The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 71, No. 4, Ed. 1 Friday, September 9, 1983 Page: 4 of 16
sixteen 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:
THRESHING IT OUT
South African trip
disturbs Strauss
To the Editor:
I have always been proud to be
an alumnus of Rice. So much so
that I have contributed every year
to the general fund of the
university, I have served as an
alumni interviewer of prospective
Rice students, and I have been the
alumni organization coordinator
for my part of the state. I have even
cheered for Rice football.
I never thought the day wouid
come when I would be ashamed to
be associated with Rice, but the
day has arrived. I read an
Associated Press dispatch on
August 5 that said that the Rice
Alumni Association was
sponsoring a trip to South Africa,
a trip that the officials of the
Alumni Association knew would
not be open to all members of the
Rice Alumni Association.
Furthermore, according to the
press release, the people running
the Alumni Association were well
aware of the implications of this
trip and that some people might be
upset about the relationship
between Rice and the segrega-
tionist government of South
Africa, but that they did not care.
1 wrote President Hackerman of
my concern and he responded with
a letter saying essentially that the
Alumni Association does what it
pleases.
I feel, however, that since the
Alumni Association is the Rice '
Alumni Association, any activities
carried on by it reflect properly or
improperly on the policies of the
university itself.
As a person who was a student at
the time that William Marsh Rice's
will was broken and one of the 95
percent of the student body who
felt that the will should be broken
because Rice truly should be a
university for the best students,
regardless of race, color, creed, or
national origin, I feel that Rice has
taken a giant step backwards in
allowing its name to be associated
with a trip to South Africa.
The Associated Press article
mentioned that a similar trip was
planned by the Northwestern
University Alumni Association
several years ago, but that protests
from students, faculty, and alumni
caused the cancellation of this trip.
1 do hope that someone can
cause the Alumni Association at
Rice to cease their segregationist
activities. If they do go through
with the trip 1 will no longer be able
to hold my head up when I
mention that 1 attended Rice.
When prospective students ask me
about Rice, I will answer truthfully
that Rice does not offer equality of
opportunity based solely on
academic merit. And I will find
some other appropriate outlet for
my annual donations, such as the
Unitod Negro College Fund.
I call upon all those who are
interested in Rice retaining its
reputation as a university of
excellence to let President
Hackerman know of their feelings.
Monty J. Strauss
Baker College, BA '67
Boarnet
TexPIRG
alleges
impartial
To the Editor:
Your editorial on TexPlRG's
funding implied several things
which just aren't true.
l.You state that TexPIRG, "does
The Rice Thresher, September 9, 1983, page 4
not represent the student body." I
shouldn't have to remind someone
who is a senior at this school that
the TexPIRG officers are elected
yearly in campus-wide elections.
Granted, the races for many of the
TexPIRG offices often have only
one candidate, but the same is true
of the race for Thresher editor.
While you were elected in an
unopposed race, Duaine Pryorran
for TexPIRG Chairman against a
candidate who agrees with your
view of TexPIRG. Duaine won
that race by better than a 2 to 1
margin. It is clear that TexPIRG
represents the Rice student body.
It is less clear who the Thresher
represents.
2. You imply that TexPIRG should
stick to consumer issues while
staying away from any political
issues. Yet TexPIRG was always
intended to be a consumer and
political group. The original
blanket tax was approved for a
group which regularly made
recommendations to the state
legislature. In 1982, students voted
to retain the TexPIRG blanket tax
knowing that TexPIRG would be
involved in both political and
consumer projects. In our 1982
leaflet which is quoted in Tom
Morgan's article, we say that
TexPIRG is dedicated tp "student
participation on...matters of
public interest." In February of
last year, I presented a written
document to the Student
Association Senate which
reiterated TexPlRG's commit-
ment to both political and
consumer projects. TexPIRG has
never presented itself as just a
consumer group, and the blanket
tax was intended for a group that
would examine issues of interest,
be they consumer issues or other
issues.
3.You allege that TexPIRG is a
partisan group. The preamble of
our constitution requires that we
be non-partisan, and TexPIRG
has never supported the platform
of any political party or endorsed
any candidates for public office.
