The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 54, No. 28, Ed. 1 Thursday, May 11, 1967 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:
■ ' A*'
When we were little, our mother would ask u« as we re-
turned from school, "Well, what did you learn today?" Later,
as the work became more and more objective and the results
more and more quantitative, the answers were simpler and
the need to recall tangible internal benefits of the educational
process was pushed into the background.
We are big people now. Big enough (one hopes) to see
that the question is not answerable in any concrete terms.
How much learning does a semester-hour represent? Does
a subterranean engineering major learn more than a socially
active basket weaving major? Is the inside of one's head public
material? Where did Joe College go after his four years, and
why doesn't he trot out all those names, dates, and figures
once he has learned them?
The biggest question is one that cannot be answered: What
is an education? We have attempts at an answer from all
(without exception) of the concerned people. The respondents
are vehement and positive, and their answers are jealously de-
fended against interpretation. We listen to all of them, and
realize with a sickening sensation resembling defeat that they
are all right, but that they are all dead wrong.
We are guilty, too. Just as guilty of the obfuscation and
opinionation as our critics. We have not regarded their point
of view with the reverence that they feel it must have. We
have not got the facts just right, nor considered the emotion
and internal agony which they have undergone in reaching
their stand. We have been wrong, with all of the others.
Rut we have been right, as well. The utterance of one's
own internalized opinion with frankness and candor; the use
of the synthesis arrived at with regard for all the facts that
were available—these are criteria worthy of any statement.
If they have been adhered to, the maker of the statement need
not feel that he has failed in any of the responsibilities of the
maker of a public statement.
So, what have we learned? Who have been the teachers,
and who will issue the grades? How many semester-hours will
we get for having stepped outside the curriculum and explored
the issues that strike our senses just as surely as the facts of
our own immediate enrollment in courses? Who will issue the
report card?
Here is the final.
The first thing we learned as columnist and as member
of society is that issues do not exist "out there" as solid, con-
crete objects. Stated aims of institutions, be they universities,
unions, or political groups, are not the sacred writings that
their proponents would have us believe.
As soon as one personality imposes its presence upon
an idealized set of goals, the ideal is lost. People must be
related to, as well as issues, and there must be a regard for
the personality imposed upon the issue. This must be arrived
at by a process of communication and by yielding some of our
own personal views to the other's persuasion.
The next thing we found was that issues themselves are
transitory. We would have liked to see our pet projects become
flesh in the pat manner we encounter in the history books,
it seems only fair to have a contemporary source report that
all our dreams came true in much the same way that the Old
Kingdom was supplanted by the Hyksos, and that the Hyksos
were in their turn succeeded by a new dynasty.
The transitional points were points, and the breaks were
clean. Why is this no longer so? Because, it appears, that just
as optical laws of perspective are valid, so are they in the
less tangible realm of events. Campaigns are painless when
they become so foreshortened that the events in them merge
into a continuum.
The modern artist has presented us with the Happening,
a group of events thrown together without the transitions
that we find so painful. Yet each event is a part in itself of a
transition, though when presented as facts they lose their rela-
tionship and take on that comforting quality of the canonized
event.
The only constant, it appears, is change (although the
rate of change varies), and, in all honesty, we feel that the
grader should grant some credit for our having accepted this
unpleasant notion of a difficult life in a cruel world.
We have been glib, we have been cute, but we have tried
to be involved. We have faced a world full of inconsistencies
and contradictions, felt the pain of living in the present, and
attempted to join in the march to the future (we are all in-
volved in it, but some of us more passively than others) with
all of our senses operating and our neck thrust out, all the
while anticipating the fall of the axe that awaits all necks.
Where we stood on the issues should not be relevant in
the light of history, but it will be. Our political stand and our
prose style will remain for posterity, and these will be the
criteria of judgment. We cannot possibly take issues with any
of these standards, nor will we.
The historian has material enough to burn or canonize
us as he sees fit, and we have proffered it with a will. He will
see it from a distance sufficient to overlook our hurts or
those of any parties we might have offended, and the aspects
of change in the experience will be necessarily overlooked.
