The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 57, No. 17, Ed. 1 Thursday, February 5, 1970 Page: 2 of 4
four 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:
■■■■IS
ihreshlng-lt-out
Kolenda defends retention of distribution requirements
To the Editoi-:
As a member of the Committee on Un-
dergraduate Curriculum I would like to
respond to two articles that have so faj-
appeared on the proposed curriculum re-
vision. First, Mr. Don Johnstone's article
in the last issue. The sybilline style of
that piece makes it difficult to see its
main point, but the message seems to
lit; that nothing good can come from the
"old-men committees," playing "parlor
politics." Since such a conclusion,, sur-
rounded by muffled innuendos of de-
cadence and violence, rests on suppres-
sion and distortion of important facts,
it should not go unchallenged. Even if
one discounts sundry insults hurdled in
various directions, the conclusion is un-
fair to students, whose cause Mr. John-
stone supposedly takes up.
The fact is that the proposal now un-
der discussion has not been generated by
an "old-men" faculty committee. The
moving forces behind it were numerous
and include many different groups which
during the last two years have been
concerned about Rice curriculum. Those
groups were by no means dominated by
facuity. Proposals sometimes had the
jiame of a faculty member attached to
hem, e.g., the "Matusow Plan," (is he
an oM man?) but they articulated
thoughts and recommendations of stu-
dents as well as of some faculty mem-
bers. This is true of the Jones Plan,
Brown Plan, and of many others that
had the misfortune of lacking a name.
The fact is that in its deliberations the
■Committee tried to take all of them into
account in finally arriving at the present
proposal.
The second fact of paramount im-
portance is that the present proposal is,
to a great extent, the result of the work
■ if student members of the Committee.
They have made a tremendous contri-
bution, both in judgment and in argu-
ment. I believe that I can speak for all
other faculty members on the Committee
when I say that in the course of work-
ing with these students, during frequent
and often rather prolonged sessions, the
mythical gap between those over 45 and
those under 25 has proved itself to be
what it is, namely, a myth.
We soon learned that when talking
about matters of substance we could re-
spect and appreciate each other's judg-
ment. The same has been true about the
participation of other students (from
CUE, from SCEP, and from Colleges)
in many deliberations of the Committee.
At least in this context, Mr. Johnstone,
the faculty and students have acclaimed
each other's integrity and have experi-
enced its fruits: mutual understanding
and trust. Only those who prefer to
heckle from the sidelines can complain
of dichotomies in this enterprise. Why
not go "where the action is" and get
involved ?
There still is a need to get involved,
because the Committee has no more pow-
er than any other group on the campus.
It can propose, but someone else will
dispose. Who will that be? It happens
that decisions on matters of that scope
have to be made by the whole faculty,
but faculty's judgment on this is yet
undetermined. Who can influence this
judgment? In my opinion, the students
can play a key role here, in the same
way as the student members played a
key role in struggling through to a mutu-
ally agreed upon proposal—by talking
to faculty members, by presenting argu-
ments and further suggestions. A great
deal of this has already happened after
the campus-wide distribution of the
proposal, and judging from numerous
letters, available for inspection in the
Committee Chairman's office, the re-
sponse seems overwhelmingly positive.
But whether any changes will take place
is still uncertain. One thing is sure:
waiting for the Fates to step in will
accomplish nothing.
Mr. Jack Murray's article (two weeks
a£o), in contrast to Mr. Johnstone's
oracular generalities, is constructive. He
is concerned about something which looks
questionable to others as well, including
some faculty members, namely, the dis-
tribution requirement. What does it real-
ly signify? Is it not perhaps just an-
other, though hidden, form of intellectual
oppression ?
Well, to answer this question a re-
ference to history is needed. About two
years ago the Committee started think-
ing about the curriculum in connection
with discovering infelicities in the A, B,
C classification of courses. Some profes-
sors requested a change in the classifica-
tion of a course, because of its content.
It also came about that a national com-
mittee, while inquiring into Rice's engi-
neering curriculum, found that students
almost invariably filled their B course
slot with a course in economics which
was essentially mathematical in nature.
Disclosures like these prompted the
Committee to rethink the whole problem
of distribution. There were those who
proposed to abolish the classification al-
together. (This was one of the main
features of my own reflections on Rice
curriculum distributed at that time.)
