The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 72, No. 19, Ed. 1 Friday, January 25, 1985 Page: 2 of 12
twelve 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:
Conflict over movie unnecessary
No doubt many students are feeling rather superior after Vice
President Stebbings'decision to allow the showing of Insatiable
last night. But though the original decision to ban the movie was
not workable, it was not altogether unjustified, either.
Dr. Stebbings is a man of convictions, and it seems that one of
them is that pornography is a vice, not something to be
encouraged and certainly not something anyone would want
linked to the Rice name. There is nothing wrong in this opinion,
with which many other administrators agree. Even the
staunchest libertarians among us will (or should) agree that it
would be unfortunate for Rice to become a mecca for porn film
aficionados.
Stebbings erred, not in opposing the showing of Insatiable,
but in expressing his opposition by cancelling the movie. While
the suppression of pornography may be considered by many an
admirable public goal, what kind of movies we decide to allow
on campus is still not as important as that we all contribute to the
decision. Administrators and students, libertarians and
fundamentalists must reach a compromise to respect each others
rights and concerns.
Some trade-offs will have to be made. The following are
suggestions; the final decision is really up to negotiation between
the administration and the student body.
• Films with at least the support of a college government
should be allowed, no matter what their content.
• Films considered pornographic should have attendance
limited to Rice students (and personal guests), and be in a
building where the movie would not be visible from the outside.
• Advertising for potentially offensive movies should be
discreet and short-lived.
•Questionable movies should be scheduled so as to avoid
coinciding with the presence on campus of large numbers of
alumni or other guests of the university.
For Rice administrators not to discourage the showing of
sexually explicit films would be to condone them. But to ban
such films would be censorship. Let them instead advise the
students, allow us our occasional excesses, and let us learn in the
process.
—Paul Havlak
The first of the Tuesday Threshers is past, and I'm beginning
to think they will be a success if we can recruit enough more
writers and skilled darkroom workers. We can especially use
writers interested in features or off-campus news.
Whether you want to help out at the Thresher or are perhaps
just curious what kind of lunatics work here, drop by our office
upstairs in the RMC for a coke on us. Give us your ideas, your
complaints.
ftinciaEft
HBMft/tSreHWTHE.
NKiHTS IN MBAS TOON
WONDERING WWCH OF THE
OmfWSOHWS OWNED
WTO HIS T1NYCE11ML
FIRST GO BERSERK ffOK
TUECgMTOQUNSERS-
lUMK&WQBS-mE.
STREETS WITHOUT A HOME,
A FRIEND OK ANV IDEA
WHMTTODO SINCE A1EX/6
MENIAL HOSPITAL 1TOEP
HER OUT TO EASE \TS
CNERCR0WPEDWRDS-
GIBLwghtuaveto
AOUAiiy OBEY AIAWEUL
COUKT ORDER TO TREAT
WERSCHEL A. AND FLORENCE
B.UKEHIMH fcEMGS-
GUESS) WHICH WILL BPt THE HEART?
BULLDOZING THE HEDGES/by Steve McLaughlin
The vigilante. To some in society
he is a triumphant figure, the man
who could not stand the
breakdown of law and order any
longer. But to others he symbolizes
a dangerous mind, the person who
takes it upon himself to spread
violence and to render justice in
any manner he sees fit. Mr.
Bernard Goetz, of New York City
Subway fame, is neither of these.
He and his actions were rather the
inevitable outcome of the
American justice system of the past
twenty years. To criticize Mr.
Goetz's actions is, therefore, to
argue a moot point. We must
instead look at what happened to
produce this action and that must
be done to correct this imbalance
jn our justice system which spurred
Mr. Goetz to do what he did.
The December 22 shootings
raised probably two issues (even
though they're closely related) of
importance. The first of these
concerns what may well be the
irreconcilable issue of the right of
self-defense vs. the issuing of
summary justice. Every individual
ultimately possesses the body in
which he resides. This entails the
right, therefore, to defend that
body and prevent it from being
harmed. But at the same time
criminals have the right to be
THRESHING IT OUT
Publicity drives off
potential convert
To the editor:
When 1 first heard that Josh was
coming to campus, I thought, "Oh.
One of the religious groups is
bringing another speaker to
campus. 1 might as well ignore this
one. too." Then, after a few days 1
decided that I should be open-
minded and hear what he had to
say anyway. I figured 1 could learn
about what other people hold to be
important.
But he did not see my face when
he spoke on campus this week. Do
\ou know why? It is because his
P. R. agent at Rice wasthe Campus
Crusade for Christ. And thev
decided that if it's good to tell
everyone that he'd be here, it must
be twice as good to tell everyone
twice. Well I'm sick of seeing his
pins on my friends'chests, I'm sick
of hearing him talk in my
commons, I'm sick of seeing his
banner on mv school's library, and
I'm SICK. SICK, SICK of seeing
his name in my classroom,
covering the blackboards, tacked
to the bulletin boards, and taking
ciasstijriie for little promotions.
