The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 56, No. 22, Ed. 1 Friday, February 28, 1969 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:
threshlng-it-i
Pfeiffer stresses understanding in dealing with Trustees
To the Rice Community
Few events in the twenty-
eight years I have spent on this
campus have produced the de-
gree of genuine communication
and trust among students and
faculty that has been experi-
enced the past few days. It has
been an exhilarating and re-
warding experience. In the less
dramatic but more difficult, and
possibly more significant, tasks
ahead, it is imperative that we
do not lose that personal touch.
As so many have said, we have
discovered ourselves as a com-
munity.
The saddening- thing' is that
an important segment of the
University was effectively shut
off from that experience.
The very character of the
University was at issue. I have
reread the Charter (Thresher,
April 7, 1961). One cannot
doubt that this charter grants
the legal authority and places
the responsibility on the Trus-
tees to name the President. But
the central goal of the Charter,
as the Board has understood
from the beginning, is to es-
tablish a first quality universi
ty. To discharge its responsibil-
ity, the Board must act in a
a manner consistent with and
supportive of the character of
such a University.
We should not be surprised
that men whose primary experi-
ence is in business, industry, and
the professions should have dif-
ficulty in reading this document
in a manner that does justice
to the peculiar nature of the
University, for the document
itself is couched in the language
of business, industi'y, and the
legal profession. In our society,
the University is a peculiar in-
stitution. It has been noted fre-
quently and eloquently that its
nature is fragile, elusive, and
constantly changing.
We must be patient with
those outside the. University
who have difficulty in tinder-
standing its character. After
all, recall how difficult we find
it to understand, articulate, and
commit ourselves to the ideals
and concrete goals and forms of
the University. In fact, we look
with some suspicion on anyone
who has too completely and
finally formed his views.
Given the legal situation on
the one hand and the character
of the University on the other,
our best hope for fuller under-
standing is to bring the Gov-
ernors, alumni, and interested
members of our society into
more meaningful contact with
the living University.
Too often we have been im-
patient with or scornful of
those concerned with the "pub-
lic image" of the University. In
part, this has been because of
the inadequate nature of the
images which they would foster
and preserve. But also this has
been because of our failure to
recognize our responsibilities in
this matter. If the University
is a testing ground for ideas
and for more satisfactory modes
of relating ourselves to others,
then it has something to say
to and share with our society.
Because we are a "peculiar"
community, we shall always be
suspect. It is only as we estab-
lish significant lines of com-
munication with many elements
Danziger urges continuation of critical assessments
To the Editor:
If I begin to think back and
reflect upon the happenings of
the last few days, it seems that
a few things immediately be-
come- visible.
First, looking at the total
situation, I think it can be said
that what happened is—the
Board appointed, illegitimately,
a president; the faculty and
students united in protest; the
president resigned. Though
quite simplistic as this seems,
one glaring- wound is still not
healed—we have not at any
point, changed the relationship
between the people at Rice and
the Board. Unless everyone
realizes ibis, nothing of real
substance, i.e., nothing which
holds a promise of significant
change, will result. Our strug-
gle is .just commencing: it. can
be no other way. Enough said.
Second: everyone here has be-
come rapidly aware of the mass
media. Both the distortion and
outright lies which have sprung
from a source which previously
held a good deal of trust among
the people at Rice should have
led everyone to ask the follow-
ing question — if the media
could show such an attitude to-
ward our responsible protest,
what in the hell have they been
doing with other "news"? I can
only hope that Rice will become
a great deal more cautious in
its assessment of all statements
which from now on come, and in
the past have been coming, from
our "highly advanced system of
communications." This myth of
impartiality or objectivity which
has been so rudely shattered as
far as the media is concerned
must also start to be questioned
in other areas, like academic
objectivity, for example.
Third: I feel that this sense
of community which has been
so widely discussed, be serious-
ly examined. Unity is not com-
munity. We had much of the
former, but much less of the
latter. When, just for example,
both the students and faculty
could allow, without any pro-
test, the "red-baiting" and
taunting that went on at the
SDS-called meeting last Sunday,
I would seriously question the
strength of this community.
