The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 57, No. 23, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 9, 1970 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:
(tyeeU&llUtf
The reason given by President Vandiver for his disapproval
of the Hoffman speaking appearance on campus is "the threats
made by extremist groups to the University."
We wonder if this is the only, or even the primary, reason.
The chief of security was not informed of these threats. The
Welfare Committee was not informed of the full seriousness of these
threats, when meeting Sunday. These threats were only com-
municated to the SCB on Monday afternoon, a week after the
initial proposal, which was characterized by stalling and mis-
representation, by ineptitude and poor decisions. Both Acting-
President Vandiver and Dean of Students Wierum have indicated
their personal objections to Hoffman.
Sunday night the Welfare Committee confirmed the right
of free speech on this campus.
This obviously compromised the administration's position,
which is that Hoffman should not be allowed on campus. Im-
mediately, new information was given to the SCB. Hints as to
resignations were made. The possibility of violence was mentioned.
We wonder as to the reasoning of withholding this information
until this late in the affair. Was it an honest bungle, or was it
an attempt to justify a position already taken?
We wonder.
JOHN F. MAULDIN
7* te&tate ticc&t
Saturday night far more than the Dean of Student's office
was lost. By a senseless act of violence, the sanctity of the Rice
community has been violated. Regardless of the severity of our
problems, in the past, students," faculty and administration have
always been able to function together with at least a modicum
of rationality and certainly free fnom the taint of violence. Two
iires, vandalism on a board member's car, and further spoken
threats of violence to the university have cumulatively precipitated
a major crisis that endangers the integrity of this institution.
But while violence and threats of violence are the immediate
precipitant-s of this crisis, the fundamental, underlying causes
have been present and impairing progress over a long and trying
period ever since former President Pitzer's departure.
A complex university cannot operate properly without in-
novative leadership from its leaders and full participation by all
elements—faculty, students, and administration alike. The powers
and responsibilities of all individuals and groups must be clearly
defined and respected. Above all, every element in the university
must deal honestly and openly with every other element.
The quicksilver inconstancy in positions of policy, the apparent
oeafness to reasonable appeals for actions, and the ultimate claims
of powerlessness by administrative officials will no longer suffice
to forestall disaster at Rice.
These petty tactics have already imperiled the principle of
free speech at Rice. If further and irreparable harm to Rice is to
be prevented, the administration must restore the trust of faculty
and students in them. The officers of administration must individu-
ally determine what steps they must take to restore trust—but
it is imperative that trust be restored. Further, prompt effective
action should be taken to give the students and faculty clearly
defined powers in Ricc-'s political process consonant with the re-
spective roles of all elements in the university. We strongly sup-
port the University Council proposal as an important step in this
direction. This university must move now to restructure itself,
lesl it lose its opportunity to the ravages of violence or repression.
—MIKE SMITH
A challenge to Integrity...
together
When the right of a University community to determine who
will speak on its campus is challenged by external forces which
threaten to deny that right, the situation is very grave indeed.
It becomes far graver when the community bows to the
pressures and forces which would violate the bounds of the com-
munity's sphere of right and responsibility.
Acting President Vandiver said Tuesday that a very real
undercurrent of vigilantism combined with what he called "prob-
ably very serious threats to the welfare of the University" had
left him no choice but to prohibit the appearance this Sunday
of Abbie Hoffman on the Rice campus.
SA President Bob Parks said at the same time that in order
to guarantee freedom of speech on the Rice campus, Hoffman
and Weinglass must be permitted to speak.
The position taken by Parks and the Senate is one of in-
tegrity; that of Vandiver and the Dean of Students can hardly
be characterized as anything but the opposite.
Freedom of speech is an absolute which cannot be diluted by
the imposition of conditions, or implementing the excuse of "un-
ique" and "unusual" circumstances. Either it exists or it doesn't.
And it appears that, at least on the campus of Rice University,
free speech has never existed and will never exist as long as it
is possible for an anonymous individual, or an individual who can
be coerced by threats, to deny its existence in any situation.
In the context of the events which have produced the present
situation, it would not seem impossible that the administration
might seek and secure a court injunction to prevent the campus
appearance of the speaker which the Senate has invited.
For the administration to implement such a tactic of overt
coercion would result only in eliminating once and for all any
real possibility of the students, faculty, and administration ever
getting together on what we think are the most important issues
which face the University.
—JACK MURRAY
Rice University has main-
tained an atmosphere of free-
dom of speech and repudiation
of censorship that has both
stimulated the growth and aided
in the development of the aca-
demic experience. And yet this
freedom would be an empty and
meaningless promise if divorced
from the very real considera-
tions of bringing individual
speakers into the Rice commun-
ity and providing for both their
security and the security of the
University. In facing the pres-
ent situation, the entire Rice
community must decide its re-
sponse to threats from outside
the University. Can we meet
this. challenge to the integrity
of our institution, or must we
capitulate to those who would
threaten our freedom? The true
confrontation is not between the
students and the administration.
It is between the entire aca-
demic community and those who
would use violence to deny our
rights.
Monday night the SCB de-
cided to withdraw its invitation
to Abbie Hoffman and Leonard
Weinglass to speak on the Rice
campus on Sunday, April 12.