Perhaps the Campus Crusade
hasn't yet realized that I have a
right not to be force-fed someone
else's beliefs. And when his name is
like Big Brother, peering at me
from every corner of campus, that
is an invasion of my privacy.
Some day. he should come back
i
ks
sm,mmknl$ NAPPING,,HIS chisf of staff l£ft,m
interior secamw's owm treasure merw f&m.
THE LABOR Smimi$IWCTePWTf1%£SWAm>Mlj
GENERAL,, BUT THIS IS RO wclsatm uw, can i help wo ?
The Rice Thresher, January 25, 1985, page 2
to campus when the atmosphere
here is a bit better. But he should
wait a few years. I don't think I can
bear to see his name on the wall for
a while. And next time, he should
tell the Crusade not to overdo it.
David Schnur
Lovett '88
Responsible soul
offers discussion
To the editor:
Please publish the following
letter in the Friday issue of the
Thresher, January 25. Thank you
very much.
To the author of the misclass
published on January 18, which
began, "Look people — if I wanted
'Maximum Sex' I'd go to the
Village Cinema....":
You mentioned (speaking of
Campus Crusade members) that
"The responsibility for what you
term my soul is not yours. Do you
understand?" Yes, true Christians
do; they are genuinely concerned
about - not responsible for —
what happens to you and your
soul, but hypocritical "Christians"
are not. I am not saying that
anyone in Crusade is a hypocrite,
nor that Crusade is a group of
hypocrites; I am merely stating a
fact. The fate of your soul is truly
yours.
So, I ask you seriously, what are
you going to do about it? What can
you do about it? I challenge you to
pay attention to your spiritual side:
surely it, as well as your mind, tells
you that there must be a meaning
to your life, that you cannot simply
be, as the song says, "dust in the
wind." 1 invite you, and anyone
else reading this, to discuss with me
the meaning of life and; or the
importance of the soul. What have
you got to lose? If you contact me
by phone. 630-9187. I need never
know who you are.
One more thing: though
Crusade (of which 1 am not a
part, incidentally) may have gone
too far with its Josh publicity,
these people are striving to act the
way Christ did. The best of
Christians, at times, fail to emulate
Him. However, one must
remember that Christians do not
determine Christianity by their
behavior Christ already did that
in history.
Scott Gates
Jones '87
Editor's note: a letter to the
editor from "Two Disgruntled
Theatergoers" was run on the
backpage last Friday. (Anony-
mous letters are not accepted for
"Threshing it Out.") Two incorrect
spellings in that letter were marked
with the citation "(sic)" instead of
being changed. The normal letters-
to-the-editor policy is to correct
errors in spelling and grammar if
we can. We regret our error in not
doing so.
— Paul Havlak
punished by a court of law in
accordance with what society
decides is appropriate punishment
for that particular crime. Thus it is
not fair for a mugger to be given
the death penalty (which is what
Mr. Goetz almost did in that
subway car) for attempted
robbery. The way this dilemma is
solved is by society guaranteeing
(to a reasonable extent) the safety
of the individual and by agreeing
to prosecute and incarcerate
criminals. What happened in that
subway car was that the first half of
the system broke down. Mr. Goetz.
took a gun with him on that
subway because he felt that society
could no longer adequately protect
him from criminals.
This brings up the second issue
in this situation, and that is what
happened to the American justice
system to bring on this tragic
situation. The answer is, pure and
simple, that the system has been
too soft on criminals and has been
putting them back on the street
where they can commit crimeg
again. It is time we realize that
child molesters are not the product
of social injustice and therefore
ought to be punished. The purpose
of a justice system is not to reform
the criminal (how do you reform a
man who killed twenty-five
women?) but rather to give him a
punishment that is in accordance
with the crime he commits.
This situation is a tragedy that
makes a mockery of our justice
system. On the one hand, it is easy
(and rightfully so) to sympathize
with Mr. Goetz. Can we imagine
what went through his mind at the
critical time? One should before
criticizing the action he took. And
yet the solution is not to allow
private citizens to carry guns into a
crowded urban situation. For what
happens when an innocent
bystander is shot during an
attempt at self-defense? An armed
citizen who does not know how to
shoot a firearm is just as dangerous
as a criminal with a firearm. The
way to prevent this situation from
arising again is to prosecute and
incarcerate criminals. Put some
justice back into the justice system
and Mr. Goetz will be able to ride
the subway peacefully again.
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.
Havlak, Paul. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 72, No. 19, Ed. 1 Friday, January 25, 1985, newspaper, January 25, 1985; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245581/m1/2/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.