| No Vacancy
At the request of Chancellor Michael R. Ferrari, Student Government Association President Ben Alexander recommended about 25 students to participate in the Commission on the Future of TCU to Larry Lauer, executive director of the commission. He chose these students based on who he thought would be good representatives of the campus community. There was no formal application process nor were there any specific criteria. Besides the students Alexander recommended, 10 to 15 other students nominated either themselves or another student to Ferrari through e-mail. If only a handful of students besides those that Alexander recommended comprise the student committee, is the student representation thorough enough? Ferrari said he presented the idea of personal e-mail nominations to several student organizations and encouraged them to express their interest in the commission. "I spent a lot of time speaking to various groups about the commission," he said. "I indicated to them to have them send me an e-mail if they were interested or if they wanted to recommend another student." But not every student is reached through student organizations, and those that are reached are the ones that already have an active role within the university. All students should be reached, not just those already involved in campus organizations. Although the people who have been selected are probably capable and qualified, there should have been a formal application process and specific criteria so that all students have the opportunity to participate in such an important university committee. The committee itself is a good idea, but simply filling the open seats is not enough.
Mud flying early in campaign 2000 The mudslinging has started early this time. We're still in the process of choosing the nominees for the presidential candidates from each party and already at least one good name has been dragged through the dirt. I have to admit I never really thought about George W. Bush when he was just our governor. He ran the state well and had a good reputation. But now that he's a nominee for the Republican presidential race of 2000, all kinds of issues are coming to light. The presidential campaign unearths dirt on all candidates involved, so much so that we take it for granted. But Bush in particular is off to a bad start, especially when compared to Democratic opponent Al Gore. Let's start with Gore. By some miracle, the vice president managed to keep his shoes clean of all the Clinton scandals. Did you ever think about Gore while the Monica or Whitewater crises were happening? No. Or if you did, it was minimal and usually rather positive. Gore is another Teflon-type to whom the dirt just doesn't stick. That's quite an anomaly for a politician, if you think about it. Not that Bush is not; it's just that he's had some questionable things in his history. First, there is the infamous drug question. Did anyone else think this was the Lewinsky-Clinton problem with a different vice? The bad publicity about Bush's possible drug history could have been avoided if he had taken the high road in the first place and simply answered the question truthfully. Why do all these political figures think they have to hide their human follies from the rest of us? I would have respected him for it. He could have been a role model for all the people, especially teenagers, struggling with drug addiction and recovery. While we've all heard that you can change your life and get past drugs, what better example could there be than a president who has overcome an addiction or has simply tried drugs and decided that was not the life he wanted? But we all make mistakes and we all do things of which we're not very proud. Bush should not be overly criticized for his desire to keep this part of his past private. After all, he isn't doing drugs now, nor is he likely to resume the habit if he becomes president. And at least he can spell. The other issue that could throw some heavy mud on Bush's reputation is the announcement last Monday by Ben Barnes, former Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, in which he said he had helped Bush get his position as a pilot with the Texas Air National Guard in 1968. Barnes said Sid Adger, a Houston oil executive and a friend of the Bush family, had suggested that Barnes recommend Bush for a pilot's position. Barnes did so, and Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard until he left for business school in 1973. While this sounds innocuous enough, Bush's position in the National Guard kept him in the United States during Vietnam. A suspicious person might think this was orchestrated. Barnes said he did not know whether Bush or his father had been aware of Adger's request, and the Bush family denies such knowledge. If his family did not know of the recommendation, is Bush excused from all of our suspicions that some serious strings were pulled to keep him in the country? Of course not. We're a skeptical bunch. Surely Adger knew the family's preferences on the matter, even if he was not specifically asked to act on their behalf. He probably knew he would be thanked for such an action. Adger, by the way, is deceased and therefore can't answer any questions on the matter. Barnes, who is very much alive, became Texas' lieutenant governor in 1969. On the other hand, if the family did know about Barnes' recommendation, does that make Bush's service in the National Guard somehow less honorable? He served his country, and has every right to be proud of it. Not everyone went overseas during Vietnam. Bush was not the only man left in our country's National Guard. Service in any of America's military branches is honorable from National Guard to Marines, etc. If we have a great public figure, we dig into his or her private life to find something to condemn. What's more important - the job our political officials do while they're in office or what they did 20 years ago? We like to think we learn from our past and grow as individuals; why won't we extend that privilege to our political leaders? Bush has been the first to slip in the mud that is only going to increase in mass and malice from this point. No candidate is safe from it. It won't be long until clumps of China start to be flung at Gore. Before we judge any of our possible candidates, we must look at what they have done for their country as well as in their own lives.