Because of Administrative bung-
ling and the ensuing threats to
the welfare of the University,
the SCB felt it could no longer
guarantee the security of the
campus. However, Tuesday -af-
ternoon the Welfare Committee
reaffirmed its recommendation
to allow ,the continuation of
plans to schedule the event in
the face of threats given cer-
tain security measures. The Stu-
dent Association Senate decided
to take the responsibility of
providing that security and
sponsoring the event, unani-
mously passing the motion: "We
reaffirm our commitment made
this afternoon by confirming
our determination to bring Ab-
bie Hoffman and Leonard Wein-
glass here Sunday provided ade-
quate security measures can be
taken, even if we have to hold
the event outside." In so acting,
we accept the challenge of main-
taining the rights of our Uni-
versity under pressure.
This resolution was not empty
rhetoric. In order to attain
this goal, efforts are being made
to provide for the security of
the campus and the members
of the University: 1) by meeting
the conditions set by the Wel-
fare Committee; specifically,
the event shall be open only to
Rice students and faculty, 2) by
enlisting student aid to cooper-
ate in providing campus secur-
ity during both the event and
the crucial periods before and
after the event. Further, we are
seeking legal advice to aid us in
meeting any challenge to the
rights of the University in this
situation.
We of the Student Associa-
tion Senate ask the Faculty and
the Administration to give us
their support and considered ad-
vice in dealing with this chal-
lenge to academic freedom. We
feel that the university com-
munity, students, faculty, and
administration together cannot
allow its activities to be dictated
by the outside pressure.
The
Student Association Senate
Negotiations, not confrontations
To the Editor:
We should like to add our
voices to the chorus of protest
against the administration's
decision in the case of Abbie
Hoffman. The University must
maintain an open forum, resist
threats from all sources, and
respect the authority of its
own duly constituted commit-
tees. To say this much is to say
the obvious. To those who share
our regret at the administra-
tion's bizarre performance dur-
ing the past week, we urge not
the dramatic but self-defeating
course of confrontation but a
determined effort to define and
secure the powers of both stu-
dents and faculty through nego-
# *
tiations.
ALLEN MATUSOW
History Dept.
DAVID MINTER
English Dept.
Concern with behavior not beliefs
It is not a good policy to
deny Rice students the right
to select outside speakers of
their choice to talk on campus,
bow-ever noxious we might con-
sider the speakers' beliefs. It
is worse policy to first deny
this right in regard to one
speaker on grounds that are
vague or inconsistent with past
policy, then negotiate, draw
back a litle, then withdraw all
objections. I say "worse" be-
cause such behavior only con-
firms everyone's suspicions
that bad motives wrere behind
the decision to exclude the
speaker all along. Worse yet,
to others it will suggest that
authority is applied uncertain-
ly and can be nudged or shoved
aside on other issues where
authority should by all means
remain firm.
Our central concern should
be with behavior not beliefs,
and we should rigorously en-
force standards of good be-
havior in our treatment of
guest speakers, or any guest
for that matter, as well as of
one another whatever our
differences.
By this standard, some speak-
ers should surely be prohibited
from coming if they were
known to use the forum to
incite violent or lawless be-
havior or if they were known
to work up their listeners' emo-
tions to such a pitch that their
audiences tended to behave im-
properly even without an open
invitation to do so. Reasonable
men could, I am sure, examine
a speaker's past performance
on this basis and come to a
cerdict. And I believe such a
standard would prohibit para-
noid hell-raisers from the
Weathermen and Black Pan-
thers from making their pitch
at Rice.
I believe Abbie Hoffman can
be depended upon to behave
himself as I understand the
courts made this a clear condi-
tion of his parole. Justice,
which unfortunately is not
always as swift as we would
like, will probably serve as a
deterrent to bad conduct in this
case. And while the content
of what he says is not apt to
amount to much from an edu-
cational point of view, Rice
students should have a chance
to meet him. There are many
young people whose psychiat-
ric difficulties lead them to
mischief today, none of it very
funny; they should view at
close hand a kind of individual
whose behavior.and views most
of us who are educators will
not only not defend but actively
seek to refute.
TED HARWOOD
Department of
Anthropology and
Sociology
Freedom of speech for recruiters
The Student Senate, in re-
affirming its commitment to
bring Abbie Hoffman to the
Rice community, has taken an
admirable stand on protecting
free speech on campus. I think,
however, that this bravado
should be taken one step
further.
I would like to see the Senate
pass a resolution in which it
commits itself to protecting the
right of free speech to any
speaker, no matter what politi-
cal or social ideas he holds. It
seems to me that there should
be certain rules of conduct gov-
erning all on-campus speaking
engagements, preventing, inter-
ruption of the speaker by our
less-inhibited students. This, to
me, is also protecting "free
speech." On the other hand,
however, I would like to see it
ensured that any dissenters
have the opportunity to make
their views heard, after the
speaker is finished.
I can remember several cam-
pus speakers (or would-be
speakers) whom this action
would have helped in the calen-
dar year of 1969: General Elec-
tric Co., Army and Navy re-
cruiters, and LBJ, to name but
a few.
I think that it says a lot for
Rice students that they are
willing to stick their collective
neck out to give Abbie a chance
to speak. Far better still would
itf be if we could say that we
would do the same for anybody.
DAN WORRAL,
Lovett, '72
page 2—the rice thresher, april 9, 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. 23, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 9, 1970, newspaper, April 9, 1970; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245080/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.