The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 52, No. 24, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 25, 1965 Page: 2 of 8
eight 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:
GOODMAN ON BERKELEY
Students evolve new ideology
By RICHARD BEST
The demonstrations at Berke-
ley and their counterpart at
Rice inevitably became a prin-
cipal topic in student conversa-
tions with Dr. Paul Goodman,
this year's Hanszen Symposium
Speaker.
Goodman's basic contention is
that university education should
be reserved for those with an
academic cast of mind. For
others, he finds it both un-
necessary and indeed inimical.
The university is a community
of scholars; its only function
is to teach the seriously inter-
ested.
All else is irrelevant; research
especially should be removed to
separate institutions.
Faculty Makes Rules
Under such a system, the ad-
ministration has mainly clerical
duties; the faculty should make
the rules regarding educational
policy and the students should
manage their own affairs.
The Berkley demonstrations,
and by implication the one at
Rice, were the manifestation of
the increasing disgust of the
hypocrisy, or "inauthenticity"
of the present university sys-
tem. They were led by the
brightest, most concerned stu-
dents.
A personal friend of Mario
Savio, Goodman kept in con-
stant contact with the actions
of the Free Speech Movement.
His writings on education were
constantly quoted by FsM lead-
ers and his articles on the Ber-
keley situation were widely
read.
Outside Interests
Goodman believes that when
students finally become fed up
The Rice Thresher
John Durham, Acting Editor
Jim Zumwalt, News Editor
Penny Kitchen, Managing Editor
Susan Bridges, Copy Editor
76e cctt&tt&cveiect <zcce&ti04t&
Thirteen days ago the Dean of Students
placed the editor of the Thresher on dis-
ciplinary probation. The Dean's action
was taken without notice, without a hear-
ing-, and without clear authority. The
timing of his action, his failure to make
use of normal and reasonable judicial
processes, and his own statements about
the editor raised the most serious ques-
tions about the independence of the paper.
For two weeks we have kept silent about
the issues of the case. We believe that a
man should be tried before an impartial
board and not in the columns of the news-
paper, and we asked only that good sense
would somehow prevail.
This morning the President gave us his
answer.
* It is an answer which only confirms a
series of events in which the students
have been ignored, the faculty insulted,
due process forgotten and serious ques-
tions about the freedom of the press left
unconsidered and unanswered.
We assume that a 17 year-old high-
school graduate does not lose his rights
of citizenship when he matriculates. We
assume with equal confidence that a uni-
versity student does not, simply because
he happens to be elected to the editorship
of a school newspaper, become fair game
for administration harassment and pres-
sure.
Both of these assumptions have been
fairly well demonstrated to be untenable
within the structure of this university as
it now exists. The university in fact as-
sumes a righteous control over all actions
of its students. There exists no conceiv-
able situation in which the long arm of
"university authority" cannot reach out
to coerce a student into behavior conson-
ant with that which the university deems
proper.
That a university has some authority
over its students is clear, but when it
assumes more than is necessary to further
the goals of education and inquiry, it is
exercising an illegitimate power. The
authority of the university must ultimate-
ly rest upon its intellectual integrity, not
physical strength. By choosing strength
over wisdom, it has taken a giant step
toward reducing the authority which it so
obviously and jealously guards.
The President suggested today that the
issues raised in this case are peripheral to
the main concerns of the University. But
it is all a seamless garment: free press,
fair discipline and an open community are
the prerequisites of education and the
fruits of a university properly dedicated
to the search for truth.
The President has made the point for
us. When he hears an appeal after pub-
licly declaring his prejudice, when he
claims that general matters of discipline
and freedom are not germaine to the
present case, he tells us that principle is
inapplicable to practice. The promises he
makes for tomorrow are commendable,
but what of his actions today?
When an editor is.- placed on probation,
administrative officials act arbitrarily,
and fundamental fairness is consistently
ignored, we are all parties to the case. He
pleads a hearing not for himself alone but
for all of us. When his plea is refused, we
are all affronted. To the extent that his
rights were denied, all of us have lost a
part of our freedom.
In a disciplinary action disputed by the
accused, the facts and conclusions are
rarely certain. But we do have fairly
simple procedures designed as well as we
are able to assure reasonable protection of
the student, a fair determination of the
facts, and the application of appropriate
sanctions. In this case these procedures
were ignored, and no one will ever be cer-
tain that an innocent student was not
unjustly punished.
