The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 60, No. 11, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 2, 1972 Page: 2 of 12
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
RURY.
c£gl
Oschner hits TexPIRG "elite"
editorials
Controversy has surrounded the "R" room since the
day of the decision to build it. The long-, concrete box
overlooking the south end of the stadium has generated
more heat and less light than any school issue in recent
years; Astroturf pales in comparison. The question is
one of money, and priorities.
The "R" room was built last summer at a cost of
about $300,000 to the University, which is being: repaid,
at a rate of $100,000 yearly, by the Owl Club. The Owl
Club is a fund-raising alumni activity whose receipts go
to the University; memberships range from $25 up.
Coincidentally, last year, when the first $100,000 was
paid off, was also the first year the Owl Club operated.
It took in about $106,000. Receipts this year should be
somewhat greater.
In the present, state of University finances, nobody
knows where the "R" room money "really came from."
Obviously, it didn't all come directly out of the students'
pockets if it's being- repaid by alumni donations. Equally
clearly, some of the $300,000 the University put in into
the "R" room* last year might have gone instead into
financial aid, salaries, or maintenance of the buildings
we've got now.
Many students, and some others, point with bitter-
ness to the problems $300,000 could alleviate, ignoring
the fact that the money is, after all, an investment rather
than a total loss. •
Supporters of the "R" room justify it on two
grounds :* first, that it will pay for itself in increased
contributions and as a recruiter's showcase; second, that
the University will gain a valuable permanent improve-
ment to be used for meetings and conferences, academic
and otherwise.
It may be quite a while before the "R" room pays
for itself in hard cash. It will, certainly, have publicity
value, attracting contributors' attention — but the Owl
Club raised its first $106,000 without an "R" room. Some
people, of course will really pay $500 for the privilege
of getting in. No telling how many.
At any rate, we have the "R" room now, and the
sooner everyone accepts that, the better.
That means co-operation — no blocking, no boycotts.
It's here and we're paying for it. Let's use it.
Another issue entirely: it does not seem reasonable
that all students should be excluded from the "R" room
during games. Must we be barred from a Rice facility for
our own good ? The argument here is that students have
no intrinsic right there, and might cut down on the
room's attractivene$$. Are we that objectionable to
alumni? And if so, why the Telefund?
It doesn't make sense.
Next Tuesday, Richard Nixon will seek re-election
as President of the United States. His qualifications are
many, his opponent's lamentably few. And, to make a
long story too short, he has been a good, effective Presi-
dent. In matters both foreign and domestic he has shown
wisdom, compassion, and competence.
He should be returned to office.
To the Editor:
In the spring term last year
a dramatic publicity build-up
was run on the Rice campus
for an organization called PIRG
(Public Interest Research
Groups). Subsequent to this a
vote was held on the issue of
student financial support of
PIRG. .This passed overwhelm-
inglyfpThe students had been
told that PIRG would protect
their interests. However, since
that time not a word has been
said. It is time to demand an
accounting.
PIRG at Rice has been made
voluntary. However, the method
is highly suspect. Rather than
any student who wishes to give
financial support being required
to indicate this when student
fees are paid, students who do
not wish to participate must do
so. Thus, many students who
may not fully understand that
PIRG is voluntary or who miss
the hidden assessment will be
forced to support PIRG by de-
fault. (Elsewhere, PIRG collec-
tion methods have been even
more flagrant violations of
students' rights. At universities
in Oregon, all students were
required to visit out-of-the-way
places to collect refunds. As
more students sought refunds,
refunding procedures were can-
celled and no refunds were
made at all.)
PIRG publicity contained sev-
eral high sounding phrases such
as "consumer protection" and
"public interest," but little was
made clear of intent. PIRG now
has student funds from ^11 over
the state with virtually a blank
check on their use.
PIRG coffers around the
country are full, but the results
are hardly spectacular, PIRG
officials, when questioned on
how money was to be spent,
often were unable to answer.
In Connecticut, a study was
made of the M-l rifle. In Ore-
gon PIRG is paying a skin diver
to float down the Columbia
River and check sewage levels.
Another PIRG project was a
study of wheelchair transporta-
tion patterns.
PIRG is clearly a political
organization. PIRG does not en-
dorse candidates, but it does
spend large amounts of money
in the political arena. PIRG in-
tends to lobby in government at
state and local levels. However,
no attempt is made to obtain
the views of students PIRG
supposedly represents. An elite
group of PIRG board members
decide PIRG policy in each
state.
PIRG is not above trying to
influence campus politics. Re-
cently at Stephen F. Austin
University PIRG used its in-
fluence to try to defeat a stu-
dent who was running for office
who was critical of PIRG.
It should be clear that PIRG
is not the benevolent protector
of student interests that it -was
portrayed to be. If TexPIRG
(the Texas PIRG organization)
cannot make an accounting,
then it is time for Rice to
withdraw from participation. No
longer should Rice students al-
low themselves to be ripped off
against their own interests.
Jeff Ochsner, Baker '73
TexPIRG local board replies
We have been criticized for
lack of communication. "...
(Since being approved in the
vote) not a word has been
said." In reply we can only cite
the six Thresher articles print-
ed about TexPIRG since Aug.
25. Those articles describe Tex-
PIRG's purposes, organization,
meetings, a request for volunte-
ers, two ongoing projects, and
the need for a board member
(to replace one who was draft-
ed.)