Our projects consist largely of
sponsoring speeches and panel
discussions. Speeches such as
those given by Ralph Nader and
the local ACLU Chairman were
never intended as an endorsement
of those people's viewpoints; we
merely provided these speeches as
a service, just as various colleges
have sponsored speeches by
George Strake, Bill Hobby, and
Alan Ginsburg. The panel
discussions, such as the debate
between local Congressional
candidates, always represented all
viewpoints and interested parties.
TexPIRG is the only politically-
minded organization on campus
which does not adhere to a party
line or to one set of ideas.
Overall, TexPIRG is a well-run
organization, offering consumer
services such as an auto mechanic's
class while also offering forums on
Soviet intentions and on solutions
to the nuclear arms race. We have
never attempted to present
ourselves as anything other than a
student-run consumer and
political group. The question of
what type of funding is best for
TexPIRG is one that must be
answered by the appropriate
student government bodies and
possibly by the students
themselves. An informed decision
about TexPlRG's funding must be
made during this semester.
Hopefully Chris Ekren will aid the
decision-making process by
sticking to the facts in future
editorials.
Marlon Boarnet
former TexPIRG Chairman
US imperialism said
responsible for evil
To the Editor:
Alan Eynon (Shooting Blind,
Thresher, Sept. 2, p. 3) is certainly
right that American values are
worth defending, but he is blind to
the fact that American foreign
policy has betrayed our values in
virtually every military operation
— overt and covert — after the
Second World War. The
"continuing litany" of Soviet
imperialism — Eynon recites
Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and
Poland — can be matched,
intervention for intervention, with
the litany of American imperialist
exploits: the Dominican Republic,
Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua,
now El Salvador. Only former B-
movie actors could actually believe
that international conflict boils
down to a melodrama of Good
Guys versus Bad Guys: as Orwell's
literary masterpiece, 1984,
accurately projects, the globe is
threatened not by one but by two
imperialist superpowers, neither of
which can lay any claim to
honorable overseas pursuits.
The major difference between
the superpowers, and something
Americans can legitimately be
proud of as long as we defend it, is
the measure of domestic freeedom
we enjoy — certainly not as great a
measure as it could or should be,
but admirable nonetheless in
comparison with some other
countries. The problem is that,
when it comes to foreign policy,
the basic American ideals of
freedom and democracy are simply
not what we promote overseas. On
the contrary, the dictatorships we
establish, support, and re-establish
in the face of popular opposition
are among the most ruthless,
oppresssive, and, in a word,
undemocratic, in the world: no
freedom of belief, expression, or
press; no liberty to meet publicly or
privately to form unions or
political parties; rule by military
justice rather than democratically-
elected civilian government.
What else but such brutal
oppression on behalf of American
imperialism would drive local
opposition movements to seek
help from, of all places, the Soviet
Union?! The patronizing illusion
that popular protest against
American domination is not
legitimate national dissent but
merely the product of "Communist
agitation" does not square with the
historical record, as anyone with
a research rather than a
Hollywood background in Latin
American affairs should know.
U.S.-sponsored repression is not a '
temporary exception unfortu-
nately necessitated by the threat of
Soviet infiltration, but the very
nature of continuing American
domination and exploitation of
underdeveloped nations.
Castro led an autonomous,
locally-initiated revolution before
being forced by an American
capital-investment boycott and
trade embargos to seek aid from
the USSR. Independent Marxist
Salvador Allende was no Soviet
puppet, but the democratically-
elected president of Chile, before
American intervention toppled his
government. Nicaragua and El
Salvador want freedom from
American imperialist domination
— and are apparently willing to
risk alliance with (though not
allegiance to) Cuba in order to
attain it. In a tragic irony, today
the very freedoms they have been
fighting for may have to be
curtailed in the face of US-
sponsored counter-revolution and
sabotage. Reliance on external
support and strict internal
discipline are extreme measures,
from our comfortable perspective.
But consider their point of view:
compare the prosperity and
equality of Castro's Cuba (with its
elimination of poverty, indigence,
and illiteracy in a few short
decades) with the squalor and
inequality of most Western-bloc
nations (Haiti, Jamaica, even
Puerto Rico!); compare the brief
spurt of political freedom and
economic justice in Allende's Chile
with the economic chaos and
political tyranny that reign there
today. The alternative is a bleak
one indeed: continuing domina-
tion by the United State; the risk of
domination by the Soviet Union.
