The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 14, Ed. 1 Friday, December 6, 1991 Page: 5 of 20
twenty 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, DECEMBER 6, 1991 5
ice students not apathetic, just lack healthy public space
by Mark David Schoenhals
Two weeks ago, I discussed the
dangers inherent in the kind of poli-
tics which we practice today: "poli-
tics-as-laugh-in," in the words of
Stephen Tyler, politics as a relic "in
official museums of legislatures...,
and in the parodic spectacles of
elections...meant for the entertain-
ment of the populace. "This is politics
after the eclipse of the public.
In that piece, I described several
problems which result from our po-
litical practices. However, I did not
explain adequately an alternative ap-
proach to this politics: healthy public
discourse. By discussing what it
means for discourse to be "public"
and "healthy," I intend to develop an
ideal which I believe our community
ought to pursue.
the particular concerns of others and
identify weaknesses in our own opin-
ions. In a way that is not possible in
private, we can grow to understand
each other's needs, desires, and wor-
ries. Through public discourse, we
can develop more realistic and uni-
versal perspectives. Intelligent opin-
ions cannot be formed in isolation.
Political isolation is not physical.
We must be aware that we can be in
a crowd and still be politically iso-
lated—especially if that crowd con-
sists exclusively of people like us. As
students, we live with three or four
others in small suites every day for
four years. In this environment, we
may still have largely private under-
graduate experiences politically.
Nationally, we discuss issues with
people of similar backgrounds and
ways of looking at the world, mem-
bers of our own milieus. For the most
The recent Honor Council open forum exempli-
fied the kind of community discussion that we
often need but rarely find on our campus. People
involved intensely in various parts of campus life
converged to express their ideas to each other.
Ordinarily, we think of "public"
vs. "private" in terms of the economy.
If the government performs a task, it
is a public service; if a corporation
does it, it is private. We may also
think of the distinction between pub-
lic and private in terms of our per-
sonal lives. What is known by the
community is public, whereas what
is reserved for a special few is pri-
vate.
In America, we have historically
glorified the private. Since we associ-
ate private business with economic
efficiency, we want corporations to
provide our goods and services. We
also desire personal privacy for our-
selves and our families. We justifi-
ably prefer privacy in these areas.
Perhaps inadvertently, we exalt
the private in politics as well Last
week I elaborated upon our tendency
to watch politics from the seats of our
Lazy Boy recliners instead of partici-
pating actively in a true public life.
Although economic and personal
privacy may provide important ben-
efits for us, privacy in politics may
deny us the opportunity to form intel-
ligent opinions on substantive issues.
Inapublic sphere, we can listen to
part, we form our political opinions in
private, without the important chal-
lenges to our opinions which are fre-
quent in public, in true dialogue with
people with different perspectives.
The recent Honor Council open
forum exemplified the kind of com-
munity discussion that we often need
but rarely find on our campus. People
involved intensely in various parts of
campus life converged to express
their ideas to each other. Participants
mo st likely acquired during the forum
a better understanding of the com-
plex issues related to the Honor
System. Each brought a privately
formulated particular concern and
shared it publicly.
Unfortunately, such public forums
are unusual. We continue to suffer
from a surfeit of political privacy,
which deprives us of an important
opportunity for growth. Rice students
are reputed to be apathetic. Although
my impression of the public Rice
confirms this reputation, my private
experience contradicts it directly.
As Rice students, we earn our
apathetic reputation not because we
fail to enjoy intelligent conversations
about relevant political issues, but
because we carry on these conversa-
tions privately. Small enclaves of
people engaging in rational critical
debate abound. Yet, where a compre-
hensive university should have a
public forum for discourse, at Rice
there is a conspicuous void.
Rice should produce citizens who
are prepared to support or perhaps
lead a democratic society, but the
political privacy on campus precludes
our development as public figures.
Public discussion would help us for-
mulate more enlightened opinions
on significant issues.
At Rice, a public sphere is essen-
tial if the rules that govern our uni-
versity are to reflect a community
consensus rather than a compromise
of various, conflicting pressure
groups, if they are to reflect a coher-
ent vision rather than a sporadic ca-
tering to capricious affections.
In university decision-making, the
mo st powerful groups' proposals tend
to be implemented. Opposing groups
concede defeat, but nevertheless re-
main unpersuaded that the "best"
proposal became the official policy.
This undermines the legitimacy
of official policies. Healthy public
discourse would allow opposing
groups to understand each other. In-
stead, they fight against each other
from polar positions, each steadfastly
maintaining a conviction that the oth-
ers are completely wrong. There is
no sphere in which disagreements
can be resolved to mutual satisfaction.
Necessarily implicit in my de-
scription of a "public" sphere for dis-
course is my ideal of a "healthy" pub-
lic space.
