December 28, 2000

Eagle Eye on Austin - Pecans, Sports, and Videotape

Jesuit College Preparatory School in Dallas and Strake Jesuit College Preparatory in Houston are facing an unfortunate dilemma. Although deemed too large to compete in the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (TAPPS) league, these two religious schools have been unable to gain entrance into the larger University Interscholastic League (UIL) of public schools because of a law disallowing private school participation. This situation may soon change, however, if a recently filed bill secures passage in the Texas legislature. The bill in question is Rep. Joe Nixon's (R-Houston) H.B. 386, which would allow private schools to participate in UIL activities provided that they meet certain criteria. The criteria include requirements that the schools (a) enroll only one gender, (b) draw students from the same area as the surrounding public school district, (c) maintain accreditation, and (d) offer a four-year high school curriculum.

Although seemingly innocuous, the legislation is certain to generate some controversy. Many in the home school and private school community are opposed to any measure that would entangle private education in state run programs, and participation by private schools in UIL would certainly constitute entanglement. Others feel that barring private schools from participating in UIL activities is unfair. Students and educators at Jesuit and Strake certainly feel that the current system is unfair, especially in light of the fact that the families paying tuition at these schools also pay taxes to help fund the public school system, and yet are unable to participate in ANY league competitions, public or private. These same students and educators must be cautious, however, that their efforts to join UIL do not result in additional government regulation of their schools. Their particular quandary, and others similar to it (most notably, the voucher issue), lend credence to the idea of proposing an amendment to the Texas Constitution protecting private schools from additional regulation when they join a state funded league or participate in state funded interscholastic activities. Such an amendment would effectively mitigate the dangers posed to private schools from even casual contact with public programs, and would allow the students at Jesuit and Strake to play sports without their parents worrying that Uncle Sam was slipping into the classroom through the locker room.

Representative Dale Tillery (D-Dallas) would like for parents to have the ability to see their children the way school videographers do - on videotape. According to Tillery's recently filed bill, H.B. 425, parents should have access to "any videotape made or authorized by a school district and recorded on equipment owned or leased by the district, including a security camera videotape, in which the parent's child appears." Rep. Tillery's staff has been unavailable for comment due to the holiday season, but the provisions in this legislation appear to serve the interests of parent's rights in the public school system.

Senator Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) has an affinity for pecans, so much so that he is prepared to proclaim the pecan the "Official State Health Nut of Texas." This honor does not come without some peculiarly impressive credentials on the part of the pecan. Not only is the nut used in the pie beloved to Texans everywhere, it boasts ample supplies of "protein, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated healthy oils, carbohydrates, fiber, iron, calcium, phosphorus, zinc, and potassium, as well as vitamins A, B, C, and E and other antioxidants." In addition, "scientific studies have also demonstrated that pecans can lower cholesterol, significantly contributing to improved cardiovascular health, while helping to reduce the risk of cancer." Get out your forks and bring on the pecan pie!

Commentary - "Borking" in Progress

Conservatives have, on the whole, been overwhelmingly disappointed with President-elect George W. Bush's nominees for crucial Cabinet positions. A casual perusal of the nominees announced thus far includes ardently pro-choice Colin Powell for Secretary of State, stridently pro-choice Christie Todd Whitman for Director of the EPA, confusedly pro-choice Condoleeza Rice for National Security Advisor, and the starchy corporate benefactor of Planned Parenthood Paul O'Neill for Treasury Secretary. Standing like a beacon of hope amidst this wasteland of mushy "moderate-ism" stands convincingly pro-life John Ashcroft, the former Governor of and one-time U.S. Senator from the state of Missouri. Mr. Ashcroft is Bush's nominee for Attorney General, and will be a powerful advocate for life once confirmed by the Senate…or should I say if confirmed by the Senate. For you see, the wonderful world of bi-partisanship that we are told by the Left is bound to come about as a result of the recent barn-burner of a Presidential election may yet turn out to be nothing more than the messiest political food fight of all time. Ironically enough, the Lefties may be the ones preparing to hurl the first spoonful of Jell-O across the aisle in the form of a "borked" nomination.

In order to illustrate the point more clearly, the genealogy of the term "borked" must be traced back to its ignominious roots. Used as an adjective, the term means to "reject a nominee because of ideological reasons, usually in a nasty, vituperative way" (this is my own operative definition for those getting out their dictionaries at this very moment). This definition, in turn, stems from the original borking incident; namely, the U.S. Senate's rejection of Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987. Prior to his nomination by Reagan, Bork had served with distinction as a U.S. Appeals Court Judge, and had even received praise from then Senate Judiciary Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) as a brilliant legal scholar. Once his nomination to the Supreme Court was announced, however, radical groups on the left launched what was then an unprecedented attack on a Presidential nominee. Groups like Planned Parenthood and People for the American Way began telling the public that Bork would "turn back the clock on civil rights" and actively agitate for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Just for good measure, they also accused Bork of wanting to impose quotas on the size of families, gleefully conniving to sterilize workers to prevent lower class pregnancy. True, Bork had questioned the reasoning behind the Warren Court's ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, and was an unapologetic opponent of abortion, but he was by no means a megalomaniac. In fact, his strict-constructionist views of the Constitution actually threatened to (egad!) reinforce the crumbling bulwark of the rule of law against unrestrained judicial activism. This fact more than any other fueled the Left's opposition to his nomination, and assured his ultimate demise.

Remarkably, history has a tendency to repeat itself. Bush has touted Ashcroft as a man who respects the rule of law, and strives for a color-blind application of the law at all times. Pro-life groups revere him as a champion of the unborn, the courageous Senator who unabashedly supported the partial-birth abortion ban, and even supported a Constitutional Amendment that would have made abortion illegal altogether. This fact has not been lost on the radical groups orbiting around the Democratic Party. Once again, the clarion call has been sounded by the Left, and battle lines have already begun to form. Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, has exclaimed, "John Ashcroft is the antithesis of the person required to lead the Department of Justice. With the possible exception of Sen. Jesse Helms, I do not believe anyone in the United States Senate has a more abysmal record on civil rights and civil liberties." The Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, president of the Religious coalition for Reproductive Choice, called Ashcroft's nomination an "attack by Bush on safe, legal abortion services and an opening for a resurgence of abortion clinic violence." MSNBC.com recently ran a headline story on Ashcroft's statement that Confederate war heroes were "patriots" and suggesting they shouldn't be portrayed as having died for "some perverted agenda" in an attempt to hype the sentiment that Ashcroft is opposed to civil rights for blacks. True, Ashcroft did oppose the nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White, a black American, to the Federal Bench because he felt White was soft on crime, and his opinions on abortion are well documented. But one cannot ignore the fact that the Left is looking for a conservative scalp after Gore's loss, and Ashcroft has painted a target squarely on his forehead thanks to his attacks on the liberal sacred cows of hate crimes legislation, abortion rights, and affirmative action. One also must recognize the striking parallels found between the attacks on Bork and the current assault on Ashcroft (i.e. Civil rights and abortion rights are being threatened!) With the Senate split 50-50 and plenty of spineless Republicans to go around, why not go after a lightning rod like Ashcroft? Looks like bi-partisanship is going to last about as long as a Big Mac in Bill Clinton's hands. Don't look now, but there may be an attempted borking underway.

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org