently institut
ed its own VIP program called the Very
Important Prospect program for Aggies of
certain races. It is exactly this kind of
important vs. non-important mentality that
further divides the student body and per
petuates the negative stereotype that race
matters at A&M.
In a March 9 article, The Bryan-College
Station Eagle stated that the VIP program
“calls for admitted minority high school
students and their parents to be escorted
around campus by recruiters and former
student volunteers each Wednesday and
Friday.” The story describes how VIPs will
also receive one-on-one sessions with
advisers and financial aid counselors. The
prospects will be transported in small
groups to the A&M campus from their
home towns at A&M’s expense. The Eagle
also reported that Acting Assistant Provost
for Enrollment Frank Ashley calls the pro
gram part of the plan detailed last
December by A&M President M. Gates to
enroll more minority students. However, on
Monday, Ashley discounted The Eagle’s
report and said the program had already
had a non-minority participant.
Treating prospective students like royal
ty is an excellent idea, and should be the
aim of the provost for enrollment.
However, why limit the program to partic
ular prospective students? Students of all
races could benefit from VIP treatment,
and designating certain groups as “VIPs”
compared to their peers assigns a worth to
potential students without regard to need or
merit. While it is a refreshing change that
the administration no longer disguises its
favoritism for certain students, no potential
Aggies are less important than any other,
or at least they shouldn’t be.
The VIP program is indicative of
A&M’s new admissions and scholarship
policies. As A&M Regent Bill Jones stated
at Friday’s Board of Regents meeting and
Regent Lowry Mays has told The Houston
Chronicle, “implicit in this (new admis
sions) policy is the use of race.” This is
contrary to the policy announced by Gates
in December where, “personal merit —
individual achievement, leadership poten
tial and personal strengths — are the only
criterion for admission.” A&M officials
have an obligation to reconcile these appar
ently contradictory policy stances and
release the criteria upon which future
Aggies are now being chosen.
“Graduate Diversity Scholarships” and
“Regents’ Scholarships” have also been
created explicitly for racial purposes.
According to notes of Gates’ staff meeting
in December of last year, “(There will be)
extensive consideration of race in recruit
ing strategies, in admissions changes, and
the regents scholarship plan. All three of
these changes disproportionately advantage
minorities.” The memo continues on,
“There are many questions about how we
will quantify this, especially since the
Supreme Court in the Michigan case ruled
against point systems.”
While the administration may take these
examples of discrimination lightly, the law
does not. According to the Texas
Constitution, “Equality under the law shall
not be denied or abridged because of sex,
race, color, creed or national origin.” With
strict language such as that, A&M is set
ting itself up to be taken to court or
rebuked by the Texas attorney general for
civil rights violations. If race is not a good
enough factor for admissions in December,
then why is it OK now?
The problems with these programs are
not the benefits they provide for students.
It is the Balkanization of the student body
that the programs perpetuate that is wrong.
This separate and unequal treatment
divides students while highlighting the
importance of race to A&M officials before
the student ever reaches campus. If racial
diversity is as critical for admissions as
officials claim, it is hypocritical for them to
practice racial segregation when bringing
students to campus.
There is nothing wrong with treating
prospective students well and fostering a
desire to attend arguably the best university
in the country, but target all types of stu
dents for such programs. The administra
tion should lead by example and unite the
student body through fairness rather than
playing favorites.
Matt Maddox is a senior
management major.
Graphic by Rylie Deyoe.
MATT
MADDOX
Government’s role is to protect,
not prosecute, its own citizens
A ny political discussion is likely to
demonstrate that people have different
ideas on what the government’s job
should be. Despite these differences, just
about everyone thinks its purpose lies in pro
tecting its citizens. However, a dangerous
legal precedent is in the process of being set,
which directly contradicts this principle and
must not be allowed to continue.
The issue is cyber security. Last year
alone, the anti-virus company Trend Micro
Inc. reported that businesses lost $55 billion in productivity.
One would expect that damage on such
an enormous scale would immediately
signal the government to crack down on
cyber criminals and virus makers, but in
an amazing show of ignorance and injus
tice, they want to crack down on compa
nies with inadequate protection instead.
The 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act holds
executives liable for computer security by
requiring them to pledge that companies’
internal controls are adequate However,
director of RSA Security Inc. Shanon
Kellogg said auditors are now starting to
include cyber security in that category.
“Hackers, viruses and other online threats don’t just create
headaches for Internet users — they could also create prison
sentences for corporate executives,” Reuters said. These execu
tives are the victims of the true criminals — hackers causing
billions in damages. Yet, instead of the government offering
greater protection from being preyed upon, they threatened
prison for the crime of being a victim.
It’s reasonable to take precautions against criminals — it’s the
reason people lock their doors at night. However, if you called
the police to report a break-in, would you expect to be hauled off
to jail because you didn’t have a better lock on your door?
Justice is about punishing the criminal, not the victim. The
fact is, these corporate executives are no more liable for negli
gence than a robbery victim is for not having burglar bars on his
apartment windows.
The courts are sorely mistaken in taking this action to try to
lessen the damage done by cyber criminals, but it is true that
the government must do something to prevent these acts of
destruction from happening.
Whenever crime is on the rise, it is common sense to increase
the strength of security. Instead of trying to scare companies into
spending more money on their own security, the government
should create a new organization to combat this kind of crime.
Though locking your doors is common sense, ultimately it is not
the responsibility of citizens to protect
themselves. This is the purpose of estab
lishing a government and giving it the
necessary power to “provide for the com
mon defense,” as the U.S. Constitution
says the U.S. government was established
for. When companies lose $55 billion in a
year due to criminal acts, it is clear that
they are not being properly defended.
. The government must step up and do
its job. Perhaps it should hire and train
people to provide proper security and
place them in companies that are being hit
the hardest. This would improve communi
cation between individual networks and ensure that they all had
the latest and best protection against cyber criminals. Whatever
the solution, the government should never attempt to bully others
in into doing its job. When you become unjust in your method of
combating injustice, you throw away the moral authority you
had to fight it in the first place.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
MIKE
WALTERS
The fact is, these corporate
executives are no more liable for
negligence than a robbery
victim is for not having burglar
bars on his apartment windows.