Newspaper Page Text
4 • The Red and Black • Wednesday, November 7, 1990
r, — "'■■■ "" =
— _ _ _ __ — — —
OPINIONS
“1 think the students ought to kick themselves In the butt for not
voting.
— Defeated 4th district candidate Michael Dloguardl on student
turnout yeesterday.
The Red & Black
Eetabluhed 1893—Incorporated 1980
An independent etudent neu tpaper not affiliated with the Uniuertity of Georgia
Robert Todd/Editor-in-Chief
Jennifer Rampey/Managing Editor
David Johnston/Opinions Editor
■ EDITORIALS
Supreme Justice
This week the U.S. Supreme Court let stand an
appeals court ruling which forces the U.S. Army to re
enlist a gay man. The ruling isn’t sweeping enough to
change the military regulations prohibiting
homosexuality, but it’s a victory for the U.S.
Constitution and Americans all the same.
Staff Sgt. Perry Watkins, a 16-year veteran with an
excellent service record, was discharged by an Army
review board in 1982 because of his homosexuality.
Now he plans to return to the service until he is eligible
for retirement.
“Equity cries out and demands that the Army be
stopped (prohibited) from refusing to re-enlist Watkins
on the basis of his homosexuality,” the appeals court
said. Certainly this is a message for all to take
seriously.
The court’s ruling sends a clear message to the
military, the business world and the country in general
that gay men and lesbians cannot be discriminated
against.
Discrimination isn’t just a gay issue. Prejudice,
bigotry, ignorance and hatred threaten the very fabric
of our nation. Until all people are truly equal under the
law, we as a nation fail.
Equal under the law doesn’t mean that everyone is
exactly the same. It means we acknowledge each
other’s individuality and respect each other’s
humanity.
This week the Supreme Court took a step in that
direction. We can only hope that as a nation we can
continue down this path.
Once more, the path
If someone gave the University a dollar every time
there was a call to look into building bicycle paths, we
could afford to do it.
It seems that every six months, there’s an accident
involving a bicycle. Subsequently, every six months
there’s a cry for bicycle paths, a ban on bicycles or
traffic laws for cyclists.
But like the results of all other task forces, sub
committees or in-depth studies nothing really comes to
fruition. Given all these problems, attempts at
solutions and more problems, one would think the
problem is quite complicated. It’s not.
The answer is quite simple — a little common sense
and a little common courtesy.
Certainly pedestrians must be aware of traffic.
That means looking both ways before crossing the
street, crossing in crosswalks and not stepping in front
of bicycles, buses or cars. Pedestrians cannot assume
that everyone will just stop for them.
Similarly, cyclists need to be aware that they are, in
a sense, a moving vehicle. Like it or not, pedestrians
have the right of way.
Cyclists are at an extreme disadvantage because
they must watch out for pedestrians, cars and
themselves. But, that’s life.
With the University facing numerous budget cuts
and so many departments suffering, we find it hard to
justify bike paths on campus. There are too many other
things that need that money — especially when
common sense doesn’t cost a dime.
We would like to see the new Athens-Clarke
government do something about the cycling safety
problem. Even a courteous and cautious cyclist is in
danger on Athens’ narrow streets. Cycling paths are
certainly a viable option there.
However, let’s not turn this over to another task
force or committee where the problem will drift to
obscurity until someone else is injured. When the new
government is laying the groundwork for its future, it
shouldn’t forget the problems of the present.
