The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 52, No. 17, Ed. 1 Thursday, February 18, 1965 Page: 2 of 10
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
■■■■THRESHING-IT-OUT
The Rice Thresher
CIUNC7
Hugh Rice Kelly, Editor
John Durham, Associate Editor
Jim Zumwalt, News Editor
Susan Bridges, Copy Editor
: c&ilcOiett udll felcuj
Friday saw one of the more depressing
spectacles we have witnessed on the Rice
campus in years. The groundbreaking for
the new Space Science Building was dis-
rupted by what can only be called a gang
of juvenile hooligans posing as pacifists.
We see nothing wrong with demonstra-
tions and picketing. These are proven
weapons in all non-violent political action
movements. An orderly non-violent dem-
onstration at the groundbreaking in favor
of such an authentic local issue as
free speech would have been both appro-
priate and effective in dramatizing such
a cause.
But Friday's so-called "demonstrators"
carried bogus "ban the bomb" signs, wan-
tonly mocking at one time a dignified
ceremony as well as the serious peace
movement. Such puerile activities brought
nothing but disgrace on the participants,
and besmirched the character of all Rice
students.
What is to be done about such efflores-
cences of Rice's childish element? Social
pressure, we suppose.
But the means apparently conceived by
the Dean of Students (who was termed,
innocently we expect, a "University secur-
ity officer" by a local TV station) scarcely
exceeded the level of the "demonstrators"
he accosted.
7/iet*ici*K; t6>in6 and cwiy a fay &tic6
It's funny how euphemisms like "in-
volvement" in place of "intervention"—
as with our "presence" in Vietnam—slip
virtually unnoticed into common parlance.
We even call our annual armaments
budget the "defense" budget.
We 'are the good guys, let there be no
doubt. And when we play Big Stick in the
boondocks of SE Asia, the word is "in-
volvement." 1
The U.S. word game on American ad-
venturism in the Far East is a game in
more senses than one. For if anyone can
regard the latest U.S. offensive in Viet-
nam as anything resembling a far-sighted
or consistent policy we would like to see
his cases.
Korea should have proved that the U.S.
cannot defeat the Red Chinese horde in a
conventional war. Then as now the Chi-
nese can scarcely be expected to allow
their ally to be crushed by U.S. forces;
but American policy apparently discounts
►the probability of Chinese 'volunteers'
joining a hardpressed North Vietnam. Is
the U.S. then morally or strategically pre-
pared to mount a nuclear offensive against
China ?
tiiat totAfiicCen
Last week's action by the Editor of the
Thresher in exposing the business habits
of the Thresher business staff has been
widely misinterpreted as "graft," "pocket-
lining" and the like. What this proves
more than any thing is that most people
simply will not read what is placed before
their eyes.
The Editor emphasized and reempha-
sized at the time that there were no moral
questions involved in the actions of the
business staff of the paper. What the
Business Managers have been doing for
years is simply to conceal the Thresher
profits until the end of the year (when
it's too late to spend a surplus) and then
pocket an honest—if somewhat ill-got—
profit.
The philosophy involved is similar to
that of the Detroit automakers: e.g. don't
make a quality automobile and sell it on
its merits, but rather cheapen your prod-
uct and make your profit on slipshod
autos. The Thresher business staffs never
proved willing to put out the effort to
finance a really quality Thresher, and
tried—successfully—for years to bilk their
editors into diluting their product by con-
cealing what profits did exist.
Those concerned with sin may chalk up
many sins against candor, but none
against the integrity of last semester's'
business manager, Mr. Derkacz.
0?*ofrtote&: 70^& cutd Autttwi
• We note with pleasure not unmixed
with chagrin this week's eruption of let-
ters to the editor from WRC in protest
against the Thresher's editorial on Open
House, last week. Pleasure since it gives
us an opportunity to see how they ration-
alize begging the Dean to turn over ad-
ministration of his policy to the College
while affirming his "principle," that
chastity is everybody else's business,
While we appreciate rather acutely the
potential absurdity of our standing uncon-
ditionally on the sound principles of a
free society, in "concrete policy as well as
theory, the'attempts of the WRC letters-
phalanx strikes us as even a few grada-
tions more absurd.
• If anyone wants a Thresher and
can't find one, stop by the desk at the
main entrance of Fondren Library. We
have arranged to haye a large supply of
them there all week.
• Readers who have become fond of
Charles Demitz's writings in the Thresher
("Cathartic Digest") and notice his ab-
sence from the paper this week, we offer
the same explanation he foisted upon us,
to-wit: "I finked out." Social pressure is
the only answer to the Demitz problem:
his room number is 233 Hanszen College.
Sir:—Your editorial on open
house last week was definitely
unfair to Will Rice's position.
First of all let me assert that
I have not in the past and do
not at present espouse the po-
sition that "utter communal
celibacy is a good, ol' puritan
ethic Good1 Thing," nor do I in-
tend to in the future.
I don't recall making any
such statements to any Thresh-
er reporter; to my mind this
imputation verges on libel, but I
wouldn't want to make an issue
of it.
