The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 70, No. 3, Ed. 1 Friday, August 27, 1982 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:
* * \
Physical Education:
change it or drop it
After years of abusing my body in ways too horrible to
describe, I no doubt need to exercise. Monday afternoon,
however, I did not want to discover how many sit-ups I could
do in 60 seconds. Nor did I wish to determine how many inches
I could reach while seated on the Autry Court floor.
Unfortunately, I must survive the ordeal of physical education
101a to graduate from Rice University. As a senior who has
attempted to pass physical education several times, I resent the
imposition of this course on my person.
Why does Rice require us to attend courses that focus on the
body and not the mind? Perhaps the university believes that a
healthy body creates a healthy mind. This Aryan ideal may
easily be debunked when one examines the cases of such
hopeless alcoholics as William Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald
and Dylan Thomas who produced literary masterpieces.
Scientists, such as the fumbling Albert Einstein who wore large
furry slippers to avoid falling through holes in the universe, do
not always represent paragons of health. Many of the world's
greatest thinkers would not have been able to pass Rice
physical education. I do not claim such brilliance; I merely wish
to argue that physical prowess is not related to mental prowess.
My main point against physical education is that the course
does not do what it pretends to do. After taking conditioning, I
was not conditioned. The only real criterion for passing class is
attendance, and the time spent in class is not devoted to
learning, but simply to attending.
I do not wish to deny those who would like to participate in
physical education classes that opportunity. I wish to protest
the forced attendance in a class which in reality is a farce. If we
must take this class, at least give us credit for it.
I have heard people argue that if physical education were not
required, students would not leave their academic shells and
venture into the verisimiltudinous world of athletics. That is a
decision which I believe the university should allow each
individual to make. As adults, we should be allowed the
freedom to let our bodies rot if we so choose. Society cannot
make people better simply by legislating, and Rice cannot
make its students healthy by forcing them to spend three hours
a week in uniform. If I want to exercise by slam dancing to the
Ramones rather than playing badminton, I should be allowed
that option. (If the physical education department offered a
course in slam dancing, I would not be writing this editorial.)
A university should encourage creativity and independence
rather than force its students through a mold designed to
produce conforming alumni. The physical education
requirement does not educate; it manipulates.
etfez. PwiifocfMiti Hew%—~
JUST ONCE...
— Tom Morgan
rLOOK FEU.AS.
'COURSE- WE. POW'T
KJJOW kJMAT WE'RE-
D0IU\ BUT IF
THE. ECoMohfY
KJC4CS ARpUMD, WELlJ
TAKE- THE. CKEPiT.
amd ip rr docsmt,
JUST KEEP
&AHIM6 THE. PETto-
cwds.
33
\
<33%
5TUK
pou:.
* Mo -&id( Jacm Con^-tcsux
The Rice Thresher, Friday, August 27, 1982, page 2
■Hi
EXPANDING THE HEDGES/by Chris Ekren
If this column seems like a pro-
longed snicker, please excuse me.
In the 1980 presidential election, I
voted against Jimmy Carter. Given
Ronald Reagan's record of
constant tax increases in
California, my hopes weren't high.
True to expectations, the election
packaging of Reagan is now
almost totally unraveled.
The politician who once
proclaimed "true principles
transcend compromise" has joined
Tip O'Niell, deficit personified, on
national TV to ask for yet more
taxes and bludgeoned his wavering
Republican colleagues into
supporting him. The obvious
discrepancy between what Reagan
means to do and what he is doing
disturbs his supporters. The man
whom they worked for years to put
into office has effectively told them
to shut up and support him while
he tergiversates with the
Democrats.
Many Reaganites who are wont
to accept reality prefer to fantasize
that their beloved president is
being subtly brainwashed, held
captive in the White House by a
conspiracy of traitorous liberals.
Texas Reagan fundraiser Clymer
Wright recently wrote to me,
moaning "President Reagan's
image is being daily blurred and
distorted, and his firmly stated
principles are consistently
undermined by White House
staffers and spokesmen, constantly
bargaining, hinting, explaining,
restating and questioning the
President's most basic positions.