STAFF
NEWS: 543-1809
N«n Editor Jonnrfof Wilkin
tporto EdMor Randy Watkor
Entortalninont Editor: Coloon Brook*
Associate Nm Editor*. Dora Mclood. Elite both
Oraddy
front Pag* Copy Editor: Craig Hooter
Inside Copy Editor*: Chn* Ciont*. Sharon BorvOov,
Kym Tambourine, Margaret Woaton
UOA Today/ Wire Editor: U*a Kendall
Photo Editor Marla Day
Chief Photoffapher: Tracy St*nberg
OrapMca Editor: Stephen Morotki
SUN Writer*: Orrlnn Brunt. Lynn Bart's'd. Al
Dixon, Patrick Fiamgan, Chn* Onmoo, Lane* Holme,
Michael McLeod, Dan Pool. Sandra
Stephan*. Don* Whrto. Stacey Mclnto»h
Sport* Wrttor. Enk Schmidt
Trend* Editor Marla Edward*
Aaalatant Trend* Editor Stephen** Smith
■etwee* The Hedge* Ed*or David Paco
Aaatatant tetween Th* Hodg** Editor Enc Garber
Cartoonist: Mike Morou
Id ft artel Assistant Do* Do* Varga*
OpMMa* eapraoaod M The Hod and Risefe other then
unugnod odRonal* are th* opinion* of the writer* of
Mgnod column* and not noc***onfy those of The Rod
and Black Publishing Company me. Ail right*
roeorvod. Reprint* by porm»»<on of th* editor*
ADVERTISING: 543-1791
Studont Manager*: Kncholl* Halualani. Soon Fagan
Advertising Assistant*.
Niki Girardeau. Dewitt Mosby, Madeleine Wilson
Senior Advertising Representatives
Alan Holcomb, Lon Thurman
Advertising Represent at No*: Michael Bloom, Walter
Colt, Jeff Finger, Jeff Latham. Maureen Musgrovs.
Anoa Nickios. Kim Richard*. Ted Rooks, Both Total*,
Kelly Tyler, Chn* Vaughn.Voung-Sun Vun
Assistant Editorial Production Manager
Cnsttna Fomdt
Production staff: Andy An). Stephanie Crtsior,
Sam Essen, Laura Fnodnch, Lonn Marsh, Stacy
Stonberg, Michallo Wogert
OMco Manager: Mary Straub
Prorkiction Manager Manana Martin
ClassiSsd/Rocoptlonlot: Susan Anderson
C'*dlt Mmagsr: Susan Oavl*
Clerical: Nancy Davit
The Rad and Mack it published Tuesday through
Friday fan though *pnng quarter* and each Thursday
during summer quarter, with th* *xo*poors of
Tciidey* and *»*m period*, by Th* Rad end Black
PvAliahmg Company me. a nonprofit oampu*
newspaper not affiliated with th* UnMaraRy of
Georgia. 123 N. Jackson it. Athens. Go SOBOL
Third dot* postage paid ot Athene. Go. Subscription
rat* S30 par year
r m& A BETTER W0U$™? WP
TU£VKKU>WlHB8CTMfiWTD
vour poor,;:
-Ancient Chinesaproverb
m\K ENOUGH PEK5TRIWS AND
THE UNMERSny WIU. BUILD K 5KTH
TD^URBIKE.h’
-Ancient Aliens., GA proverb
Is Bush out of bounds in Gulf situation
On Tuesday of last week, President George
Bush was asked whether or not the Adminis
tration would employ military force in order to
get Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. He unwave
ringly answered ‘yes’. His justification? Well,
he did it before (in Panama) and he would do it
again if necessary.
Whether or not military force would indeed
be an effective tool for settling the crisis in the
Persian Gulf is one question. However, I believe
it is imperative to discuss the way in which
Bush is attempting to solve the problem. The
exigency of the situation in the Middle East in
no way justifies the sacrifice of fundamental
procedures upon which our representative de
mocracy rests.
On a purely technical level, Bush’s stance on
the use of the military blantantly violates the
War Powers Resolution. This legislation states
that: ‘The Constitutional powers of the Presi
dent as Commander-in-Chief to introduce
United States Armed Foces into hostilities, or
into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circum
stances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war, (2) specific statutory autho
rization, or (3) a national emergency created by
attack upon the United States, its territories or
possessions, or its armed forces."
Although the committing of troops in Saudi
Arabia hasn’t seriously violated the spirit of
this resolution, any use of military force would
be illegitimate, absent congressional approval.
By initiating a conflict without a declaration of
war or statutory authorization, the president
would be undermining these safeguards. And
since the oil we’re defending was not ours to
begin with, there could be no national emer
gency to justify military action.
There are broader implications to this, be
sides these technical violations. For instance,
By allowing presidents to
bypass legitimate procedures
we found ourselves in Vietnam.
should the public participate in foreign policy
decision-making? It seems to be unacceptable
for the executive branch of our government to
implement policies which affect domestic mat
ters without going through proper channels (i.e.