What you call the "true roots"
of the problem lie basically
within the in loco parentis at-
titude toward student conduct
maintained by the university
and the involvement of the col-
leges with that attitude.
In Loco Parentis
It is obviously unrealistic to
expect the colleges to agree
with this attitude as your edi-
torial seems to imply, particu-
larly since some other "major-
league" universities have drop-
ped the in loco parentis atti-
tude and adopted one based on
a total personal education.
The first half of the speech
from which my comments were
lifted was based on the article
"Must the Colleges Police Sex?"
by John T. Rule, former Dean
of Students at M.I.T. (Atlantic,
April 1964). But since the basic
attitude seems unlikely to
change soon, we have chosen to
work within it as best we can
as a matter of expediency.
'Ironclad Guarantee'
You mention an "ironclad
guarantee that no sexual inter-
course shall take place"; this is
a patent absurdity and every-
body knows it. Any student resi-
dence with the ease of entrance
found in the colleges could not
be rigidly policed no matter how
piu'itanical one's attitude.
All we are proposing is that
the present regulations govern-
ing open house (and the "closed-
house" rule, section 3 of the
Rules of Residence) can be en-
forced with something like the
effectiveness of the academic
honor system, and that there is
therefore no reason not to have
regular and frequent opSn
houses.
Our recently-elected Open
House Committee will present
their proposal soon and we will
welcome your further comments
when you are somewhat better
informed on the facts of the
matter.
TOM SCHUNIOR
Will Rice President
Kennemer Challenges
Open House Editorial
Sir:—After reading your editor-
ial entitled "Chastity; private,
public, and regulated," one can
only infer that you are opposed
to any open house during which
you are required to curb your
sexual impulses.
At Will Rice, we have decided
that our primary goal is to
be able to "entertain our dates
at home, with the advantages
of spontaneity, informality, and
privacy which this entails." As
a major part of this goal, we
require more open house .hours
on a daily basis instead of the
present policy of "special oc-
casion" hours.
Since it appears that the only
way to get these hours is to
agree to prevent violations such
as those which ended the orig-
inal liberal open house hours, we
are prepared to do so.
If you, personally, are op-
posed to open house without sex,
then you may protest by refus-
ing to entertain women guests
in your room. But we want open
house, if need be, without sex,
and we don't appreciate your
hindering our efforts to get it.
RICHARD W. KENNEMER, '66
WRC Open House Committee
Chairman,
Htldner Claims Open House
Freedom Not Possible
Sir:—The author of the editorial
on the Will Rice open house
policy needs to be congratulated
on his definitive work. It was
the most definitive article on
journalism naivete I have yet
encountered.
The "new wave of morality"
that the editorial implies ha3
swept away all the remnants of
Puritanism save the Dean, the
Administration, and the Will
Rice College President, will, I
submit, continue to fail in over-
whelming the attitudes of cer-
tain individuals.
Pick up almost any Sunday
Supplement and consider the
myriad of articles written in an
attempt to turn back this
"wave." If the old morality, is.
anachronistic it will die under
the continued pressure of new
thinkers and new ideas. We may
very well pay too dear a price
if we wait for the one-stroke
annihilation of this morality.
My question is this: Why
should we endure the present
monastic system until that glor-
ious time when we rise full-
blown in our new morality to
wrest the control of university
life away from the Dean? Not
everyone agrees to your "new
morality," but almost everyone
dislikes the monasticism im-
posed by the present system.
You present an extremely bad
case when you openly castigate
any open house ^policy which
does not clamor for sexual inter-
course in the men's colleges. En-
gaging "substantial issues of
principle and right," is an in-
teresting philosophical enter-
prise; but if we truly dislike our
present system, why not recog-
nize that we cannot soon es-
tablish a sexual Shangri-La
within the context of the society
in which Rice finds itself?
Let us instead support the
Will Rice policy as a substan-
tial basis for insisting on con-
tinuing student responsibility.
RICK HEIDNER
Will Rice '66
Dies Slams
'All Or Nothing' Editorial
Sir:—In an entirely baffling
editorial last week, you first
congratulated the Will Rice
Open House plan on its "clarity
in expressing the real issues,"
and then urged that it be with-
drawn to contemplate a "frontal
assault on the true roots of the
present problem."
These roots, it seems, are
somehow involved with the re-
placement of the "old hypocrisy"
with the "new morality."
Sir, I urge you to contemplate
the position of the dean of a
school in the heart of the "good
old Puritan" Baptist South, a
school whose students have, in
the past, demonstrated to his
satisfaction that they lack the
tact and sophistication to. carry
off an often house situation of
the "Ivy League" type, with re-
spect to the new morality.
For, like it or no, Rice is al-
ways going to have a "mother-
proteotor-sins - against - chastity
Dean," and like it or no, he is
going to have to approve of- any
open house plan which is to be
effected.
(Continued on Page 8)
THE RICE THRESHER, FEBRUARY 1 8, 196 5—P AGE 2
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.
Kelly, Hugh Rice. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 52, No. 17, Ed. 1 Thursday, February 18, 1965, newspaper, February 18, 1965; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth244935/m1/2/?rotate=90: accessed June 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.