The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 77, No. 11, Ed. 1 Friday, November 10, 1989 Page: 2 of 16
sixteen pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 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:
2 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1989 THE RICE THRESHER
n |
mm
BHffiRB
.J 31 III I
1 A !
NnfflRgj
BHRSH
1 HRH
ifflrafH
HI 1
Price increases are not
the solution to CK's woes
Once again, the front page of the Thresher is dominated by stories
dealing with the latest financial woes of the Central Kitchen of Rice
University. As discontent among students rises, the administration
should be prepared to deal with the complaints of many on-campus
residents who find that at the end of the semester the full meal plan
they paid for is not enough to cover the costs of eating in the college
for every meal. Of all the organizations at Rice, the Food Service is
held in the lowest regard by all its customers (which include students,
faculty, and staff).
Why is there a problem? It is ridiculous that so much time and
energy is wasted over what should be an innocuous detail of student
life. Director of Food and Housing Marion Hicks states, "We are inter-
ested in knowing what students want." It should be obvious to Hicks
what it is that students want: a system which functions efficiently and
at reasonable cost. Rice students should not be subjected to the stress
which results from constant confusion over the financial state of the
food services program. We have more important things to worry
about, and so do the others customers of food service who suffer
through the mediocre food and ridiculas prices.
Director of Central Kitchen Bill Boorom seems to see price in-
creases as the ultimate solution for every problem which arises in
food service. Yet as demonstrated time and time again in the political
sphere, pouring more money into a system which is cost-inefficient is
fruitless.
Higher revenues are not the answer to CK's woes. Take-out
windows in college parking lots are not the solution. Paying the
kitchen workers less is not going to help. A solution must incorporate
the students and faculty; unilateral decisions to raise already inflated
priices will only further alienate people and keep them away from the
college commons in even greater numbers.
In general, students and faculty associates would rather eat in the
colleges, with peers, than be forced to drive down the Kirby Strip. We
will welcome changes that facilitate better attendance at meals. But
until those changes occur, the food program here will maintain its
status as the most ridiculous aspect of the Rice Experience.
Mascot deserves home
The furor over the actions of one of the Sammy the Owl mascots
at the Rice-Texas A & M football game on October 28 has brought
scrutiny to the regulation of Sammy. It also illuminates the fact that
the mascot has not just been unregulated—it has been ignored.
Anyone who is willing to devote his or her time to promote Rice at
football and basketball games could expect a few basic priveleges
(especially from an administration and student body that believes
strongly in positive public relations).
Unfortunately, responsibility for Sammy has fallen between the
cracks of Rice student organizations, and because of that, basic serv-
ices such as tickets and transportation for away games have not been
provided for the students manning the costume.
The idea of having a real sponsor for Sammy is long overdue, but
not only to have greater control over the mascot on the field. If, for
instance, the Athletic Department oversees Sammy, the mascots
should be treated with more respect than they have in the past. They
perform a valuable service for Rice athletics, free of charge.
If no one in the Rice community takes responsibility for the well-
being of the mascot, events like the one which occurred October 28
may occur again.
St6H...VIHAr AYfflR f&RME,
AND! Dltofr eval 8ET
ON AW RGBS GAMES
&
WW
MOB veteran: band should entertain
To the editors:
The two letters to the editor in the
November 3 issue demonstrate how
varied the MOB's audience can be,
even within the hedges. Both writers
refer to the MOB as a "spirit" organi-
zation, and I agree with them on that
point, but I disagree with both on the
means to that end.
The MOB was formed in 1970 out
of the old ROB (Rice Owl Band), not
to be obnoxious, but to be interesting
and entertaining to the audience and
the MOB itself. The ROB performed
fairly traditional shows (they
marched), and many high school
musicians were recruited to help fill
out the ranks because Rice students
just weren't interested.
The band director at that time,
Bert Roth, went along with the band
members when they suggested a
change. The first "MOB" show imi-
tated the high school bands that
were here for "Band Day." We
formed four basic formations sepa-
rately and then proved our superior-
ity by doing all four simultaneously.
The same show was repeated twice
THE EDITOR
Different 'choice' in both abortion camps
To the editors:
As a confirmed fence-sitter on the
abortion issue, 1 found the article on
Students for Life ("Students form
pro-life organization," October 27) to
be very interesting and informative.
However, I would like to respond to
John James' comment that pro-
choice people are not actually in fa-
vor of choice.
Pro-life and pro-choice both are in
favor of choice, but not the same
choice. For pro-choice people, the
fundamental decision is whether the
child should be carried to term or
whether the pregnancy should be
terminated. Pro-choice does not
mean that every unwanted preg-
nancy should be terminated! The
woman who has been raped may
decide after counseling and discus-
sion with those close to her that she
will carry the child and give it up for
adoption, but she is not obligated to
carry the child to term. Either way, it
is not an easy decision; terminiation
of pregnancy kills the child unless
the pregnancy is far enough along
that the child can survive outside the
mother. However, since artificial
wombs are not likely within the near
future, this is the only way that a
pregnancy can be ended before de-
livery. Those who are pro-choice
believe that the woman should have
this option.
In contrast, for pro-life people, the
decision has already been made; the
child will be carried to term, and the
decision is whether to raise the child
or to give it up for adoption. This is
another difficult situation; the
mother may want to give up the child
but may have social pressure to raise
it herself. This happens often with
teenage mothers.
