The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 49, No. 16, Ed. 1 Friday, February 9, 1962 Page: 2 of 10
ten pages : ill. ; page 21 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
•THE THRESHER EDITORIAL PAGE
*76e 'Zfafat Of S*/becUe*cy
The question of the continuation of the college
open house policy, settled last week by adminis-
trative action, has reopened the long-standing
but never-settled problem of the student's role
in setting and enforcing the regulations by which
he is governed in the university community.
President Pitzer's forthright statement to the
college presidents and masters—that he entered*4
a discussion of such a responsibility with no pre-
conceived notions as to the proper sphere of
student autonomy—has given promise that a so-
lution. to the problem is indeed possible.
The framework for such a discussion should
center around the concept that student govern-
ment must provide a meaningful exercise in the
principles of a democracy for all students. Such
an experience implies that the students should
have a hand both in determining and in admin-
istering the regulations under which they are
governed, realizing always that these regulations
must be in harmony with the general policies
of the university administration.
In this context, the Administration is sincerely
bewildered by what it regards as a lack of stu-
dent responsibility in the carrying out of current
university regulations and policies. It is obvious-
ly true that the majority of students outside of
the college and student association governments
do not feel compelled to accept the responsibility
for the discipline of themselves and their class-
mates. In the face of widespread student indif-
ference, the college presidents argue that the
students must learn to accept what responsibility
they have before they can be granted further
responsibility, not to mention an extension of
rights and privileges.
Perhaps the college presidents are right, but
we feel compelled to venture a dissenting opinion.
It is our contention that the student body will
accept responsibility only for those regulations
which they have had a share in formulating.
Responsibility will be assumed only by consent,
and consent will be granted only when the stu-
dent feels his participation in student govern-
ment has a real effect in determining the nature
of the rules he is asked to enforce. As long as
student responsibility seems like little more than
a game, the rules of which are predetermined
and subject to change without notice or consulta-
tion, few students will feel like playing it.
We admit the legitimate concern of the ad-
ministration over a lack of student responsibility
and respect the college presidents' desire to pre-
serve and strengthen the present system, but we
contend that the vagueness of current policies
and the lack of a real opportunity for student
participation precludes the possibility that the
students will ever assume the role expected of
them.
• A portion of Edgar Odell Lovett's Inaugural
Address, delivered fifty years ago, is instructive.
Dr. Lovett claimed, "There is nothing unusual
in insisting that the spirit of one's college is
democratic. Every college in the country con-
tends that it has the spirit of true democracy;
the only difference, if any, is that here we do
have it." The contemporary Rice student is apt
to wonder.
A case in point is the continuing dispute over
university policy in matters of discipline.
How much of the educational process is dis-
torted or lost when the method of running a uni-
versity becomes its own end? What are the
odds that justice will prevail when speed and
secrecy are. the bases of the trial procedure? A
full investigation takes time—a full trial takes
even longer—and so does the right to appeal the
decision to a higher authority with the possi-
bility of re-trial. Each one multiplies the chance
of justice, but they also increase the chance of
publicity and so must be abolished.
Or must they? Is this image of the university
so artificial that it bears no relationship to the
individual in the university? Or can common
ground be found to serve the interests both of
university and individual?
The answer is obvious where expediency has
become habitual and justice has become only a
word.
7#t "Protect
"DID you SAY SOMETHING?"
Last week the proctor was given instructions
to begin issuing tickets to cars which park in
the "mud bowl" on the other side of the road just
west of Sammy's.
No announcement from the office of the Dean
was made beforehand to the student body.
We ask where, then, visitors and students who
have business to attend to in the Memorial Cen-
ter are supposed to leave their vehicles? The
pitifully undersized lot designated for this pur-
pose is usually full and it allows only four spaces
for temporary student parking, but three times
that for visitors parking.
If distinctions between student and visitor
must be made in the lot, that ratio should be
reversed or at least equalized. And how many
Rice students on urgent business in the RMC
must park guiltily in a space plainly marked
"Visitors Only" when the four marked "Tempor-
ary Parking"—i.e. for the students—are already
taken up?
For the time being, we can not see to what
use the land in question is being, put, aside from
the Owl Band's drill field. Why couldn't it be
surfaced temporarily to extend the facilities of
the RMC lot, with the same limitations—tem-
porary parking only—placed on it? If the proc-
tor can issue tickets for .cars which park there
now, why can't he treat cars temporarily parked
there as he does in the existing lot?
Yes, we are inconvenienced.
•THRESHING-IT-OUT
Fallon Says
Was M ore
To the Editor:
The colleges have been de-
prived of their open house priv-
ileges until they can restore in
the Administration a confi-
dence that they have become
more fully aware of both the re-
sponsibilities and the privileges
of the residential system.
Following this was a natural
reaction on the part of some of
our students to turn hastily to
accusation rather than thought-
fully to evaluation. Part of this
feeling manifested itself in a
recent Thresher Editorial en-
titled "Athletes and the College
System."
It is with the central theme
of this article, that athletes and
the college system „ are incom-
FACUITY SOUND-OFF
What Happens To Sophimers?
Dr. Jack Conner, Associate Profes-
sor of English, writes the seventh article
in the series. He received his Ph.D.
from Stanford University.—Ed.
By JACK CONNER
English Department
A long time ago, so long ago
that no one now living remem-
bers it, a Sophomore was not a
wise fool (sophos "wise" plus
moron "moron"), as he is now.
A sophimer was a second-year
student, one engaged in the
study of dialetic. Dialetic was
called sophism (or sophim, or
sophom, or sophum), and one
who engaged in it was a soph-
The-
Thresher
The Rice Thresher, the official student newspaper of Rice University,
is published weekly from September to June, except during holiday recesses
and examination periods, and when unusual circumstances warrant a special
issue. The opinions expressed are those of the student staff and - do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Rice University administration.
Entered as second class matter, October 17, 1917, at the post office
in Houston, Texas, under the act of March 8, 1870.
EDITORIAL STAFF
EDITOR MARJORIE TRULAN
ASSOCIATE EDITOR GRIFFIN SMITH
Managing Editor Eugene Keilin Engineering and Science
News Editor Fryar Calhoun
Feature Editor Harvey Pollard
Sports Editors Dick Park,
Milton Nirken, Ronnie Kline
Senate Larry Moore
Colleges Charles Kipple
Politics Kenn Carr,
Syd Nathans, Pat McQowan
Steve McCleary
Religion Phil Strange
Fine Arts Robert Zelenka,
Stefan Offenbach
Photography Scott Morris,
Bob Warren, John Reavis
Cartoons Charles Dent
Faculty Advisor Dr. Donald Mackenrie
BUSINESS STAFF
BUSINESS MANAGER CHARLES WILLIAMS
Assistant Business Manager Danny Tompkins
Local Advertising and Circulation Manager Burton 3 WW man
National Advertising Manager Dick Viable
ismer (or sophimer . . .).
There has been a great deal
of progress since then. Nowa-
days it is the first-year stu-
dents who engage in dialectic.
Second-year undergraduates are
disengaged.
EVERY YEAR hundreds of
eager Freshmen arrive all full
of zeal and ready to meet head-
on the challenge of higher edu-
cation. They question every-
thing. They do assignments.
They argue. They object to
shoddy teaching (shoddy: an
inferior wollen yarn made from
fibers taken from used fabrics;
anything of less worth or
quality than it appears or is
claimed td have) and slipshod
logic and mickey-mouse busy
work. (They have read books,
ancl they remember what was in
the books, and they try to make
what they remember fit with
what they are learning in col-
lege.)
By September of the follow-
ing year, when those same peo-
ple "come back, you wouldn't
recognize them". They file into
the room, open their notebooks,
poise their ball-points, and sit
docilely waiting for the lecture
to begin.
WHEN IT BEGINS, they
write it down, even if they al-
ready know what is being said.
They never question anything
in the lectures: if the professor
says that Aristotle's supposed
writings are a joyous hoax by
an insane Oxford don, down it
goes in the notes; come exam
time, that same remark goes
word for word into the blue
book.
Sophomores do not do assign-
ments; they punch them. Soph-
omores argue about grade
points, but not about anything
else. Shoddy teaching is just
what they want. Slipshod logic is
the only kind they ever use. If
they have read any books they^
have forgotten all about it.
This phenomenon, has been
called the Sophomore Slump.
Naming it, though (despite a
common assumption), does not
explain it.
IT WOULD BE easy to say
that someone in the home
towns—the Jaycees, maybe, or
the Klan—gets to them between
(Continued on Page 7)
the System
at Fault
patible, that I wish to take is-
sue.
<
First of all, to correct the rel-
atively trivial yet damaging
statement that a "great major-
ity of those involved in open
house violations have been ath-
letes," I would point to the re-
sults of recent investigations to
support me in saying' that this
is a false and premature judge-
ment.
The fact remains, however,
that some of the students in-
v o 1 v e d were athletes. This
brings me to the crux of the
problem, to the question of com-
patibility. It has been insinu-
ated (if not suggested) that the
removal of athletes from the
rolls of the University would
eliminate the one 'continuing,
chromic problem with which the
colleges have been unable to
deal.'
This seems to indicate that
without athletes there would be
few, perhaps even no breaches
of discipline among the resi-
dents of the various colleges.
My feeling is 'that this is an
unrealistic assumption. Rather
than belabor this point, how-
ever, I would remind those who
are dissatisfied with the con-
duct of athletes that they are
not alone.
In recent years there has been
a general feeling on the part
of both the coaching staff and
the administration that Rice
could get a higher grade of ath-
lete if the academic gap be-
tween the Physical Education
and the Academic Departments
were filled.
With this in mind the Com-
merce Department was created
this year. In this light we have
grounds to hope that these new-
ly granted academic privileges,
heretofore denied, will manifest
themselves in a more whole-
some and positive attitude on
the part of the athlete, recipro-
cated by an appreciation of this
attitude by his fellow student.
With the recognition of the
fact that the sysem was more at
fault than the individual, com-
patibility should follow.
JOHN FALLON, ATHLETE '62
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 49, No. 16, Ed. 1 Friday, February 9, 1962, newspaper, February 9, 1962; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth231198/m1/2/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.