Opinion
The Battalion
NmMmNNHI
Page 9 • Friday, April 23, 2004
EDITORIAL
Impartial process
Election Commission, SGA Judicial
Court function appropriately
In every student body election, all the candidates agree to
follow rules meant to settle disputes and govern how they
campaign. The rules keep a level playing field for candidates
and ensure the final contest is a fair one.
This year’s campaign was no different, although the provi
sions of those regulations became the center of a controver
sy during the run-off between Jack Hildebrand and Will
McAdams. McAdams’ supporters filed a complaint with SGA
Judicial Court against the Election Commission over the man
ner in which Hildebrand was able to expense some items
used in his campaign. They alleged that this gave Hildebrand
an unfair advantage. The court, however, upheld Hildebrand’s
appointment to student body president, and rightfully so.
The validity of the complaints about the content of the
Election Code is a separate matter for consideration later.
What is important, though, is that Hildebrand proactively
sought answers to his questions regarding election policy
from the Election Commission. It was the other candidates’
responsibility to do the same if they encountered any gray
areas regarding campaign finance.
Equally important is the fact that the system as a whole
ended up with a result that was fair to all parties, executed
well and represented the will of a majority of the student body.
The process that was laid out for disputed claims was fol
lowed, and it presented a result that all parties should agree
was fair. Those in the running may not have each agreed with
the ruling, but the integrity of the ruling isn’t in question. The
will of the student body was not contravened, yet the legiti
mate complaints of others were still heard. The system, in this
case, functioned as it should.
The Battalion
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
Chris Lively
Collins Ezeanyim
David Shoemaker
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 letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be sub
mitted 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 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall<»thebattalion.net
Tainted blood
Dishonest blood donor deserves strict punishment
E
i ji
mr
CHRIS
LIVELY
very year at The
University of
f Missouri-
Columbia, the Greek
community participates
in the “Greek Week”
blood drive sponsored
by the American Red
Cross where fraternities
and sororities compete
with each other to earn
points for recognition. The blood drive
has been rather successful as it actually
set a record in 1999, taking in 3,156 units
of blood in a single day, single site blood
drive, earning it recognition in the
Guinness Book of Records. However, this
year, one student used participating in the
blood drive contest as a chance to commit
a mindless and inconsiderate act of deceit
— an act of deceit she must be held
accountable for.
Christie Key, a ranking
member of the school's
Gamma Phi Beta chapter,
took competition to a
whole new and what should
be unfathomable level as
she encouraged other sorori
ty members to lie about
their health so that her soror
ity could maximize its points.
According to Fox News, Key
wrote in an e-mail: “I don’t
care if you got a tattoo last
week LIE. I don’t care if you
have a cold. Suck it up. We all
do. LIE. Recent piercings?
LIE.” The e-mail also read,
"We're not messing around.
Punishment for not giving blood
is going to be quite severe.”
Key’s action was
obviously one deserving
nothing short of shame
and discontent, as she
does face pun
ishment from
the university’s
disciplinary
board that may result in expulsion. Then
again, she may only get a letter of repri
mand. However, her actions were signifi
cant enough to merit the sufficient pun
ishment required to make any student
aware that this sort of behavior will not
be tolerated. In this case, a warning is
simply inadequate. Be it from the univer
sity or the Red Cross, Key should face
legal action for her deeds.
The American Red Cross requires
blood donors to disclose certain informa
tion regarding their personal health to
assure their safety as well as that of
potential recipients. In addition, the blood
units are tested several times for multiple
pathogens or antibodies to those
pathogens. The tests that are used are of
utmost quality as they include an investi
gational test that may reduce the window
period, which is the time between when a
virus infects the blood and the body
forms antibodies that can be detected.
The entire handling process is one of
high-tech screening requiring proper
processing, labeling and storage,
according to the Red Cross. As ^
the Red Cross ensures the safe
ty of its blood supply, it is nevertheless
essential that these high-tech proce
dures be used in sync with honest
feedback from
donors to
prevent
any blood
supply contamination.