But this column is addressed to the present reader. You
have read them, you have been puzzled, offended, agreeable,
hurt, or whatever emotional reaction you have been inclined
•tr>. If yoti reacted at all, yoti were involved, and we thank you.
Perhaps this is all the grade we need.
Now, go out and grab those hours. Happy finals and a
long, hot summer to all! '•
—BARRY KAPLAN
This year has been a year of an unexpected
discovery: many students with ideas and projects
discovered that they could co-operate with the
University administration. In remarkable ways,
the year has also been one of success; and in
view of the small beginning and the vast needs
for change, next year will probably be one of
continued progress, slow though it apparently
must be.
Students who knew Rice as the "minor league"
school rutted in outworn tradition may now be
surprised at some of the changes proposed this
year with some hope of eventual success. A
calendar change to a valuable 12-8-12 "Jan"
plan may succeed; a "Hanszen" plan of gen-
eralized introductory non-major courses may
materialize; pass/fail and student-initiated courses
are being developed. It is perhaps remarkable
that students this year are "satisfied with Rice
as an educational institution," whereas four years
ago they overwhelmingly were not.
What S.A. President Jerry Hafter pointed out
in his end-of-the-year repox't is now overwhelm-
ingly true: the problem between students and
administration is not blocked channels of com-
munication, for when students try, they find
that there are channels open. The problem is that
communication fails to convince: administration
and student views often do not coincide. We can
admit the pressures on those who administer
this university; we can realize that they do in
actuality hold the same ideals that we do of
excellent education and universities. The crucial
question now becomes the nature of the "ex-
cellence" itself.
Our biggest problem is not on campus but off
it—profoundly significant of the distance be-
tween the Board of Trustees and the university
itself. It is shocking to note that Board meet-
ings are not even held on campus. It is in these
meetings that decisions critical to the future
development of the university are made.
The decisions are largely financial—and we
appreciate the need for financial stability, but
cannot be enslaved to it. University finances
are the subject of much rumor and disparage-
ment from students, and perhaps needlessly. Stu-
dents cannot understand why with high tuition
and extravagant, absurd room and board charges
the university cannot provide a larger and more
efficient library, or more decent living conditions
and food.
We want the picture aired because we suspect
a crucial and disastrous difference of opinion.
Conditions on campus are vastly different from
those in the board room—and we cannot expect
the board members to understand the needs of
the colleges and the classrooms when they con-
sider mainly the interest rate. We do not at all
suggest that the board does not understand
that education—a Rice education—is for people;
but we want them to come here and know the
people it is for. We suspect that they confuse
education with Image, and excellence with re-
putation; we suspect that the opinions of their
business and political colleagues are more im-
portant to them than the opinions of the Rice
students and faculty.
On campus, when people can confront each
other, interaction and change seem to come more
readily. The only problem is time—and caution.
The biggest progress and the most hope lie in
joint committees—in the faculty committees now
opened to students, and student committees join-
ed by faculty members. We hope that the recent
example of such a student committee, unfor-
tunately killed by a faculty one (the S.A. Asso-
ciates' Study Committee) never becomes com-
mon.
The colleges were notable this year by their
general absence from discussion and activity.
The usual annual spate of disillusionment came
a bit earlier, and some new perspectives were
added. Several plans were suggested to bring the
academic affairs of the University into the col-
leges—thereby shifting the concept more away
from "residential" and more towards "college."
But Dr. Charles Garside pointed out that the
colleges' problems are not their academic in-
activity. He pointed out the universal need for
leisure, and the total disregard for it which runs
rampant on the Rice campus. The point is im-
portant for the future development of the Uni-
versity: Ric^ seems to think of itself as a place
where students are run through a gauntlet and
emerge as a product—education is something to
be consumed. The colleges are the place where
a humanistic orientation becomes most realizable.
