The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 6, Ed. 1 Thursday, September 13, 1979 Page: 2 of 20
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.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Cooperation a must
Events in recent weeks have brought a number of problems
related to student life and property on campus insto such sharp
focus that we, as representatives of studnet government in the
colleges, feel obligated to address them. We feel that many of the
latest administrative decisions affecting students and the
residential colleges have reflected a growing detachment of the
administration from the realities of the college system; moreover,
these policy decisions have been arbitrary, inappropriate, and not
in the best interests of the students of Rice. In light of increased
administration expectancies of student initiative and
responsibility, we are especially called to bring these decisions to
the attention of the Rice community. While we are naturally
concerned with particular issues, we feel the need for a more
general analysis of the current student-administration
relationship.
That the administration is desirous of organized student
assistance in at least two important areas has been clearly
demonstrated: to wit, campus safety and flood protection. We do
not underestimate the importance of these topics, but rather, feel
that these areas are perfect examples of the overlap of student and
administrative interests, with cooperation being to the mutual
benefit of all involved. We are disturbed, however, with certai®
aspects of the administration's proposals in these areas. A
memorandum from Mr. Berger's office, dated August 29, relating
to tire safety, outlined several procedures for possible "instigation"
in the colleges. Suggested were the mounting of exit placards in
each room, and student organization and fire-fighting effort.
Regardless of the Univeristy's liability status in such student effort
(unclear, at best), the memo does not seem to acknowledge the
residential character of the buildings. Neither does the initial
distribution of the memo, which was to college masters, Food and
Housing, and Campus Business Manager, reflect familiarity with
the role of college government in student affairs. Similarly, Mr.
Pitman's memo pertaining to flood procedures did not properly
number the coed colleges at three. It is disconcerting to us to see
such important subjects as these dealt with from a position of either
little regard for or knowledge of undergraduate life.
A give-and-take attitude should benefit both parties in the ideal
situation, and it is obvious that the students and administration
have not yet reached this balance. Last Spring, extensive
vandalism of student cars in the Stadium lot caused great concern
not only for the immediate damage, but also for the problem of
security in this area of the campus. The campus police did
apprehend those responsible on this occasion, but improvement in
policy is necessary to remedy the long-term situation. Suggestions
to the police have met considerable criticism on grounds that they
would not be feasible. Increased patrolling at* irregular hours,
closed-circuit surveillance, and greater mobility of the police force
may indeed be aggressive measures which will require changes in
the campus police organization; however, no improvements at all
will result if there is no action taken. The situation remains unsafe.
Correspondence on other areas of security also aims at
providing student input into the problems of general monitoring of
activities and the student escort service. The minimal mobility of
the campus police has been cited as a major stumbling-block to the
security of areas which are accessible only on foot. The police
should get out of their cars to patrol the central quadrangle, and
programs involving the use of MoPeds, golf carts, and other
transportation have been suggested. Again, these
recommendations meet with little enthusiasm. The success of the
student escort service has shown the administration that our ideas
can work and serve as a model to demonstrate the benefits of
experimentation. Instead of results, the beginning of t£e year has
been filled with problems. No comprehensive plans for
improvement of security have been adopted. The theft of master
keys due to carelessness have created a severe problem to campus
security. For the second year in a row, the vandalism of the Lovett
basement was the result of poor management on the part of the
administration. The escort service provided by the campus police
produces many complaints of its ineffectiveness.
The situation of security on the Rice campus is acceptable only if
we have done all that we can to remedy the problem. Yet this
feeling of working together as students and as administrators will
not be realized until communication gets results. The
administration cannot continue to close parking lots to student use
despite student protest—as in the case of "J" lot—and continue to
have us feel that our input is an integral part of the University's
policy formation. We have been asked for help, suggestions, and
money to make Rice a better school. This is well and good;
however, unless the administration can work more effectively to
see that our tuition and time are well-spent, we fear that the Rice
community will suffer. It is our opinion that genuine progress
only be made through the open and frank discussion of these
issues. —The Committee of the College Presidents
Greg Woodhams '80
Baker College
Martha Proctor '81
Brown College
Martha Creager '80
Hanszen College
Susan Lopez '80
./ones College
Tim Case '80
Lovett College
Hardie Morgan '80
Richardson College
Steve Bohannon '80
Wiess College
Chris Kilgore '80
Will Rice College
THervse^ THR0UIU'
ALU KiUPS Of
TRfc-BAPies 4me-
, t>Avr- • •
MKE.
Proctor's ruling inappropriate
Proctor Sam Carrington should not have
barred Larry Pirkle from attending classes
before his case came to trial last week.
Pirkle is now in his fifth year at Rice. Before
this, he had never been in trouble, and he had
demonstrated his responsibility at the university
by serving competently as Hanszen's head waiter
last year.