But the people of Latin American
countries have bravely decided to
fight for the democratic rights and
freedoms they so desperately
believe in.
A truly American policy, in the
best sense of the word, would
extend a helping hand to these
popular liberation movements
(their version of 1776), not force
them through greed into the (all-
too-willing) hands of the Soviet
Union. Provided that it is inspired
by critical intelligence and humane
compassion rather than blind
patriotism and self-righteous war-
mongering, the fight to defend
democratic values in America and
throughout the world can indeed
be an honorable one: may it
commence at the polls in 1984 —
or else end up in the streets again,
as in 1968, shortly thereafter.
Gene Holland
Brown College
resident Associate
Mitchell angers
military supporter
To the Editor:
Although I do not question the
sincerity of Mark Mitchell's
opinion of August 26,1 do wonder
why any sane human being would
advocate destruction of both
himself and his country. Never in
the history of the United States has
there been such a serious threat to
national security as the threat that
exists now from the Soviet Union.
Consider the fact that modern
technology has enabled otherwise
insignificant dictators such as
Colonel Quadaffi to dominate far
beyond their national borders.
Without the United States as a
stabilizing force, the world would
literally be in shambles. Not only
does the free world depend on the
United States for protection, but
they also look to us for stability.
The dollar is considered to be a
sound monetary unit throughout
the world because people know
that no matter what happens in
other countries, there will more
than likely be a stable American
^government to back up its
currency.
To assert that national
preparedness is war-mongering is
both naive and dangerous.
Attitudes such as these have
contributed largely to the failure of
American foreign policy abroad.
Our European allies in particular
have been very concerned about
the inconsistency of American
opinion. This is not the fault of the
current administration, but may be
blamed partially on the American
press in sensationalizing the threat
of war that has existed for thirty
years. The American people are
scared beyond rationality because
they are constantly being
confronted with "new" facts about
American-Soviet relations that
have actually been the status quo
since the Korean War. Also,
liberals such as Ed Asner (Lou
Grant) and Jane Fonda have not
only expressed their disapproval of
American policy, but have gone so
far as to financially support
America's enemies. Thus, neither
the American people nor
America's allies are quite sure what
the situation is between the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R.
I must also take exception to
your assertion that "... to applaud
an education with courses centered
on the techniques for most
efficiently exterminating people,
or even condone the recruitment of
soldiers and spies from students on
campus goes against the very fiber
of humanity." You must realize,
sir, that this is 1983, not 1776. I
agree that our forefathers did not
desire to have standing armies and
navies when they wrote the
Constitution, but now it is
necessary and expedient to have
the resources and experience
which will be so vital in the
unthinkable event of war. Courses
that are centered on the techniques
for most efficiently exterminating
people must also be regarded as
courses designed to prevent the
destructibn of freedom,
democracy, equality, religion, and
the many other facets of life in
America that are so sacred to us.
These same courses may very well
be the courses that prevent a
Holocaust such as that faced by the
Jews not only in Nazi Germany,
but in Stalinist Russia. The
Russian government does not have
a reputation as one of great
humanitarians, and I'm sure that
many of the very citizens of Russia
could corroborate this statement.
So, Mr. Mitchell, words like
patriotism and freedom are not,
and should never be anathema at
Rice, or anywhere else. I love my
country, and you should love it
too, for articles such as your
preposterous column of August 26
would be on the cutting room floor
today if not for the freedom given
us by the toil and strain of our men
at arms. My convictions are
upheld not by shunning military
service but giving my country a few
years of my life as a military
officer. You are right that "it is
never too late to uphold your
convictions, and the rewards for
refusing to compromise your
values are immeasureable." I must
agree that most readers do have
traditional values such as
patriotism, and the rewards for
being patriotic, and not giving in to
spineless, naive ideas are indeed
great. The idea of peace sounds
better than the sound of war. No
one would deny that war is the
worst of all evils, but to pretend it
doesn't exist is even more stupjd
than provoking one. The military
establishment exists to protect the
American people from foreign
domination. There should never be
shame in serving this country, and
continued on page 5
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.
Ekren, Christopher. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 71, No. 4, Ed. 1 Friday, September 9, 1983, newspaper, September 9, 1983; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245536/m1/4/: accessed June 20, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.