Or the converse may be true; the
mother may want to keep her child
but lacks the resources to raise it
properly. Either way, there is not a
question of terminating the preg-
nancy unless the mother's life is
endangered.
However, while pro-choice and
pro-life focus on different things,
both groups are focusing on what
actions should be taken once con-
ception has already occurred.
Perhaps we should pay more at-
tention to preventing the pregnancy
in the first place. Abstinence is, of
course, the safest and most certain
way to prevent pregnancy and is
available to all regardless of health,
money, or religious beliefs.
Birth control is another alterna-
tive; a year's supply of birth control
pills costs less than $200 and, if taken
properly, is more than 99% effective.
Compare that to abortion or bearing
a child!
Other forms of birth control may
not be quite as effective but are sitll
much better than nothing.
Ifawoman is certain thatshedoes
not want children or has had as many
as she wants, sterilization is another
option. While these methods will not
prevent all unwanted pregnancies—
birth control does sometimes fail,
and even those who practice absti-
nence may be raped—still, the num-
bers can be substantially reduced
Perhaps both those who are pro-
life and those who are pro-choice
should turn some attention to this
issue.
After all, this is just tackling the
problem at its source. The choice
that women should have is not
whether or not to keep an unwanted
child, not whether or not to have an
abortion, but whether and when they
will have their children—wanted
children.
Shari L. Casteel
Baker '91
over the years.
The same show today would re-
ceive chants of "BOring-BOring"
from our students, and yet, it's part of
the "traditions of the band."
The "tradition" of being "distaste-
ful, insulting, and obnoxious" is as
much a myth as thinking that that is
"what the MOB was meant to be."
The MOBwasmeantto entertain.
Writing a show that's insulting to
an opponent is so much easier than
writing a show that's just funny. We
knew that our students would be
entertained. So, naturally, we took
the easy way out at first 1973 was our
most insulting season and the reac-
tions from our opponents were as
varied then as they are now.
The Longhorns, at Memorial
Stadium, loved our insults because
they are capable and ready to laugh at
themselves. The Aggies, in spite of
the many "Aggie-joke" books avail-
able in their own campus store, were
not ready to laugh, and we really
raked them over the coals.
Can you guess where it got us?
Aggie alums ran out on the field
and physically assaulted (struck,
knocked down) some MOBsters.
Wewere bombarded with drinks and
worse in the stands in the second
half. We were blockaded in our own
stadium for two hours after the game
ended by a crowd of 500 Aggies who
wanted to express their displeasure
personally.
Bert Roth got phone calls 24
hours a day for two weeks from the
"mothers of Aggies" (even after he
had his number changed and un-
listed). The University lost $500,000
in previously promised donations
because the donors didn't want to
support anything associated with the
MOB.
Finally, we faced eight years of
submitting our shows to the univer-
sity president's office for scrutiny
and censorship.
It could have been worse. There
were a lot of police called in and they
kept the Aggies away from us, even
stopping the carloads of Aggies who
followed the foodservice trucks that
took us back to the RMC.
Ken Dye knows how bad it can
get. While he was an assistant direc-
tor back in California someone
snatched a band hat, but the
snatcher didnt get away—and his
leg was broken by people who took
offense.
Ken's foremost responsibility to
the students (in the MOB) is to keep
them from harm. He was right to
threaten goose-stepping MOBsters
with expulsion.
The Aggies really don't like being
called Nazis and will point out that a
lot of Aggies died fighting the Nazis
to protect us. If you care to press the
point they will beat the crap out of
you and declare themselves blame-
less because you started it
Systematically insulting our op-
ponents will only alienate them, and
they have long memories. Imagine
how well a show would go over with
75,000Aggies yelling at us. The 500
or so Rice fans would hear nothing.
No music. No script Is that enter-
tainment? Would that promote
school spirit and pride?
Even here at Rice Stadium we
play to more of them than us. We try
to make everyone laugh. Sometimes
it doesn't work. Funny is hard to do.
As for the university's image, the
nerd show was non-specific. We
never said "Rice students are nerds"
or "Aggies are nerds." We implied
that nerds exist, at all schools, and
that their mannerisms are amusing.
The same basic show was
greeted with a standing ovation and
chants of "We want the MOB" (over
the Mustang's Homecoming
halftime show) at SMU in 1985.
Don't worry about our alums—they
knew far more nerds than any of the
current students, and I'm sure they
can deal with the concept
If you can't laugh at yourself from
time to time, you shouldn't be laugh-
ing at others.
Finally, Ken is concerned about
the entertainment of the student
body. What other band plays an en-
tire show toward the student side?
Why else would we play "Louie
Louie" at the end of every show?
Ten percent of the Rice student
body is in the MOB. If they want to
express their opinion or write or in-
fluence a show, they should come to
a show meeting.
But don't expect the show commit-
tee to leap up and embrace an idea
with open arms. Ninety percent of
our own ideas are rejected as un-
workable. You have to stick with it
Funny is hard to do.
John "Grungy" Gladu
MOB: '73 '89
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.
Kahn, Greg & Leedy, Sarah J. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 77, No. 11, Ed. 1 Friday, November 10, 1989, newspaper, November 10, 1989; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245734/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.