Key did not supply this
honest feedback.
Lying to compassionate
and serving Red Cross
workers is heart wrench
ing in itself. It is even
worse to neglect any
concern for the
well-being of
potential needy
blood recipients. Surely a college sopho
more is conscious of the reasons people
are asked to disclose health information
before donating blood. Key knowingly
accepted the risks of her encouragement,
and all for the insignificant aspiration of a
little recognition.
Cathy Scroggs, university vice chan
cellor for student affairs, mentioned that
the university’s code of student conduct
prohibits any action “which threatens or
endangers the health or safety of any per
son.” Key acted in direct violation of the
standard, and appropriate disciplinary
action must follow to ensure that the seri
ousness of such behavior is understood.
A national statement released by
Gamma Beta Phi said the e-mail was sent
“without the consent or approval of any
chapter officer.” It also mentioned that
the rules for the blood drive state that
members and chapters may not be pun
ished for not donating, according
to Fox News.
In an apparent attempt to
show that she intended there
to be no bad blood, Key
jd \ apologized. Yes, expelling
\ Key from the university is
\ a little harsh, as she
\ should not be denied the
\ chance to further her
academic career. But
on the other hand, a
letter of reprimand
would prove inade
quate in establishing the severity
of such behavior. Nevertheless,
the disciplinary board cannot
make light of someone who
v chose to risk people’s health
to win a contest.
Chris Lively is a senior
sociology major.
Graphic by Ivan Flores
MAIL CALL
PUF and AUF will increase,
research facility beneficial
In response to an April 22 mail call:
I wish to express my appreciation to Mr.
Johnston for taking the time to research the
iPermanent University Fund (PUF) and the
Available University Fund (AUF).
|Unfortunately, the hearsay references that Mr.
Johnston never cites are quite incorrect.
The PUF has experienced recent volatility,
[but this is to be expected in a market econo-
[my. Over time, these fluctuations are
smoothed out and, as the stock market
Sincreases, so will the PUF. The AUF has actu
ally increased. The recent tuition increase was
not connected to fluctuations in either the PUF
ar the AUF. The increase was a necessary
iresult of inadequate funding by the Texas
Legislature. For more information on the PUF
Dr the AUF, students should visit the Tuition
^olicy Advisory Council’s Web site at
http://sga.tamu.edu/tpac.
Johnston also asserts that the new interdis
ciplinary life sciences research facility will not
Drovide any revenue to students; this is
absolutely false. Current faculty and students,
and those attracted to the University’s new
research facility will be able to significantly
enhance the quality of their work and generate
new funding sources. These sources will
Jirectly translate into new graduate assistant-
ships and student worker positions. The edu
cational benefits are essentially unlimited.
Texas A&M has been in the business of edu
cation for 128 years, but never expanding
jpon a vision or changing to meets the needs
of society not only keeps us in the wrong cen
tury, \t is a disservice to the quality of educa
tion that all students deserve when they come
to this University.
Josh Peschel
graduate student
Research center funding a
likely result of raised tuition
As a student who attended Dr. Gates dog-
and-pony show on the justification for the
whopping increases in tuition, I just have to
wonder, how coincidental is it that merely
weeks after the Board of Regents approve the
tuition increase, we find funding to build a
$100 million research center? The message
conveyed during the forum was there was no
alternative to the raise, explaining that the
Permanent University Fund was tapped and all
other sources of income exhausted.
It is not that I have a problem with a new
research center; research money only furthers
our school. However, research seems to be the
only focus. Of the 447 new faculty members,
how many are slated for top research Ph.D.s?
Research is an added bonus; the core job of
this University is to educate the students of
Texas. When will the administration stop lying
to students and be up front? Our research-first
objective has accomplished one thing: inade
quate professors and a flourishing off-campus
tutoring industry.