Skiff Weekend Editor Pam Woodhead is a senior English major from Arlington. She can be reached at (pawoodhead@delta.is.tcu.edu). Gender separation 'asinine' Imagine about a month from now when you sit down in front of the computer and begin registering for spring classes. "Request confirmed," the screen reads, and you hold your breath while the remaining class selections are processed. "Confirmed, confirmed, confirmed, denied." You feel yourself becoming annoyed as you think, "Full already? But I'm a senior this year." Your annoyance quickly turns to astonishment, however, when you discover the reason you were not permitted to enroll in the class. It's not full, and it doesn't require special permission from the department. What it does require, however, is that you be a female. The scenario seems ludicrous to us, but it was a reality for a Boston College senior last fall. Duane Naquin (no relation) showed up for Mary Daly's "Introduction to Feminist Ethics" course, where Daly explained her policy and offered to teach Naquin outside the women's class. Daly heard no more about the issue until December, when her dean demanded that she admit Naquin in the spring. Naquin, it turned out, had legal representation from the Washington-based Center for Individual Rights, a conservative law firm best known for its attack on affirmative action at the University of Texas, the ruling commonly referred to as the Hopwood decision. CIR threatened to sue BC on Naquin's behalf under Title IX, the federal antidiscrimination-in-education law. Instead of admitting Naquin, however, Daly took a leave of absence, and the Jesuit-operated Catholic university canceled the course and revoked Daly's status to teach. Daly, 70, is a radical feminist and has been refusing to admit males in her class for 20 years. "Even if there were only one or two men with 20 women, the young women would be constantly, on an overt or a subliminal level, giving their attention to the men because they've been socialized to nurse men," she told The Boston Globe. A male's presence would have compromised the course's integrity because women naturally tend to defer to a man whenever one is in the room, Daly said. Leora Tanenbaum, the author of "Slut! Growing Up Female With a Bad Reputation," makes a good point: "The single-sex classroom sends the message that women are too weak to handle confrontation and intellectual challenge - which only reinforces sexist ideas about women's inferior intellect." Therefore, if 20 women are "deferring" to one or two men, the teacher should encourage her students to confront and overcome the problem, not flee from it. Besides, the workplace and the "real world" - for which colleges seek to prepare students - are not filled with big, bad feminist professors who shield their female students from confrontations and intellectual challenges hurled at them from men. The American Association of University Women - the publishers of a 1992 report titled, "How Schools Shortchange Girls" - did an about-face last year with the publication of "Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls." This report stated that qualities of a good education foster student achievement regardless of whether girls and boys learn separately or together. While girls may enjoy single-sex classes better, these females do not necessarily perform better in them, the report stated. And they certainly don't learn how to wrestle the floor away from attention-hogging males. The only way they learn to do that is to do it. So to BC administrators I say, "Way to go!" According to the AAUW's report, the best way to ensure an equitable higher-level education is to maintain small classes, an intensive and focused academic curriculum and a controlled and disciplined environment. Separating the boys from the girls may have been a necessary part of our sixth-grade lectures on condoms and the menstrual cycle, but doing so on a collegiate level is truly asinine.
Campus Editor Kristen Naquin is a senior news-editorial journalism major from Pensacola, Fla. She can be reached at (knaquin1@aol.com). Water, water everywhere Lest there be any confusion over the matter, I want remind everyone that I am not an eco-nut, tree-hugger, nor do I listen to Phish. I do, however, make a point to separate bottles and cans from the rest of the trash, and instead of throwing away the dolphin-killing plastic that binds together six-packs, I make sure to cut it up so seagulls will have an easier time digesting it. I have also switched to buying my beverages in denominations of 12 and 24 to avoid the porpucidal plastic all together, since 12-packs and cases come in recyclable cardboard boxes. In all honesty, clean oceans and water conservation are particularly important to me. This might be because I am a wannabe surfer, despite living in the Central Valley, three hours from a surfable beach. Maybe it's because without clean, Northern California water, Southern California would wither and dry up, and all the actors would have to take their causes to someplace like Austin. Most likely though, I care about water because no matter how conservative you are, if you live in California, you will have little choice but to respect the environment and be cognizant of water-related issues. Last summer, Texas suffered a drought. Everyone was very concerned, and drought-related articles received nearly as much front-page coverage as the Dallas Cowboys. Now, at least in my city and all the neighboring cities, there are strict water regulations. For instance, my dad watered the lawn one time on the wrong day. He received a nasty letter and a fine encouraging him to water on the proper day. Lodi, Calif., residents are also encouraged by way of nicer letters to water during the evening or night. The reasoning is that lawns are not so thirsty when it's cooler, versus the middle of the day, when it's really, really hot. Where I live, people are likely to tattle on you if you water during the day, which brings us to TCU. I started off my day dodging daddy's little girl's little SUV, and shortly after that, her boyfriend's redneck limo. When I finally crossed the street, I was greeted by a well-watered sidewalk. My first impulse was to run through the sprinklers because it was so damn hot, but then I remembered where I was from and how unacceptable that would have been at home. I recall thinking, "That's too bad, because that's the only reason for having sprinklers on during the middle of the day." Then I remembered where I was and recalled how water conservation is not of paramount importance in a state where its shorebreak is liable to catch fire should a cigarette be flicked into it. I did have to evade sprinklers at night while walking to the Moudy Building, so obviously someone has the right idea. I would even take for granted that because of so much grass and so much water, it is probably inconceivable that the water pressure would support all the sprinklers if they were run at night. In spite of this, the wasteful management of water at TCU really irritates me. I saw a maintenance guy manually watering a dry patch of grass at about 11 a.m. Perhaps if the lawn were watered at night, it might not be so dry to begin with. Not only that, but pedestrian traffic is much greater during the day, and I am sure that the campus population would appreciate the luxury of walking to class without having to step over mud or water, since mud stains khakis and sticks to platform heels. Stains aside, effective water management is beneficial on several different levels: It is cheaper, enviro-friendly and less bothersome to those who would prefer to take only one shower before class. Perhaps there have been token efforts at water conservation, but I doubt the "no-free-refills" policy really helped. At any rate, I have some cardboard boxes to recycle and some seagulls to feed.
Steve Steward is a senior political science major from Lodi, Calif., and he coined the word "porpucide." He can be reached at (haoledubstyle@hotmail.com). |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |