The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 51, No. 3, Ed. 1 Wednesday, September 25, 1963 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:
Sect ?4ttd *7&e IRice Student
Saturday night somebody kicked a sleeping dog.
To the surprise of fourteen people under the age
of 21 and the chagrin of the Sophomore class,
he still has the teeth he was bom with.
For the student body, the administration and
the Thresher, this is what is known as a sticky
wicket. c,
The beer-drinking Rice student has for years
held an uneasy truce with a semi-fundamentalist
municipality whose adherence to the puritan
Southern ethic has been unwavering in its public
pronouncements but something less than con-
sistent in its private practice.
Not that the under-21 Rice beer drinker wasn't
warned. Every student officer has had a chance
to read Section 7 of the Regulations Governing
Student Organizations, and every student has been
exposed to the pertinent sections of the 1 exas
Liquor Control Act. What they counted on was
fifty years of officially averted eyes or the vague
feeling that somebody in the administration had
a direct line to the Liquor Control Board.
I or the Rice student directly or indirectly in-
volved. the enforced repentence of a brief imprison-
ment and small fine is a novel and unpleasant
experience. He can dream up a whole litany of
injustices involved in his arrest or public em-
barassment from erratic and selective enforcement
to the seemingly patent absovdities of the law itself.
But they just don't hold up. 1 he law may be
unreasonable and arbitrary—as we think it is—
and its enforcement may be spotty. But the law
is still on the books, and every Rice students
knows it; no one not legally permitted to do so
should suppose that he takes no risk if he takes
a drink.
We are in no position to condemn the students
who were caught, just as we do not condemn the
many other violators who were overlooked. The
sin, if there is one, is not in getting caught; every
other student who contributed his tacit approval
or his physical presence is just as involved in
whatever questions the incident raises. Some of
these are suggested elsewhere on this page.
What is at least clear is that random raids
will not stop Rice students from drinking. Neither
is friendly enforcement an answer to an un-
realistic law nor "boys will be boys" an answer
to irresponsible drinking.
The way things stood a week ago, and, bar-
ring a sudden fit of enlightment in the state
legislature, the way they will stand a month from
now, is simple. The vaguely prohibitionist public
will be happy with its law; the college boys will
carry on in the usual manner, making occasional
offerings to the conscience of the community.
College students are college students.
1 he law is the law.
Like we said, it's a sticky wicket.
Staff
Student Senate
Start irith the assumption that student govern-
ment at Rice exists to serve some useful purpose,
.-hid to that the corollary that any government
should be designed to jit the purpose it serves.
(Question: Where does that leave the Student
Semite ?
Answer: About as anachronistic as class gov-
ernments and buggy whips.
1 he student officer who serves on his college
cabinet and sits on the Senate is wasting his time,
and most who do so know it. ITieir first loyalty
is to their college. If past Senates are any indica-
tion. the attitude of tins year's senators will be
reflected m an amazing lack ol respect for their
official position m a body that purports to be the
highest student legislative authority on the campus.
We are not trying to pre-judge this year's
Senate members: as individuals, their intentions are
surely good enough. And yet we have the feeling
that I hev, like so many of their predecessors, will
soon enough run up hard against the realities of
all-school institutions on this campus and seek
elsewhere for better and more important uses for
their time. All we have to go on is past experience
ami a persistent feeling that there is something
, fundamentally wrong with the way all-school gov-
ernment i.- jHit together on this campus.
I lie Student Senate is a strange animal: It
looks like an intercollege council, but it makes
noises like an all-school legislature. As a result,
what the Senate lacks most is a sense of purpose.
And why shouldn't it? Its members, as in-
dividuals1 who are sufficiently concerned with the
future ot student government to take the time to
serve on it, do have a purpose, and their purpose
centers around their college. I hey do not think like
senators, and they do not act like senators, and,
what's more, nobody really expects them to.
"Minutes Approved After Heated Debate" was
the. headline of a 1 hresher April Fool story last
year, and if that more or less accurately describes
what most students think the Senate does, it does
not seem to make much difference. We really
ought to have an all-school government, the think-
ing seems to go, and since we don't begin to
know what to do with a real one anyway, we
might as well keep the one we've got.
Surely there are more important things for the
President of the Student Body to do than tell
the freshmen, "College is the place where you
learn to doubt" or make cash bonds in the middle
of the night, valuable or necessary as these acti-
vities may respectively be. We are certain, in fact,
that the current occupant of that office does want
to do a good many of these things, just as so many
of his predecessors have wanted to do them. But
he will never be able to make an all-school govern-
ment out of prefabricated parts designed for the
exclusive use of a college system.
1 he parts are jerry-rigged anyway. 1 he Senate
is" just as much a failure as an intercollege council
as it is as an all-school government. Discussion
of problems common and unique to the colleges is
reserved for other places than the floor of the
Senate, just as it would be in a comprehensive and
well-designed plan of government.
In short, to confine the Senate within the
structure of an intercollege council is to emasculate
the Senate and offer nothing to the colleges.