Justin Thomas
Class of 2005
■twfa-cwiTnjpofj
Towing companies’ use
of ‘drop fee’ inconsistent
R egardless of where one goes in College
Station, he will likely see a little red sign
informing him and other drivers that
towing is enforced in a parking lot. Often, how
ever, drivers miss these signs, misunderstand
them or disregard the parking rules, and walk
outside to find their car missing or halfway
hooked up to a towing truck.
Emily Chandler, a senior marketing major,
and Kathryn Shepard, a sophomore history
major, found themselves in this situation. What
they didn’t expect was to walk away from it feeling
like they had been victims of extortion. Towing com
panies in College Station are failing to follow a city
ordinance in the handling of “drop fees,” and it is time
they are held accountable and show consistency in
administering this fee.
“My boyfriend and I parked near my apartment and
were only going to take a couple minutes,” Chandler
said. “We had only been in for less than five minutes
when he looked out the window to see his car hooked to
a tow truck.”
It’s quite understandable that to control a limited
amount of parking, an apartment complex would need
to call upon a towing service to make sure tenants have
enough spaces. Yet in this case, Chandler was a tenant
and the towing service was going to tow the car she had
used to get home in. Since they had caught their mis
take, the towing company employee told her that he
would not tow the vehicle. They would not tow it, that
is, if they paid him $40 in cash.
“Clearly he was just out to make more money on
innocent people,” Chandler said. “My boyfriend had to
pay $40 for five minutes in an unneeded parking spot
that is for my use anyway.”
Shepard had a similar experience in the same week,
when a trucker threatened to tow her car in a lot next to
Aggie Station. In her case, the employee had not even
begun to hook her car up to his truck. “As I pleaded for
my car the gentleman in the truck continued to hook up
my car and told me he wouldn’t give it back right away
unless I immediately gave him $20 in cash,” Shepard
said. “It seemed obvious to me that the trucker was
going to pocket the money.”
Chandler and Shepard suspect dishonesty in these
kinds of deals, and with good reason. When seemingly
arbitrary amounts of money are demanded in return for
one’s vehicle, it sounds like blackmail, and the fact that
cash is demanded would make it quite easy to pocket
without having proof of the incident. So were these
employees merely following company procedure? They
were not.
After contacting these companies, both
report that it is their standard policy to discon
tinue a hook-up when the driver shows proof of
ownership and pays what is called a “drop fee,”
for which they are given a receipt. However,
neither Chandler nor Shepard received a receipt
for their payment.
And what exactly determines the drop fee?
Both companies said that the drop fee is a fee
that towing employees must charge as mandat
ed and set by the city of College Station. However, when
asked about how much this fee was, both companies’
representatives became belligerent and refused to dis
close the amount.
It turns out there is no such rule regarding how much
the towing company must charge. The College Station
Code of Ordinances merely states that a company must
not charge more than $40 for the drop fee.
So why were these two women charged different
amounts, and why require a drop fee anyway? The only
plausible explanation is that this fee is to pay for the
work done by the towing company. Taking in a reason
able estimate of the employee spending 10 minutes to
hook up a vehicle, it amounts to paying him a wage of
$240 an hour, which is absurd.
Further, the fact that only a “maximum” amount is
declared by the city, the ordinance allows for the tow
ing employee to charge the car owner any arbitrary
amount. For someone to be subjected to the whims of
this employee is not only frustrating but unfair to every
one who finds themselves in this position.
Considering that these two incidents happened with
in a week of each other, there may be many other stu
dents who have shared these experiences and didn’t real
ize that others are being dealt with in the same suspi
cious manner.
Students and citizens of College Station should
demand a higher level of honesty in these situations.
Towing companies should charge a set amount for their
drop fees, if they must charge them at all, and there must
be a way for their employees to be accountable to the
companies for them, so it doesn’t seem like they’re try
ing to make some easy cash off of students already hav
ing a bad day. Though towing in town is a necessary evil
to control the limited amount of parking spaces in apart
ment buildings and business establishments, that doesn’t
mean it has to be an evil business.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.