When any group attempts to
legitimately aid its peers in re-
solving a crisis which affects
all of them equally and is im-
editorial
tOvUt&e/i tne cofputtuoittf ?
"It is possible to watch the sky from morning
to midnight, or move along the spectrum from
infrared to ultra-violet, without ever being able
to put your finger on the precise point where
a qualitative change tal^es place; no one can
say, 'It is exactly here that tivilight becomes
night,' or blue becomes violet, or innocence guilt.
One can go a long way into a situation thus
without finding the word or gesture upon which
initial responsibility can handily be fixed—such
a long way that suddenly one realizes the change
has already been made, is already history ..."
—John Barth, "The End of the Road"
Rice University has changed, and changed
radically, since William Masterson last knew
it three years ago. There are more buildings
here now, to be sure, and more people—but the
most important difference between Masterson's
Rice and the Rice we all fought so hard to
perserve during the last week is an atmosphere,
a shared feeling, something one can't quite put
one's finger on. Probably it has something to do
with the word mentioned so often since Friday,
"community." In a sense we should all feel thank-
ful to Dr. Masterson for unwittingly making it
possible for each of us to discover how much
of our society that we shall be
accepted in a manner that en-
ables the University to play a
leavening role in the most con-
structive manner. Our society is
desperate for the sense of com-
munity we have been privileged
to know. It needs the Universi-
ty, but it can know this only
if we can communicate.
You, students and faculty
alike (and together), have dis-
tinguished yourselves this past
week. The question now is,
i"Are we wise enough to find
our way through the next
steps?" If you cannot do it, I
do not know who can.
PAUL E. PFEIFFER
Dean of Students
Dawson: it was an isolated incident
mediately condemned because
of its name—before it even gets
the chance to say anything, then
I must maintain that the sense
of community so highly cher-
ished is in great part, a false
one. I can not object to anyone
disagreeing over opinion. I on-
ly feel that we must question
ourselves when we refuse to
listen.
Fourth, and finally—now that
the immediate battle has been
won, I have seen to a great ex-
tent, a kind of vacuum set in.
During the crisis, many stu-
dents and faculty became very
close. Students began to really
dig the idea of calling the fa-
culty by their first names; be-
ing able to talk with faculty on
a personal, and not a classroom,
level. This is where, it seems,
the first real seeds of communi-
ty were being developed. This
is where the revolution began
to take hold. I can only pray
that these kinds of things will
continue and expand them-
selves. Only then will we all
have the type of university that
we can look at with a sense of
accomplishment.
ROBERT DANZIGER
Baker '70
untapped potential for thought, action, and feel-
ing we had inside us. We can forgive him for
wanting to ensure that his assessment of the
situation here was correct before loosening his
grip on something he obviously wanted very
much; we admire him even more that he did
it, that he recognized like Thomas Wolfe, that
"you can't go home again."
The Masterson incident has been called an
isolated one. We're afraid it isn't, for several
reasons. The Board chose Masterson at' least
partly because it never occurred to them to ask
whether he was really the right man to lead
the University. It is reasonable to assume that
if the Board were ever to consult with students
and faculty, it would be on the question of presi-
dential selection. Everyone can win, and no
one can lose, by closer contact among all parts
of the community th^p we have seen up to
now. To the extent that the Board chose Mas-
terson because they felt he would "clamp down"
on things, they revealed their dearth of knowledge
about the very nature of any university. To say
"community" does not imply eternal consensus
but it does involve a sit of "rules for the game"
which make near-catastrophies like the one this
week far less likely. —drb
To the Editor:
It is with mixed feelings that
I view the events on our cam-
pus over the last few days. I
heard that Warren Skaaren, on
being asked his thoughts on the
whole thing, said that he was
torn between describing it as
a victory and a personal trag-
edy. His statement, if I got it
correctly, conveys my feelings
accurately.