I here are two alternatives open to the Senate
for its future development, and the pair are by no
means mutually exclusive. I hrough design or by
accident, more and more of the Senate's work is
being done through committee— not the ephemeral
and much-scorned study committee but the per-
manent and highly important administrative com-
mittee that is responsible for much that is valuable
in all-school activity. 1 he Social Committee,
Student Committee on Education Policy, Forum
Committee and Student Center Board are examples
of such committees, and the possibilities exist for
still more. Each of these student groups share at
least one common feature with all the others: 't
performs an important function for all the students
that is at once administrative and creative and that
could not be performed by any college acting alone.
* 1 nese committees, together with a selection of
the more important extra-curricular activities, are
so significant a part of Rice organizational life
that they deserve recognition and representation on
an expanded Student Association Executive Com-
mittee.
1 here are many who think that the increasing
importance of the colleges has robbed the Senate
of any legitimate legislative function. If they are
right, the Senate itself might eventually dissolve
itself out of an overwhelming sense of boredom,
preferring the relative grace of suicide to the
embarrassment of senility.
But we still hold out the hope that there
remains some real function for the Senate as the
voice of the whole student body on matters of uni-
versity policy If the leaders of the student body can
find this purpose, then they must also redesign the
Senate to fit it, perhaps filling it with representatives
chosen at large by academic major designations
and sending the college officers back to do the
work they really want to do.
EJK
iMumir
Sorry, old man. No ID, no tbeer.
PERSPECTIVE
| Our Phantom Competence j
g The injustices of the liquor laws under which the com-g
gmunity and the University operate have been argued often,j=
|j\vell, and with good reason. To operate under erraticallyg
gen forced laws which require occasional sacrifices in the l'orm 3
gof arrests, expulsion, and probation, as the community and!
gluniversity laws have in past years, is to sacrifice reason||
||to expediency. But few of us would have the working ar-H
=rangenients that usually exist between the authorities and=
gthe drinking student disrupted: they represent the only!
gsolution to a sticky problem. =
H Texas law, as well as University policy, is designed tog
gprevent and punish excessive and irresponsible use of alco-g
gholic beverages. The ambiguity in the enforcement of these!
glaws which resulted in" the arrest of sixteen students lasts
gSaturday night stems from a variety of roots. The first ofg
gthese is the difficulty of thoroughly and uniformly enforcing!!
gthe laws. But tittle is undoubtedly* some uncertainty on theS
gpart of the authorities of both the community and the Uni-ij
gversity concerning a definition of competence in the use off!
galcohol, and this often works to the advantage of the student.g
g Few of us would argue with the intent of the law, but!
gits rather arbitrary division, at age 21, between those com-j
gpetent and incompetent to make their "own decisions often!
gseems unrealistic and leaves something to be desired. Tog
glive in an ostensibly puritan community demands sacrifices,!
gand these we make in the form of infrequent arrests, and!
gpenalties assessed by a harassed administration. An absusd!
=system, but we can live with it. !
g In our thinking on the subject of drinking, however,!
gthere is a tendency to be as self-righteous about our compe-g
!tence as the community is about its purtanical laws. Weg
gassume that we are competent to use liquor responsibly, org
gat least assume responsibility for its use. We assume as!
gwell that we ought to be the sole arbiters of our competenceg
g—that our evaluation for our use of alcohol ought to be suf-g
gficient and final. g
g This rationale has merits, particularly if the acousticsg
Hjof our social structure are such that self-criticism can be=
gheard within. No doubt such a healthy social structure would!
gpolice its own use of alcohol by ostracism and other means.g
gSurely excessive use of alcohol speaks for itself. But ourg
gacoustics fail us: neither the voices of self-criticism nor thoseg
gof excessive use seem to be heard, if social events are takeng
gas the measure. g
g It may well be that'the pressures, financial and other-!
gwise, of staging social events each weekend of the yearjj
gexhaust both the ability and the urge to be imaginative.!!
§|But the fSct remains that "Flush" type affairs fill many of!
gthe dates on our calendar. Often a social function at Riceg
gis no more than a gathering of couples, rock and roll, and!
gbeer in a setting that is little thought of if little desired.!
gSuch gatherings seldom spawn conversation or intercourse!
gof any kind between participants. g
M It is^ tragic to find our social needs so easily satisfied.!
gThe "Flushes" serve only to reflect an escape from the dis-g
gciplines—intellectual, esthetic, emotional, and physical—that!
gare necessary to meaningful relationships. They serve asg
gescapes from, or alternatives to situations which might make||
gthe business of life meaningful. Sensitivity in love, music,g
gart—or even toward one's date—find no reception in the Odd!
gFellows hall. It knows only impotent sensualism and the!
gclamor of a gregarious crowd. . J
g We may righteously be indignant that some of our num-j
gber have been rather randomly inconvenienced, but such!
gindignation must find expression as the companion of healthyg
gself-criticism. If we are to receive privileges from a com-!
gmunity that only grudgingly relents from its Puritanism,!
gwe must use them well. §j
1 T. G.I
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.
Keilin, Eugene. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 51, No. 3, Ed. 1 Wednesday, September 25, 1963, newspaper, September 25, 1963; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth244892/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.