The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 4, Ed. 1 Friday, September 13, 1991 Page: 3 of 24
twenty four 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:
THE RICE THRESHER FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13. 1991 3
Should Rice play with the big boys? ARC latest in controversy
by Mark Schoenhals
Last Spring, George Rupp estab-
lished an Athletic Review Commit-
tee. Taken out of context, his action
might seem to mean that, in his role
as President, he is interested in
making information about big-time
athletics at Rice available to the
community at large. An examination
of the history of policy debate about
intercollegiate athletics at Rice,
however, leads to an understanding
that the committee was formed pri-
marily to fulfill the President's obli-
gation to the faculty in a controversy
wh ich began before any of the current
Rice undergraduates matriculated.
The controversy exploded in 1983,
when Dr. Norman Hackerman was
President of Rice U niversity. Accord-
ing to Newsweek, Dr. Hackerman
proposed that "six new practical
business courses" be included i(h the*,
regularundergraduate curriculum—
not as required classes or a major,
but as a group of classes through
which undergraduates could refine
their practical skills, "ostensibly for
all students but particularly for the
benefit of athletes." Provost Gordon
said that these classes were to teach
students "how to read a business
invoice." Already concerned about
the issue of athletics, the faculty un-
derstood these courses to be yet an-
other mistaken step—an attempt to
strengthen big-time college athletics
by weakening academic require-
ments.
The Board of Governors had re-
cently reaffirmed the university's
commitment to athletics by hiring a
new coach, Watson Brown, at a sal-
ary of $ 1.3 million for six years and by
changing policy to allow alumni to
contribute directly to the athletic
fund. Special admission practices for
athletes continued. Dr. Stephen
Baker, Speaker of the Faculty Coun-
cil, later said that, in a variety of ways,
the Board "made a strong statement
in support of the football program";
the members of the Board, wrote
Newsweek, had decided that Rice
ought to "play to win." The adminis-
tration seemed willing to undermine
the faculty's control ofthe curriculum
in an attempt to remedy athletic, not
academic, problems.
As a result, the faculty, in general,
opposed the proposal for new busi-
ness courses and initiated a broader
reconsideration of the role of
intercollegiate athletics at Rice. The
question that had been latent for
many years was finally being asked
out loud: "Should Rice really partici-
pate in intercollegiate athletics on
the scale that it does, or even at all?"
Decisions previously made privately
and quietly by the administration
were challenged in public by mem-
sate of the athletic program.
In some way, the Board of Gover-
nors was probably behind the
President's proposal of the new prac-
tical curriculum. Since the Board al-
most never acts or even comments
publicly, its opinion on these matters
was never madeexpliciL Dr. George
Rupp later acknowledged, however,
that these moves to bolster
intercollegiate athletics reflected the
Board's "internal commitment to the
football program." To confuse
matters, at least one Board member,
Decisions previously made privately and quietly
by the administration were challenged in public
by members of the faculty.
bers of the faculty.
As the story is now told, the oppo-
sition crystallized when a group of
faculty members met at the home of
Dr. Thomas Haskell to consider the
President's auricular plan. Drs.
Stephen Baker, Chandler Davidson,
Alan Grob, William Martin, Patricia
Seed, and Gale Stokes, among oth-
ers, participated. During this meet-
ing, certain professors concluded that
a faculty petition would be one effec-
tive way of communicating to the
administration their dissatisfaction
with the current proposal. A large
number (more than 250) of the fac-
ulty united against the president by
signing the following petition:
The faculty of Rice University af-
firms that it considers playing
intercollegiate football at the level of
the Southwest Conference to be, at
most, an ancillary activity ofthe uni-
versity. We understand and accept the
important role of physical education
in the undergraduate experience, but
believe that the basic functions the
university serves insocietyare to create
and disseminate knowledge through
research and teaching. We believe
participation in Division IA football
does little or nothing to further these
functions. Accordingly, we do not
believe that special curricula or courses
should be introduced nor special ad-
mission standards maintained for the
Catherine Hannah (member of the
current Athletic Review Committee),
said, "Maybe the time has come to
look at the whole idea of football at
Rice." Dr. Martin stated recently that
"the Board was considerably divided
on the question of how important
football should be" and, he
understands, "still is."