One thing is clear, and that
is the fact that the Rice Ad-
ministration, faculty, and stu-
dents have succeeded in doing-
grievous harm to an innocent'
man whether this was their in-
tention or not. While I do not
regret having taken a stand
against the appointment of Dr.
Masterson because I thought
this to be in the best interests
of the University, it neverthe-
less causes me pangs of re-
morse to think that I have
helped to destroy this man's
spirit if not career. Let us al-
ways remember the gravity of
the action we have taken. It is
to be hoped that something like
this never happens at Rice
again ....
I do not believe that "the
job has just begun." As far as
I am concerned, the Masterson
affair is closed. Let us not ask
the Board of Trustees for any
more power—ye have demon-
strated that we have awful
powers at our disposal. Let us
simply request the Board to
work more closely with the fac-
ulty in appointing the next
President. They will get the
message. Above all, I am dis-
enchanted with suggestions that
we "restructure" the universi-
ty. I choose to view the latest
mistake on the Board's part as
an isolated incident, and refuse
to see it in any greater "con-
text."
Above all,' let us be thankful
and relieved that the crisis is
past, and I would urge people
to leave the matter at that. To
go beyond what we have done
would be, in my opinion, to go
too far.
BOB DAWSON
Wiess, '70
Johnstone proposes faculty senate
To the Editor:
I would urge the faculty to
organize a senate of its own.
The leadership exerted by the
Student Association from Fri-
day to Sunday was priceless for
"the cause." The faculty's de-
cision, Sunday night, to take
the poll marked their first or-
ganized effort. It seems to have
been an excellent first step.
We have, however, only been
introduced to our potential com-
munity. Areas over which the
faculty and/or -students should
have veto or jurisdiction must
now be defined so that we may
continue to build this self-de-
termining community.
The department chairmen
acted well on the spot. It seems,
though, that a .more rational
and active senate should be
created to lead and respond to
the faculty. Open forums of
students and faculty should now
determine the arrangements by
which we may begin to rational-
ize our influence over curricu-
lum, admissions, drug policy,
discipline of demonstrators, etc.
Only when the faculty has de-
cided upon its representatives
can they work with student
representatives to define "where
we go from here."
DON JOHNSTONE
Lovett '70
Ray points up amendment loophole
To the Editor:
It is my intention herein to
direct the attention of tl\e stu-
dent body to a loophole in the
recently-proposed constitution
for the Student Association.
Article VI, section 1 would
give the power of amending the
constitution to the Senate only.
A proposed amendment would
become valid upon approval by
two-thirds of the Senate mem-
bership. No participation of the
Student Association as a whole
would be involved in the pro-
cess, though Article II, section
4 does allow a student-initiated
referendum to be made.
I have two basic objections
to such an amendment process.
First, it is the nature of fun-
damental law, of which a consti-
tution is the embodiment, to
enumerate and define the pow-
ers that an organization vests
in its governing body. In allow-
ing the Senate to authorize
amendments, this constitution
permits the governing body of
Rice students to determine its
own powers. If we were to rati-
fy the constitution as proposed
we would be writing out a blank
check to the Senate—a poten-
tially ,.dang£rous a.ction indeed.
This is certainly not compatible
with the democratic tradition of
our society.
The point will be raised by
some that the present mode of
amending the Constitution is
cumbersome and inoperable, and
that' under the envisioned plan
a referendum can be called by
a petition of only 5 percent of
the student body. The point is
well taken and certain changes
should be made, but these chan-
ges should not impinge upon
the rights of the student to
determine the content of their
Constitution.
My second objection is that
as now written, the Constitu-
tion would permit the Senate
to repeal Article II, section 4
(concerning referendum) leav-
ing no recourse for action by
the student body. From that
moment on the Senate could act
totally without regard to its
constituents.
I would suggest that a docu-
ment with such a blatant loop-
hole be studied with greater
care before being submitted for
a vote.
JIMMY RAY
Hanszen '72
/<
the rice thresher, february 28, 1969—page 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.
Bahler, Dennis. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 56, No. 22, Ed. 1 Friday, February 28, 1969, newspaper, February 28, 1969; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245051/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.