The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 5, Ed. 1 Friday, September 5, 1980 Page: 2 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 20 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:
Food change needed
Food service has problems. The food is unquestionably bad
and it costs too much. But what lies behind those problems is
difficult to determine. Inflation is part of it, but anyone
planning a budget last spring when inflation was approaching
18 percent, should have realized that. A decentralized service
system also causes many headaches, but the food and service
has been better in previous years. Poor management and poor
response to problems as they arise certainly play a role in the
formula.
For the students, however, the bottom line is still the same:
We are paying more and getting considerably less. Food
Service is trying to appease us with assurances that things will
change soon. But since none of the factors in the equation have
changed, the final product must be the same.
Obviously, the whole system needs to be revamped. If it
requires the administration to fire both Hicks and Rubash, that
should be done. But that is only a viable solution if someone
else can do a better job. It remains to be seen if anyone can.
Outside consultants should be hired to suggest a more
efficient system for Rice Food Services, given Rice's unique
problems.
For now, things have gone from bad to worse. It is time for a
change.
— Richard Dees
Anderson's VP hurts
John Anderson's selection of former Wisconsin Governor
Patrick Lucey mirrors Anderson's campaign as the "educated
man's" candidate. Like Anderson, who with serious media
focus became the attractive candidate, Lucey will also emerge
as a benefit when the media cites his accomplishments.
Lucey, often labeled a liberal Democratic reformer, served in
the Wisconsin state legislature, became lieutenant governor in
1964, and was elected Wisconsin's governor in 1970. According
to the Chicago Tribune, Lucey's "six years in that job were
characterized by the institution of tough environmental
standards, a revamping of the state's splendid university
system, and significant economic development."
Lucey, a long-time Kennedy family supporter, most recently
served as Carter's ambassador to Mexico but resigned last
October to help Ted Kennedy with his now defaulted
campaign. The Wisconsin statesman, a millionaire
businessman, will not only attract disillusioned Kennedy
supporters who refuse to support Carter but will also add his
good relations with organized labor. In short, Lucey offers the
"unity" ticket an established record of political and public
achievement rather than instant celebrity.
But it would be the lack of political glamour that makes news
Lucey's selection a bad one. The obvious question becomes
whether the news media will indeed pick up on Lucey's pluses.
Odds are that with Carter and Reagan's domination of every
broadcast, Lucey won't get the attention he deserves. In this
respect, Anderson's selection will be a drawback.
—Anita Gonzalez
'Keystone Campos'?
The "Keystone Campos" was what one person I talked to
called the Campus Police after observing the manner in which
t hey "secured" Jones while trying to catch the "blond masher",
as the Jones-Brown intruder is called.
Surely, the Campus Police should be familiar enough with
the buildings on campus to be able to catch an intruder inside a
campus building. I hope they can figure out their way around
before someone gets hurt. —Richard Dees
NOW, LOOK™
IF TVUS NH'T
♦ECm- JUSTICE,"
IDONT KNOW WHAT IS
CJ05E RELATIVES
ofthemcr
EVERygot*
'Personally, I
have serious
doubts about
evolution,
yself . . .
Ronald Reagan
\ugust, 1980
SPANNING THE HEDGES/by David Dow
(JwW
Societies form when
autonomous men voluntarily join
with other autonomous men out of
self-interest. They choose to limit
their freedom because the benefits
of doing so outweigh the sacrifice.
But only the formative members
make that calculation. As the
original parties to the Social
Contract die and leave behind their
offspring, a situation develops
where the generations which
perpetuate the society assented
neither to its formation nor to the
surrender of their individual
autonomy. Except for immigrants
(and when acting under duress
even they are a tenuous example),
the members do not actually join
the group; they are born into it.
Whereas the founders of the
society explicitly assume some
duties to the whole, the obligation
of subsequent generations is at
most tacit.
This week and next I want to
examine the obligation American
citizens have to the United States.
Since societies wield coercive
power, the issue is not merely an
academic one. The architects of a
civilization grant the state power
to carry out a specific function. Do
the offspring automatically concur
that the function is a just one?
Clearly the purpose for
conveying coercive power to the
government changes over time.
When the Puritans fled the
England of Charles I to settle in
America, they dreamed of an
uncorrupted, ecclesiastical Utopia.
With typical Puritanical cynicism,
they established a potent civil
government primarily to keep an
innately sinful man tethered to the
path of righteous holiness.