Prior to these activities, circa 1981,
the Rice Alumni Association con-
ducted a survey to gauge alumni sup-
port of the athletic program. Accord-
ing to Franz Brotzen, that survey
revealed that 20 percent of alumni
preferred a "sheltered program" for
athletes (similar to if not more ex-
treme than Hackerman's proposed
practicums). An additional 40 per-
cent desired that the program re-
main as it was. A full 40 percent,
however, expressed their desire that
the university leave the Southwest
Conference entirely.
Many undergraduates at the time
were energetic in opposing the new
courses. In a token effort, the eight
college presidents wrote a letter to
the Thresher (November 18, 1983)
arguing against a separate program
of study for athletes; instead, they
demanded admission standards for
athletes which would bring only true
"scholar-athletes" to Rice. In addi-
tion, students submitted a petition
with more than 700 signatures in
opposition to the new courses.
With this great controversy came
some national publicity (see the De-
cember 12,1983, issue of Newsweek,
for example) and lots of campus dis-
cussion informally and in a faculty
forum. This faculty forum, on
"Intercollegiate Athletics at Rice,"
was held on October 21, 1983 —
around the time that Hackerman
proposed the practicums. Sixty fac-
ulty members attended the meeting
to listen to others and to express
their own concerns.
Soon the controversy subsided;
the primary issues were resolved, at
least temporarily. The faculty re-
gained strict control of the curricu-
lum; nevertheless, previous moves,
like the expansion of the HPER de-
partment, for example, were not re-
tracted. Much closer faculty over-
sight of athletics was established.
Furthermore, the importance of
intercollegiate athletics to the Rice
community was to be considered
again after 5 years of experimenta-
tion. It was to be reviewed compre-
hensively by a committee — what is
the current Athletic Review Com-
mittee.
Drs. Alan Grob and William
Martin, among others, agree that
there has been substantive reform:
the programs are actually in better
shape — in terms of both integrity
and success - and today's athletes
are better students. Nevertheless, the
period of experimentation and the
promise of a serious, comprehensive
review of intercollegiate athletics at
Rice were the factors most important
in diffusing opposition to athletics.
Despite the recognizable im-
provement in the program, Dr. Mar-
tin reports that many members ofthe
faculty continue to ask "real serious
questions about the football program
and the two-tiered admission pro-
cess." The faculty has appointed its
SEE ATHLETICS. PAGE 4
Sexual assault policy asking for abuse
by Mark Bennett
SUPREME
WE ISDUfiflBE?
NEVER S£ENK CAPILLAR
QMntUWETWrBEFORE-
While browsing this year's student
handbook, I happened upon a state-
ment of the University's policy on
sexual assault The statement begins,
"Rice university will not tolerate
sexual assault in any form, including
acquaintance rape." This may be an
adequate indication of institutional
abhorrence of rape. The statement
goes on to define sexual .assault,
"Forced sexual intercourse perpe-
trated against the will of the victim."
Again, no objections here. This defi-
nition is not too restrictive, yet it
leaves consenting adults
unrestricted.
The next section of the statement
reminds the reader that sexual as-
sault, "including acquaintance rape"
(in my mind a useless term making
rape by an acquaintance sound like a
lesser crime), is punishable by im-
prisonment The University will not
intervene in legal proceedings against
a member of the community. In ad-
dition, Rice will "pursue strong disci-
plinary action through its own chan-
nels" when there is reason to believe
a membeivof the community has
violated regulations against sexual
assault
"Even if criminal authorities
choose not to prosecute, the Univer-
sity may pursue disciplinary action."
That is, if the State decides it does not
Measured
have a case against an accused rap-
ist, the University may still press on,
and possibly expel (or fire) the ac-
cused. The double standard here is
both viscerally tempting and intellec-
tually terrifying.