But we all know that the issues here
are broader than this. The student in-
volved was the editor of the newspaper—
outspoken, controversial and perhaps even
unpopular—and he was disciplined with-'
out the use of those simple procedures by
an administration which was known to be
critical of him.
No one claims that a prima facie case
has been made for intimidation of the
paper, and only those concerned will ever
know if the editor was punished for what
he said in it, but the argument needs to be
made and the evidence examined before
an impartial body.
If not, we have only questions and no
answers, and all of us feel less secure in
the pursuit of our own concerns.
STAFF
with an administration commit-
ted to satisfying the demands
of outside interests, with uni-
versity officials', corrupted by
their positions, with falsity of
grading or even poor food, they
should "revolt."
This rebellion is seen as
essentially good, in that a new
and more authentic academic
community may result.
The fact that nothing at Ber-
keley was done for base political
or public relations reasons con-
firms Goodman's belief that
contemporary students are
evolving a new ideology which
will replace their loss of contact
with the ideals: that died in the
thirties.
Rice Revolt
The New York essayist and
social critic discussed briefly
the present Rice situation. His
first reaction after hearing one
version of the Kelly episode was,
"How can a student be insub-
ordinate to a dean?"
He contends that, in a com-
munity of scholars, subordina-
tion is unthinkable. Although
confessing a lack of knowledge
of all aspects of the case, he
suggested that no necessity
compels a student to answer
a dean's: telephone calls.
Goodman further stated that
administrative discipline should
be exercised only in emergencies
involving danger to life or
property.
In a Friday afternoon dis-
cussion with Jasper Rose of
the Fine Arts: Department,
Goodman explained the absurd-
ity which he sees in the neces-
sity for graduate degrees for
those interested primarily in
teaching undergraduates.
Graduate Training
With Mr. Rose, he stressed
the lamentable state of Amer-
ican graduate schools and the
trivial nature of much schol-
arly research. Both men agreed
that U.S. education is best re-
presented by schools: such as
Sarah Lawrence.
A former instructor there,
Goodman concluded that "the
only trouble with Sarah Lar-
rence is that it is so good that
it ought to be open to both
sexes."
Radical Criticism
Ultimately Goodman's view of
education is a radically ro-
mantic one. It seems unlikely
that the multiplication of vast
multiversities can be impeded.
Yet most would concur with
Goodman in his affii-mation of
the essential dignity of the
leai-ning process and of the
necessity for commitment to
the highest ideals of scholarship
and teaching.
Few would be able to make a
strong case against his unceas-
ing attacks on the present
establishment for not caring
about those ideals1..
dar/iewif'
" Well, it's a liviri."
; THRESHING-IT-OUT I
Pfeiffer Supports Student Action
Sir:—Let me congratulate you
and express my very thorough
agreement with your editorials
in the extra issue of The
Thresher, March 16, 1965.
I think you have discerned
and stated the significant issues
with clarity and insight.
As you point out in your sec-
ond editorial, the conduct of
the students, and particularly of
their leaders, is a cause for gen-
uine appreciation. It is a trib-
ute, among other thing3, to the
very substantial contributions
of the College System at Rice,
in the few short years of its
existence.
The recent activity in the
Colleges and Student Senate
aimed at a reappraisal of the
whole structure of order and
discipline of student life is, in
my judgment, a healthy and de-
sirable enterprise.
It is not, as some seem to
think, a rebellious move toward
anarchy and libertinism.
Rather, it is a search for a
sound basis of orderly living,
rooted in mutual respect and
concern.
^Consent of the Governed'
The next steps in the devel-
opment of student responsibili-
ty for their own affairs must
be taken. The group responsible
for the recent proposal submit-
ted by the College Presidents
has made a significant start.
Its membei'S have recognized
that a certain measure of "con-
sent of the governed" is neces-
sary in any community.
This has proved to be true in
the harshest dictatorship; it
is surely true in an enlightened
community such as ours.
In a University dedicated in
principle and fact to the critical
examination of every aspect of
existence, it seems entirely ap-
propriate to ask for a re-ex-
amination of the structures that
order and shape our personal
and community living.
(Continued on Page 6)
THE RICE THRESHER, MARCH 2 5, 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.
Durham, John. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 52, No. 24, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 25, 1965, newspaper, March 25, 1965; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth244942/m1/2/: accessed June 20, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.