For these reasons, Dr. Carrington's statement
that Pirkle constituted a threat to the
community must be questioned. Those who
know Larry Pirkle recognize that he is not a
dangerous person, at Rice or elsewhere. Dr.
Carrington clearly had the right to suspend
Pirkle, but he used it ill-advisedly, generating the
unhealthy impression that he was willing to
consider Larry Pirkle guilty until proven
innocent.
It is possible that Dr. Carrington's action was
a response to the intensity of feeling among
campus police officers. Dr. Carrington and
other administrative officials, I have heard, were
pressured by some of the officers to take strong
Threshing-it-out
Dear Editor,
After reading last week's
Thresher I cannot help wondering
if the campus police are guilty of
selective enforcement of the law.
One article tells an account of
the campos cracking down on Rice
students at the Casino Party. The
result of this incident is that two
Rice students are banned from
campus, except for "class and
library" time.
On the same page, the Thresher
tells about some SMU fraternity
boys vandalizing the gym and
stealing a ceramic owl and a band
hall sign. The campos were there,
but they let the SMU boys go.
Their excuse was that the
vandalism and theft was "healthy"
fun.
It seems odd to me that our
campus police would label theft
and vandalism by outsiders
healthy, while arresting two of
Rice's own students for an incident
that seems to be as much the fault
of the campos as the students
involved. To top this off, Proctor
Sam Carrington is quoted as being
"worried about the vandalism"
occurring at Rice.
At this point, I am forced to ask
myself what our campus police are
here for. Are they really protecting
the Rice community. Why would
they decide to let vandals from
outside the Rice community go
while cracking down on student
behavior here at home? If Proctor
Carrington is worried about
vandalism, why are the campos
letting the vandals go, and calling
their vandalism healthy? Isn't this
selective enforcement of the law?
Something is definitely wrong
here, and I for one think that a
look at the campos priorities is
action against the two students. The officers are
said to feel they cannot work in an environment
where they are not protected from assault.
To date, the relations between the campus
police and students have been good, despite some
problems. Few things, however, could make
their lives and ours more aggravating than a
serious deterioration of these relations. Both
sides must be willing to admit errors when they
occur.
In this case, the campos goofed first. Officer
Medina should never have been sent to the
casino party in plainclothes. And he should
never have been carrying a gun in his belt.
Finally, he should not have treated other
students at the party brusquely.
The resolution of this case leaves me
unsatisfied. Pirkle and Seidensticker's sentences
were excessive. Since both chose not to appeal,
we should at least make sure that better policies
covering campus police presence at parties
prevents this sort of thing from happening again.
—Matt Muller
necessary. The way things are, I
certainly would not want to have
any kind of run-in with those who
are supposed to be protecting me. I
do not think they are worthy of the
trust their position puts them in.
Liz Elfrink
WRC '80
THRESHER
MATTHEW MULLER
Editor
JAY OLIPHANT
Business Manager
Richard Dees Managing Editor
Geri Snider Advertising Manager
Rolf Asphaug News Editor
Wayne Derrick Photography Editor
Franz Brotzen Fine Arts Editor
Bob Schwartz Back Page Editor
Greg Holloway Sports Editor
News Staff Anita Gonzalez, Michael Trachtenberg,
Kathy Mitchell, Amy Grossman, David Butler, Bill Bonner, Sarah Herbert, R.B.
Johnson, Lela Smith, Sutapa Sur, Anita Mangold, J.C. Puckett, Pat Campbell,
Eugene Domack, Ron Stutes, Rawslyn Ruffin, Augusta Barone, Russ
Rischard, Rick Gerlach
Fine Arts Staff Steve Sailer, Jim Fowler
Thomas Peck, Nicole Van Den Heuvel, Scott Solis, Carol Owen,
Thorn Glidden, Gary Cole
Sports Staff Normal Gonzalez, Mich Rucker,
Tom Samuels, Alison Whittemore
Arts Staff John Lemr, Harold Nelson
Photography Staff Bruce Kessler, Jeff McGee
Production Staff David Butler, John Szalkowski,
Ann Betley, John VanderPut, Debbie Davies Huffman, Dianne Frommme, Vikki
Kaplan, Ruth Hillhouse, Allison Foil, Autry Ross, Laurie Koch,
Gaye Gilbert, Heidi Clay
Circulation Rob Rogers
The Rice Thresher, the" official student newspaper at Rice University since 1916, is published
weekly on Thursdays during the school year, except during examination periods and holidays,
by the students of Rice University. Editorial and business offices are located on the second floor
of the Rice Memorial Center, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77001. Phone 527-4801 or 527-4802.
Advertising information available upon request.Mail subscription rate: 115.00 per year. The
opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone except the writer.
Obviously.
®Copyright 1979, The Rice Thresher. All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, September 13, 1979, 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.
Muller, Matthew. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 6, Ed. 1 Thursday, September 13, 1979, newspaper, September 13, 1979; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245412/m1/2/?rotate=90: accessed June 22, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.