It is tempting to accept a system
that provides punishment (at least in
the form of expulsion or firing) for
those criminals who sneak through
the loopholes in our criminal system
of justice. We read every day about
rapists, murderers, and the ilk who
walk out of courts or out of prisons to
repeat their "alleged" crimes. Even
people who do not support public
floggings on the town square (or-the'
academic quad) should be able to
support a policy that makes life a
little harder on criminals.
It is terrifying, though, to imagine
that the University may find an inno-
cent person guilty and screw up his
life (or, at least, his academic and
professional careers) on evidence
that the courts would notacceptThat
the University mentions the possibil-
ity of disciplinary action "if criminal
authorities choose not to prosecutc"
indicates that those who drafted the
policy felt they could find an accused
rapist guilty and punish him with less
evidence than is required by a real
court.
I would not dream of arguing that
the criminal justice system works, or
that district attorneys' decisions on
when to prosecute are usually apt.
High rate of appeals, brief sentences,
and recidivism all suggest that the
system needs an overhaul. But the
rules ofevidence were not developed
to free criminals but to minimize the
number ofinnocentpeopleconvicted
wrongly.
The University, in an apparent
effort to take a hard-line stance
against sexual assault, has indicated
its willingness to discard these rules
— or at least some of them. Which
rules to discard? Who is to decide?
Where does judicial overhaul end
and railroading begin? In a well-
^ publicized rape case, can a politicking
administration wipe Out a student's
academic future in a single stroke,
the evidence be damned, to appease
public opinion? Could the zeal to
punish rapists turn into a campus
witchhunt that would automatically
punish accused rapists?
With the University's current
policy on sexual assault it is indeed
possible, and that possibility is
Mess
FROM PAGE 2
trash can s; they don't even have to be
recycling receptacles, just throw
them away. Remember to be
courteous of those who cherish this
oasis of beauty in an otherwise
concrete-and-steel-burdened-city-of-
rednecks. Finally, if you must get
sick because you imprudently mixed
a Two Peso's Supreme Nacho, five
beers Rally Club style, a shot of 151,
and four cups of punch, do it in your
room's toilet, or knock on anyone's
door on campus. They'd be happy to
accommodate you for the sake of our
campus' splendor.
In the end what separates Rice
from other schools is not the out-
standing education, not the low tu-
ition, not the SAT scores. It is the
mutual respect displayed along the
paths between class, or in the com
mons or at activities. Mutual respect
now needs to be extended to week-
end nights.
■Paid Advertisement■
VtAil)-
ASPIRFSTO
PUBLIC 0FTICE
WITH THE HllP
Sof kinko's
f 7"HRC*-
1 COULDN'T BE SECRETARY.
m JUST NOT THE TYPE AN D
I CANTTyPEj.
CJ3
O.K. SO I'VE HAD SORT OF AN
UNDISTINGUISHED ACADEMIC
CAREER. IT'S NOT TOO LATE
Gl3
IDONYtVENTTOiST MYSELF
WtTH MONEY, 50 TREASU RE R
IS DEFINITELY OUT,
TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
BUT CLASS PRESIDENT? TOO
MUCH RESPONSIBILITY.
WHENIFINALLY DECIDEDWHAT
T0RUN F0R.1MADE IODO
CAMPAIGN POSTERS AT KINKOS
> I '/flm/u
V.P?THEYWIND UPDOING
MOSTOP THE REAL WORK.
ANDTHEN...WHATABITE! J
FOUND OUT VftlEDICTORIAN
I5NTAN ELECTED OFFICE.
Rinlto'S-THECOPY CENTER. GOOD CLEAN COPIES, CAMPAIGN FLYERS, ETC. -Z455 RICE 0LVD. (7IS)5ll-3H65
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.
Zitterkopf, Ann & Howe, Harlan. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 4, Ed. 1 Friday, September 13, 1991, newspaper, September 13, 1991; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245789/m1/3/: accessed June 20, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.