We hold public board meet-
ings weekly to discuss current
projects, take suggestions, etc.
TexPIRG will soon have an of-
fice in the RMC staffed daily
by local board members, sym-
pathizers, lovers, and anyone
else who wishes to become
"elite."
"... Many students who
may not fully understand that
PIRG is voluntary or who miss
the hidden assessment will be
forced to support PIRG by de-
fault", says Jeff. The procedure
used was a separate sheet in-
cluded in the front of all re-
gistration packets briefly ex-
plaining TexPIRG. The bottom
of the page was a form to be
returned with registration if
payment was refused. This was
the most efficient way to handle
the 52% of • the student body
who had signed the TexPIRG
petition and who presumably
could be expected to pay.
TexPIRG's coffers are full to
the tune of $7,800. This money
is controlled by the state board,
made up of representatives
from each of the 6 schools now
participating. TexPIRG has a
"blank check" only in the sense
that its money is available for
whatever use its members
direct. Those members are the
Texas students that elected the
board.
We do consider ourselves po-
litical to the extent that we
will lobby, litigate and other-
wise work for change in the
students' interests. We do re-
serve the right to criticize those
we feel act against student in-
terests.
Finally, Jeff isn't too fami-
liar with TexPIRG in general
and with the Rice branch speci-
fically. Since there is no na-
tional PIRG, each state group.
is independent of all others.
Don't indict TexPIRG with
nebulously described actions of
.other PIRGsi Like floating
down a river in a wheel chair
with an M-l rifle.
TexPIRG is the only agency
in existence through which stu-
dents can effectively look 'aft-
er their own interests in the
public arena. It is a resource
for those who wish to accom-
plish constructive change in the
community.
The Rice TexPIRG local Board
Trey Gillespie
Steve Jackson
Virginia Jee
Larry LeMay
Paul Sanner
Simpson turns over an old leaf
To the editor:
So, I return, again peddling
lettuce.
First, I would like to clarify
a statement I made in my let-
ter in the Oct. 5 Thresher. The
$8000 - $10,000 annual salary
I quoted applies only to the
full-time lettuce cutters. The
$2500 annual salary quoted by
Mr. Garcia, et al, includes the
salaries of the "60% of the
work force (which) is made up
of temporary workers, i.e.
housewives, students, and men
with other jobs," as I said in
that letter. As a matter of fact,
according to California state
officials, the lettuce workers
there have, in 1972, -hourly earn-
ings ranging from $5.70 to
$7.41, when piece-work pay is
added.
Another thing; Mr. Garcia
said that the "Mother's Against
Chavez" group was "founded
by the growers and the Farm
Bureau." That's pretty interest-
ing. I wonder where Mr. Gar-
cia gets his information. The
Farm Bureau would ibe in a
helluva lot of hot water if it
did something like that.
Finally, William F. Cowan,
chief deputy director of Cali-
fornia's department of agricul-
ture, says:
"The truth is that more than
85 per cent of all head lettuce
harvested in California and Ari-
zona is harvested under union
contracts. Some of the Teamster
contracts in the Salinas Valley
go back 30 years . . . this boy-
cott ... is a jurisdictional dis-
pute between unions.".
But let it be noted that prac-
tically none of the growers
have rescinded the contracts,
and 70% of the farm workers
are still working under Team-
ster contracts.
Obviously, the United Farm
Workers, headed by Cesar Cha-
vez, have managed to exert
pressure with, the present boy-
cott. But to what ends? Not to
see that the remaining 15% of
the lettuce workers are union-
fhresne
ized, but to gain power by push-
ing the Teamsters out. My main
point is this: the proposed boy-
cott will not help the migrant
workers. Only through legisla-
tion and the unionization of the
remaining 15%' of the workers
will their plight be improved.
Besides, lettuce is good for
maintaining one's sex life.
Paul F. Simpson
Hanszen '76
Messrs. Garcia and Simpson:
This is a fascinating dialogue,
but one has to draw the line
somewhere. The Thresher has
had about all the lettuce letters
it can take right now. We will
have to request that you cease
and desist, here at any rate.
Possibly KTRU would like to
air a debate . . .
STEVE JACKSON
Editor
MALCOLM WADDELL
Business Manager
Lew Hancock Advertising Manager
Virginia Jee Assistant Business
Manager
Ralph Umbarger Calendar Editor
H. David Danglo Assistant Editor
Morty Rich Assistant Editor
Dean Ornish Head Photographer
Bill Jones Sports Editor
Greg Norris Sports Editor
Staff: Andy HurleyChip Lansdell, Charles Pau, Frank Presler, Mike
Ross, Lee Silverthorn, Gary Brewton, Jim Lawler, Mark Onak, Cathe Kratise.
Michael Peck, Craip: Stafford, Randy Guebert, Forrest Johnson, Wendy Nord-
strom, James Wilhoit, Guyle Cavin, Irene Schumiliver,, Laura Johnson, Bob
Bunch, Ann Wilhoit.
The Rice Thresher, official student newspaper of Rice University, is pub-
lished weekly on Thursday except during holidays and examination periods by
students of Rice University, Houston, Texas 77001, telephone 528-4141 X221 or
645. The opinions herein are not necessarily those of anyone except the writers,
Obviously.
the rice thresher, november 2, 1972—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.
Jackson, Steve. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 60, No. 11, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 2, 1972, newspaper, November 2, 1972; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245145/m1/2/?q=%22%22~1: accessed July 6, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.