Congress). Our representatives serve to act in
the interests of their respective constituents.
However, this does not occur when foreign
policy is formulated. Instead, the public is sys
tematically exluded. Although this is not true
in all cases, it is especially true with regard to
acts of agression by the United States.
Public opinion should be taken into account.
There are several reasons for this. First, there
is the danger of dividing up the country over an
unpopular policy. This was especially true
during our involvement in the Vietnam conflict
with the destabilizing political backlash that
occurred when a substantial number of Ameri
cans disagreed with the government’s actions.
Certainly, this kind of domestic chaos did not
enhance national security.
Second, we run the risk of causing an unwar
ranted loss of lives when the administration
acts “in the public interest,” but without the
public’s endorsement. What if the President
and his advisors are wrong? What if American
citizens don’t believe that the benefits of a par
ticular polciy outweigh the costs? As citizens we
should be able to have our opinions heard. This
is possible only if our respective congressper-
sons are consulted before action is taken.
Finally, Bush’s attitude toward congres
sional approval sets a bad precedent. By al
lowing presidents to bypass legitimate
procedures in the past, we found ourselves in
volved in the Vietnam conflict which eventually
escalated to the level of war, at "ording to any
standard definition. Our legislature passed the
War Powers Resolution to avoid this.
It is ironic that the “American way of life” we
have been defending for so many years (that of
a system of checks and balances in govern
ment), has given way to a redefined “American
way of life:” a level of oil consumption unique to
the United States. It is even more ironic that
Mikhail Gorbachev has pledged to consult the
Soviet legislature before committing any troops
to the Persian Gulf. In fact, the Soviet Union re
cently acknowledged that the illegitimate inva
sion of Afghanistan occurred because the
government lacked sufficient checks. Mean
while, we have continued to use force as a
means of settling disputes in Panama, and pos
sibly Iraq without any regard for the system of
checks we already have.
Let us not forget our supposedly cherished
system of government. If the president’s future
actions are truly warranted, ne will be able to
galvanize the congressional support he needs-
without gutting democratic values.
Kelly Happe is a senior political science major.
Prof: Birds are a fair game
The article in The Red and Black
(11 A/90) “Prof: Birds aren’t a fair
game,” which ostensibly quotes
me, needs clarification. I asked the
reporter for an interview before he
wrote the article. To his credit, he
tried; but we missed connections.
Hence, the necessity of this letter.
Thankfully, my three
statements in quotes are accurate.
Unfortunately, the conclusions re
ported and attributed to me, are
utter travesty.
Last Tuesday's seminar topic,
‘The Biological Ramifications of
Hunting” was only a part, albeit an
important one, of the overall
seminar theme for the quarter,
‘The Question of Animal Rights, ”
a polemic involving many ques
tions of extreme sociological and bi
ological importance.
Other topics include organiza
tions involved, agribusiness and bi
ological research, the moral
aspects, the economic aspects, the
ecological aspects, etc.
As a teacher, I try not to force
my personal convictions on my stu
dents. I do try to encourage critical
thinking based on the fact rather
than emotion. Accordingly, as in
this seminar, I frequently play the
devil’s advocate to force people to
question “facts” and justify
opinion.
Obviously, in the present in
stance, this was grievously mis
construed. My students are
ecologically and biologically
oriented. Proponents of “animal
rights” frequently are not. It is im
portant for them to have informed
and bona-fide (i.e., without deceit)
discussions, hence our seminar
this quarter.
Space preludes proof (check
‘The Hunters Reply,” The Athens
Observer, September 13, 1990),
but, for the record, birds are fair
game. There are good biological
reasons for hunting animals that
do not damage habitat, and I don’t
reject suggestions from the audi
ence, though I may try to solicit
discussion.
We appreciate the interest in
our topic. Join us Tuesdays at 3:30
p.m. Maybe well both learn some
thing. After all, that’s what we’re
here for.