But after many weeks of pondering the
problem the idea of retaining some gen-
eral labels of areas won out. As far as
I can see, the basic intent is to bring
the student in touch with a variety of
fields, without forcing his hand as to
how deeply and in what way he will ex-
plore them. It should be kept in mind
that within any area, say, history or
philosophy, there are so many different
things that a person can study. In most
cases a student will find something in
a field that will look to him worthwhile.
If sufficiently informed and properly ad-
vised he cannot fail to find courses that
will make sense to him. And the way
the formula is stated, it allows for skip-
ping some areas toward which the stu-
dent for some reason has an invincible
phobia.
It appears that almost any combina-
tion of courses is possible under the
new system. The only restraining func-
tion of the distribution requirement
would be to prevent a student either
from specializing so narrowly or from
scattering himself so broadly that in
either case it would be questionable
whether he has a~ university education.
Even with the minimum restraints it will
still be possible to come up with a com-
bination of courses which would not
make academic sense. But this is true
about any situation in which options
exist.
The possibilities of the proposal should
be seen in terms of the basic objective,
and it may be useful to state what I be-
lieve to be its key features. In a world
that increasingly calls for rethinking of
familiar patterns and life styles, univer-
sity education should not consist in chan-
nelling all students through some pre-
ordained grooves. Facing modern uncer-
tainties, the student needs to find a path
for which he can take responsibility and
which he can regard as his own. One of
the faults of rigid curricula is that they
tend to make conformists out of people;
'having little occasion to make important
decisions does not contribute to the sense
of being in control of ope's own life. So
the opportunity for meaningful choice
seems essential, for the sake of future
individual and social health.
But since a student by definition is
one who is joining the ongoing effort
of acquiring and increasing knowledge,
it makes no sense to repudiate the help
of those who in virtue of some special
training are equipped to offer instruc-
tion and guidance. What is needed is
not the relationship of buying and selling
intellectual skills and knowledge, but the
relationship of partnership, in which
both sides live up to objectives set by
the joint enterprise.
This partnership, in the proposal now
under consideration', would involve a
careful choice of intellectual pursuits in
which both the advisee and the advisers
play an active role. For that purpose a
well-organized advisory activity ought to
become an important part of university
life. The realization of this need is al-
ready one of the positive consequences
of this proposal, and the ways of im-
plementing an effective advisory system
is now under study. Mot likely there will
be other consequences. The need for
more detailed information about course
content will probably produce more help-
ful and fuller descriptions in the cata- .
logue. The courses themselves may
change, due to the reduction in the num-
ber of "warm bodies" and self-actualiz-
ing students. The university may indeed
become a community of scholars.
A self-important professor is not a
good member of such a community. But
neither is a self-important student. Pro-
fessors are constantly urged nowadays
to understand, to be responsive to the
modern youth and its problems. There is
no denying that this is necessary. But
wouldn't it be even better if the rap-
prochement were initiated from both
sides? Should not the student try to
find out what projects, dreams, and wor-
ries agitate the teacher's soul—if he
has any ?
Perhaps a modified bit of Shakespear-
ean wisdom is here in order, by way of
conclusion. "Hath not a professor eyes?
Hath not a professor hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions ?
If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you
tickle us, do we not laugh ? if you poison
us, do we not die?"
K. KOLENDA
Philo. Dept.
Current placement policies upheld GSA's Nichols qualifies position
I H a To the Editor: motherhood.
IV. the Editor:
The current effort to change
recruiting policy seems to miss
the whole purpose of the Place-
ment Office in that it is mainly
a service to the student. Stu-
dents and alumni seeking per-
manent or summer employment
can meet potential employers in
imp place at a time convenient
t'o themselves. Sure, it is con-
venient for the companies, but
it is even more convenient for
us. These companies won't cease
to exist if they don't recruit at
Rice. Many of us would find
jobs with them anyway.
There are already two meth-
ods to question companies about
tli. ir policies. Any company can
be invited to send a representa-
tive "if a properly recognized
group from the university com-
munity requests this". However,
I don't see why this should be
a requirement for doing us the
service of coming on campus to
discuss employment. Suppose a
representative of a ^company
comes to the public discussion
and admits he makes bombs and
is proud of it. Will he be pre-
vented from interviewing job
applicants ? More importantly,
who will decide?
One can also sign up for an
interview and ask legitimate
questions. <Of course, there is no
room for 30 shouting supporters
but this probably leads to better
discussion anyway as both par-
ties are on equal ground.