Our beloved president today
stands alone under siege. His
economic program is being
undermined by White House Chief
of Staff James Baker."
Sorry, Mr. Wright, the problem
lies with Reagan, not with Baker.
Certainly, James Baker is eager
to compromise Reagan's
principles. After all, before being
chosen to manage Reagan
administration policy, Baker twice
managed political campaigns
specifically designed to keep
Reagan from public office. Baker
coined the term "voodoo
economics" for George Bush's
unsuccessful run at Reagan arid is
by no means a true believer. In the
final analysis, though, it is Reagan
who appointed Baker and Reagan
who listens to him. Baker is
nothing without Reagan's support.
Increasing takes to a national
peacetime high by soaking those
sectors of the economy that are still
productive requires a lot of guts,
particularly for a "conservative
Republican." Reagan could easily
tell Baker to get lost. There are still
a lot of people who believe that
increasing taxes is not the way to
create jobs and cut inflation.
Reagan hangs on to Baker because
of a sad lack of courage. Rather
than get at the crux of our budget
deficit—built in entitlements
immune to normal budget
cutting—Reagan is content to
make deals with Tip.
Reagan's medium is television.
In thirty minutes he could tell
America: l)Social Security is
going bankrupt unless we run it on
an actuarially sound basis. 2)After
twenty years of myopia, our social
welfare programs need to be
revamped. 3)Milk price supports
and other subsidies of corporate/
individual inefficiency have to be
stopped. 4)The best national
defense is an economically strong
United States. We need to stop
throwing money down big black
holes that someday will be MX
missile silos. Also, since we can't
match the Soviets gun for gun and
have an economy worth speaking
of, we need a smart defense.
Reagan may actually say all of
this, but he won't take action.
Sitting in the White House, just as
he sat in Sacramento years ago, he
will think "the other way is
politically easier." And it is. With
Tip, Teddy and their ilk, our
President has gained a lot of
partners.
SITri/^/^N Tom Morgan
W&& Ed,,or
HRESHER Sandra Wasson
Business Manager
Jeanne Cooper News Editor
David Koralek Advertising Manager
Dave Potash Managing Editor
Conrad Reining Photography Editor
Mark Mitchell Sports Editor
Deborah KnafT Fine Arts Editor
Steve Bailey Back Page Editor
Jay Grob Senior Editor
Matt Petersen Copy Editor
Chris Ekren Associate Editor
Newt Staff
Assistant Editors Patty Cleary (News),
Gwen Richard (Fine Arts), Matt Petersen (Sports)
Ray Isle (Photography)
Contributing Editors Michele Gillespie,
Jonathan Berk, John L«mr
News Staff Sumit Nanda, Brad Sevetson
Martin Waldron, Joseph Halcyon
Fine Arts Staff Chris Boyer, Barry Watkins, Harry Wade
Production Staff Ann Bauser, Helen Clark, Sarah Jordan
James Kearly, John Krueser, Barry Leonowicz
Alan Mathiowetz, Bill McManus, Brad Sevetson
Julie Wilkinson, Larry Wright
Production Consultant Mike Gladu
Business Staff
Assistant Business Manager Susan Brown
Assistant Advertising Manager Todd Cornett
Circulation Matt Petenen
Subscriptions David Steffens
The Rice Thresher, the official student newspaper at Rice University since 1916, is published
cach Friday during the school year, except during examination periods and holidays, by the
students of Rice University. Editorial andbusiness offices are located on the second floor of the
Rice Memorial Center, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, Texas 77251. Telephone (713) 527-4801 or
527-4802. Advertising information available upon request. Mail subscription rate: $20.00
domestic, $40.00 international, (via first class mail). The opinions expressed herein are not
necessarily those of anyone except the writer. Obviously.
*1982 The Rice Thresher. All rights reserved.
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.
Morgan, Tom. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 70, No. 3, Ed. 1 Friday, August 27, 1982, newspaper, August 27, 1982; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245505/m1/2/?q=%22%22~1: accessed July 5, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.