Rice's commitment to its colleges has been
notably deficient, especially in the matter of
physical facilities (although we are pleased to
note that a much-needed renovation of parts of
the colleges has been begun). The point is^t
renovation. Jiowever, but expansion: if leisure is
to be encouraged, there must be more space for
it, more facilities for its many forms. The pov-
erty of college facilities seems due mainly to a
lack of administrative commitment to leisure as
a valuable and necessary part of education.
William Arrowsmith told us that education had to
do with making men—and that teachers were
important as models of men, not as dispensers
of information. We are thankful that our faculty
realize these needs increasingly, that there are
men in the academic buildings on the campus.
We ask that a place be provided in the resi-
dential buildings for men to come together, to
enjoy—leisure.
Change in the colleges must come from a
second source too—besides administrative com-
mitment, they need faculty commitment. The
course of college development now lies over-
whelmingly in the hands of the college master.
The importance of this one position can be
dramatically seen in Hanszen college—where a
new master has effected sweping, if subtle, new
directions. And the masters must be assisted,
as Garside again showed us, by other concerned
faculty—who now have only a sadly minimal
connction with any college through the "asso-
ciate" program.
If the associates program were thoroughly re-
vised, the associates could be brought to feel a
direct connection with their colleges, and a direct
responsibility for the growth and excitement
taking place. Part of the needed change, per-
haps, is structural—better rituals for getting the
associates into the colleges, more pressure/com-
pensation for faculty members to take greater
interest. But the faculty themselves must ulti-
mately take the initiative: plan to meet reg-
ularly to discuss contributions.
But ultimately, the success of any college will
be the master's responsibility, and the colleges
seem to be hindered now by ineffective masters,
in many cases. The university must reconsider
the original provision of the college plan to
retire masters automatically after a fixed term.
The colleges need new blood. And the President,
in selecting new masters, must keep his criteria
firmly in mind. Surely he needs a man calm
enough and thorough enough to prevent dis-
asters and refrain from offending the Esta-
blishment—but the colleges now desperately need
men of energy and vision.
The direction for change at Rice seems clear.
Channels for communication of student proposals
are open; student proposals are respected and
considered—even if the work necessary for
establishing them seems excessive. But if stu-
dent government has made any point this year,
it has proved that it is itself misguided. Students
have for many years devoted their efforts to
performing necessary tasks, but ones which are
wasteful of their talent and a hindrance to their
education. Students here pride themselves, for
example, on their self-discipline and elaborate
judical system, but it is in the final analysis
an unfortunate -use of talent. Students must '
handle their own discipline because in earlier
times no one else could be trusted to handle it
fairly. Hopefully, both those conditions will be
relieved and discipline can be exchanged for
guidance; order will be effected not by rules and
punishments but by the examples of dignified
and mature men.
It is time that students, faculty, and admin-
istrators at Rice realized that the business of
education is not making proposals in quadrupli-
cate. It is learning and leisure. It is formal and in-
formal. It occurs in the classrooms, in the library
and laboratories, in the colleges and in conversa-
tion. These other matters are hindrances, ob-
stacles which we endure because we hope there-
by to further the real business of educating
ourselves. Rice has progressed this year, and the
progress seems well grounded: it must con-
tinue.—SJC
'?4*tcL ytcuUy evoCde &e
C&ute and ytaeUtf. tecAe
Parting with a friend is always difficult, and
Dr. Gerald O'Grady, an effective and respected
teacher, has been a friend as well as an un-
official advisor and critic of several generations
of the Thresher. His stay here was too short,
certainly, for those of us who feel that his
critical concern for the University offered more
of an opportunity than a threat. Yet he was
here long enough to influence the shape of Rice
in the most laudable of all ways—by helping
students realize their intellectual potential and
their obligation to participate in their own edu-
cation. The Thresher speaks for the entire
undergraduate body, we feel, in offering this
man our thanks and best wifehes.
—DH
m
jjjl
li
•?,
,'V
i
THE RICE THRESHER, MAY 1 1, 196 7—P A G E 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.
Coyner, Sandy. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 54, No. 28, Ed. 1 Thursday, May 11, 1967, newspaper, May 11, 1967; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245004/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.