To expect governmental agen-
cies to debate policy is ridicu-
lous. They don't make policy,
they merely carry it out. Would
you prefer if the Army made its
own policies and disregarded
the present withdrawal orders,
for example ? The person to de-
bate here is your Congressman
or high officials of the Execu-
tive branch and this has been
done in the past by various
campus organizations.
Therefore, in conclusion I see
no reason for any change in the
current recruiting policy.
BOB WOLFRAM
Baker sixty nix proposed policy
(The following letter to the editor
was sit'iied by 00 members of Bal;er
College.)
The existing policy relating
to on-campus recruiting by
companies and governmental or-
ganizations is of value as it en-
ables interested students to gain
information about potential em-
ployers conveniently. U n d e r
present policy ther® are no re-
strictions to prevent an indivi-
dual from being interviewed by
any of the numerous business
firms and agencies of the fed-
eral government which practice
on-campus recruiting.
However, the proposed change
in recruiting policy would effec-
tively permit certain faculty or
students to exercise a veto over
the companies which an inter-
ested student could interview on
campus. It is highly unlikely
th^t many firms or federal
agencies would submit them-
selves to the difficulties or to
the harrassment that the pro-
posed policy change would en-
tail. It must be emphasized that
the interviews are for the con-
venience of the students willing
to avail themselves of the op-
portunity. The fact that some
students object to certain cor-
porate or federal policies does
not give them the right to ef-
fectively deny or impede the
opportunity of an on-campus in-
terview to those who wish one.
The proposed policy change .thus
constitutes an intolerable vio-
lation of student rights and we,
the undersigned, request that
the existing policy remain in
force, and oppose the Vandiver-
Horstman proposed change and
the Senate's endorsement of it.
To the Editor:
My interpretation of the Van-
diver-IIorstman-Nichols letter
conflicts with that expressed in
the editorial last week. I hope
that the five-member committee
will examine the Davidson pro-
posal and try to work out de-
tails for im^ementation. I am
not sure, however, that a work-
able policy can be constructed.
If as I hope some organized
discussions or debates can be
implemented, the purpose of
such debates should not be to
try to force an evil institution
to justify itself. Some of us are
'such idiots that, in our eyes, it
is impossible to justify even the
most sacred institutions. I, for
example, having considered the
world's population problem, am
not so sure I am in favor of
fh
thresfter
The discussions should merely
be the opportunity for prophets
to inform the Rice students of
the iniquity of an institution
and for the institution to ex-
pound on its saintliness. I' am
sure that I speak for 95 percent
of the graduate students when
I say I certainly hope that every
institution can recruit on the
Rice campus, and that the indi-
vidual student retains the right
to decide which institutions he
deals with.
I personally must also note
that Rice students are lucky
that not all Rice alumni and
friends judge Rice on as skimpy
information as some students
judge Dow and the CIA.
TOM NICHOLS
Chairman, Rice Graduate
Student Association
JACK MURRAY
Editor-in-Chief
Charles Szalkowski .... Exec. Assoc. Ed.
Laura Kaplan Managing Ed.
Susie Clary Fine Arts Ed.
Mike Ross Calendar Editor
Ford Hall Sports Editor
" Staff: Lee Horstman, Charles Lavazzi, Steve Thorpe, A;
thews, Jeff Myers, Eff Martin, Donald Bayne, John Maul
Dennis Bahler, John Hays, Bruce Topietz.
MIKE WALKER
Business Manager
Howard Simms Assoc. Ed.
Talley Guill Ad. Manager
Kathleen Williamson .... Fine Arts Ed.
Doug Williams .... Circulation Manager
Laurie Kurtz National Ad. Mgr.
istin Bay, Chip Mat-
Jin, David Williams,
The Rice Thresher, official student, newspaper at Rice University, ia published
weekly, on Thursday escept during holidays and examination periods by Btudents
cf Rice University, Houston, Texas 7701. Phone JA 8-4141, Ext. 221, 645.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of its writers and editors and
are not necessarily those of Rice University, its administrators or officials.
Tlw Thresher is a member of
subscribes to College Press Service.
the United Student Press Association and
page 2—the rice thresher, february 5, 1970
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.
Murray, Jack. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 57, No. 17, Ed. 1 Thursday, February 5, 1970, newspaper, February 5, 1970; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245074/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.