Whether we still share the
Puritans' grim view of human
nature, Washington's bureaucracy
definitely derives its power from
something besides 220 million
God-fearing Americans.
Adoration of God and
governmental protection of the
paths to His kingdom have given
way to capitalism's deification of
profit and governmental efforts to
enumerate the acceptable ways of
attaining it. Heretics and Satanic
demons do not threaten the social
order; monopolists and socialists
do. Our economic system has
emended Adam Smith's blueprint,
but our government still functions
as the protector of free enterprise.
Washington plays an economic
role; its religious duties have long
since vanished. Carnegie, Morgan,
and Rockefeller subordinated
themselves to precisely this
guardian of the marketplace, not
to a zealous soldier of Puritanism.
By their time, values had already
changed.
And they continue to change.
Today, capitalism can justify itself
morally no more than Puritanism
can. Yet the obligation of
Americans to the existing
government hinges on the morality
of the government's basis for
existence, whch is ostensibly to
safeguard a competitive economic
system. The fact that Madison,
Jefferson and others created a
government to protect free
enterprise in the 18th and 19th
centuries hardly binds the 20th
century Americans to that specific
government. Why should it? After
all, we don't let John Winthrop's
17th century intentions commit
Americans to a Puritanical
government.
Democracy and representative
government are an entirely
separate issue. Their desirability
does not automatically impart
justice to whatever economic
system the putative government
chooses to protect. A continuing
agreement with Jefferson's
political ideology does not entail
unequivocal acceptance of his.
normative economic views. Yet
our affinity for American political
democracy blinds us to a harshly
unjust economic foundation. If,
however, the economic basis is
truly unjust, the citizen owes the
government no duty of obedience
where acquiescence perpetuates
the evil.
How any society can justify the
obsessive egoism so central to
capitalism is anamolous and
appalling. That our ancestors
somehow constructed a specious
defense of the system does not
compel us to support, nor can it
excuse our support, of a
government which rests on a
precarious moral foundation. Next
week I will delineate the morally
disquieting assumptions of
American capitalism and I will
suggest that by continuing to
embrace a patently oppressive
doctrine, the American govern-
ment abjures its role as a beacon of
justice. As for the citizen, a moral
party to the Social Contract
assumes no obligation to obey
blindly or to accept passively the
errors of the founders of the
society, but to submit only to a just
authority and to attempt to cleanse
that authority when it becomes
sullied.
1HRESHER
RICHARD DEES
Editor
DAVID ROSS
Business Manager
Anita Gonzalez Newt Editor
John VanderPut Managing Editor
Carole Valentine Advertising Manager *•
Steve Bailey Sports Editor
John Heaner Fine Arts Editor
Laura Rohwer Photography Editor
Kelvin Thompson Back Page Editor
David Butler Senior Editor
Assistant Editors Bruce Davies, Ruth Hillhouse
Contributing Editors David Dow, Karen Strecker
News Staff Bruce Davies. Allison Foil,
Pam Pearson, Jeanne Cooper, Joan Hope, Matt Dore, Ellen Spraul, Michael Tinkler,
Michael Trachtenberg, Jay Grob. Sumit Nanda, John Hulne, Tom Morgan, David Keen
Fine Arts Staff Chris Castaneda, Geoff Spradley,
Scott B. Solis, Thorn Glidden, Andy Hathcock, Deborah Knoff,
Kevin Topek, Mindy Vanderford
Sports StafT Donald Buck holt, Michele Gillespie,
Duane Berry, Ken Klein, Jay Grob
Production Staff Kathryn Mason, Mike Dishart,
Hank Petri, Pam Pearson. Elif Selvili, Rawslyn Ruffin, Ellen Spraul,
Ann Betley, Vikki Kaplan, David Keen, Lisa Yee, Jeff Zweig
The Rice Throber, the official student newspaper of Rice University since 1916, is published on
Sundays 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, Texas 77001. Telephone (713) 527-4801 or 527-4802. Advertising
information available upon request. Mail subscriptions: SI5.00 per year. The opinions expressed herein
are not necessarily those of anyone except the writer. Obviously.
®I980 The Rice Thresher All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, September 5, 1980, 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.
Dees, Richard. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 5, Ed. 1 Friday, September 5, 1980, newspaper, September 5, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245445/m1/2/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.