Ernie Provoet
School of Forest Resources
Goode too harsh
In the October 23 issue of The
Red an Black, David Goode ques
tioned the validity of Chriritan
Churches' alleged “support for mil
itary intervention" in the Middle
East given the pacifist teaching of
Jesus Christ.
He asks, “Is this support (in the
form of church messages saying
‘God bless our soldiers, God bless
our country*) for the military build
up in Saudi Arabia valid Chis-
tianity?" I would answer his ques
tion with a qualified “yes.”
Goode, in his indictmet of
‘‘Christian patriotism," does not
differentiate between a) agreeing
that the U.S. shold be in the
Middle East to kill as many Iraquis
as possible, and b)morally and
spiritually supporting the Ameri
cans who are assigned there.
The blessing of a group, such as
the armed forces of the U.S., is not
the same as endorsing the actions
which our governmnt has deemed
necessary to take. Therefore, in re
sponse to his editorial, I foward the
fallowing argument:
As Christians we have the re
sponsibility to recognize the au
thority of human institutions,
including athiestic human govern
ment unless their laws are antis-
criptural.
Christ might not have endorsed
the deployment of U.S. troops in
this case, but Lhis is not a dis
cussion of a just versus an ui\just
war. Mr. Goode asks where all
Christians are, who, in his opinion,
■ FORUM
□ The Red and Black welcomes letters to the editor and prints them in the Forum
column as space permits. All letters are subject to editing for length, style and li
belous material. Letters should be typed, doublespaced and must include the name,
address and daytime telephone number of the writer. Please include student classifi
cation, major, and other appropriate identification. Names can be omitted with a valid
reason upon request. Letters can be sent by U.S. mail or brought in person to The Red
and Black's offices at 123 N. Jackon St.. Athens. Ga.
should be protesting the United
States’ presence in the Middle
East. We are undertaking our own
spiritual warfare as directed by the
Bible.
We Christians are praying that
the deployment of U.S. troops will
not lead to a bloody conflict We are
praying that our national leaders
know what they are doing, and
that they are taking these actions
for the right reasons. We are
asking Christ to bless our friends,
sisters, brothers husbands and
sons who are in the Middle East.
Peter Wlelhouwer
graduate, political aclance
Finger off-base
I found JefT Finger’s column on
date rape to be a good example of
how a little knowledge can be
harmful.
He quotes from two sources, the
excellent and widely used brochure
on date rape from the American
College Health Association and
Section 16-6-1 of the Georgia Legal
Code. Had he included certain
phrases he chose to leave out of his
article, perhaps he would have an
swered his own question which
was “Does date rape really exist or
is it simply a job of persuasion?"
The ACHA’s defintion says
“aquaintace rape is forced, manip
ulated or coerced sexuaJ inter-
course by a friend or
aquaintance.(...a woman is forced
to have sex through verbal coer
cion, threats, physical restraint
and or physical violence.) He left
out the part which says “her pro
tests are ignored by the assailant.”
Legally, rape included three el
ements: 1) penetration, 2) force or
threat of force, and 3) lack of con
sent. The Georgia Code states
clearly that intimidation may sub
stitute for force and that mental co
ercion is also included under force.
The key aspect of forced sex that
Mr. Finger failed to emphasize is
that of consent. He confuses seduc
tion and persuasion with rape. Un
fortunately, he is not alone in this,
and our educational efforts on
campus continue to address this
confusion.
Seduction involves no force; it
occurs when a person is enticed or
“persuaded” into agreeing to have
sex. The key word is “agreeing."
Aquaintance rape often occurs
when seduction fails and the man
goes ahead and has sex anyway,
despite any protests and without
her agreement. The sad thing is
that even after the forced sex has
happened, he may feel that he has
merely seduced her, yet she feels
that she was raped.
We are fortunate to have a va
riety of educational resources on
this campus that deal with date
and aquaintance rape. SCOAR
(Student Committee on Aquain
tance Rape) and Peer Sexuality
Educators are student groups that
are available to do programs on
this topic.
I encourage Mr. Finger to talk
with other students about this
issue or come by the health service
and talk with me. It is a complex
issue and one that involves exam
ining and challenging some of our
ingrained assumptions about men,
women and sex.
Gloria Variey
Chair, Aquaintance Rape Network