We should all contribute to public
discourse as equals free of inhibiting
power relationships. This does not
mean, however, that all perspectives,
opinions, and comments are equally
valid. Our judgement is still essen-
tial, but our bases for judgement re-
main open for evaluation by others. A
diversity of individual concerns
should be brought to bear on the
problems we face.
We must engage in debate with a
willingness to be persuaded by oth-
ers who present better arguments.
Such a public domain does not have
room for dogma. We must abandon a
political position in light of convinc-
ing contrary evidence. If an opinion
does not stand up in rational critical
debate, then one cannot maintain it
The only acceptable absolute is a
prior belief in our ability to communi-
cate effectively with one another.
Athletics
FROM PAGE 4
embarrasing situation. Perhaps such
an evaluation can help determine why
such an unacceptable level of aca-
demic deceit is coming from this
subculture, and, more importantly,
what can be done to prevent it from
continuing.
National media coverage has been
skewed by an excessive focus on the
role of athletes in subverting the
Honor System. However, this media
coverage seems justified. Taken
alone, the Honor Code violation is an
internal university affair. However,
once the role of scholarship athletes
was exposed, the event acquired a
larger context which made it relevant
for national media coverage.
Rather than dismissing this cov-
erage as lopsided and distorted, we
should redirect our criticism away
from "irresponsible'' journalists and
toward irresponsible Rice adminis-
trative policies which led to these
conditions. In other words, bad pub-
licity should be allowed to fulfill its
positive shock value; it should spark
student awareness that the Rice ath-
letic department—like those of other
Southwest Conference schools—is
not without serious problems. In the
past, bad publicity has served to
motivate important changes in abu-
sive practices at other NCAAathletic
programs around the country. Now
it is our turn.
But we are denying the problems.
Curiously, while students have vig-
orously reassessed the Honor Sys-
tem, there has been no parallel effort
to criticize the athletic department
and propose reforms. Perhaps the
only effort in this direction came from
a letter written by a faculty member,
Dr. Thomas HaskelL Instead of con-
veniently ignoring these problems,
we should discuss them openly.
As a result of preferential admis-
sion policies, the average scholar-
ship athlete's SAT score is 300 points
below the university norm, and some
athletes are admitted with cumula-
tive scores of around 800. Scholar-
ship athletes do have an impressive
graduation rate and a mean GPA of
2.82, only 0.18 below the university
norm.
However, data collected by Dr.
Mark Scheid indicates that athletes
have tended to drift into less com
petitive majors. Of the 177 athletes
who had declared majors in 1990,
57% were pursuing a Managerial
Studies major and 27% were studying
Human Performance and Health Sci-
ence (H PER). Athletes comprise 88%
of the HPER majors. Additionally,
around half of all athletes were ma-
joring in only Managerial Studies or
HPER. Few students would argue
that these majors are particularly dif-
ficult In fact the curriculum com
mittee last year voted to eliminate
Managerial Studies as a single ma-
jor.
These conditions indicate that the
national media is correct in asserting
that Rice "must compromise its ad-
mission standards in some way in
order to compete." Although many
Rice students are aware of these
troubling facts, they tend to suppress
Beyond the hedges, unfortunately,
this belief might be misguided.
Nevertheless, the most important
part of a healthy public is faith that a
resolution of any debate is possible,
faith that we share a common ground.
In the Rice community, this faith is
reasonable. Here, although it is not
always apparent we often agree on
what we want We should not be so
confident in our individually (pri-
vately) formulated plans to achieve
these goals.
with all of the advantages of true
healthy public discourse. Then, at
least we can go out into the real world
with a better sense of what we ought
to be doing.
We should overcome political pri-
vacy by working against our inclina-
tions to discuss important issues only
with certain cliques of people—per-
haps exclusively with our roommates.
After a year of living with our
roommates, we knowwhatthey have
to say. We could carry on the same
While we dwell in the world within the hedges, we
have an unequaled opportunity to reflect critically
on where society should be headed with all of the
advantages of tme healthy public discourse.
When our debates merely con-
cern means, we have a solid oppor-
tunity for the reconciliation ofvarious
approaches. Even in occasional de-
bates which concern fundamental
differences in values, I believe that
we could reach a consensus within
the Rice community. I suspect, how-
ever, that we will be able to do nei-
ther with the kind of private chatter
that currently prevails.
Politics in the real world may re-
main "politics-as-entertainment" Off
campus, healthy public discourse
may remain a fiction.
While we dwell in the world within
the hedges, however, we have an
unequaled opportunity to reflect
critically on what we really want—on
where society should be headed—
debate with ourselves. The challenge
must come from others.
Political privacy makes us appear
apathetic to each other. Political pri-
vacy definitely deprives. Hannah
Arendt tells this story. It is not coinci-
dence that the words "privacy" and
"deprivation" share the same root
At Rice, we have not established a
physical place which can serve as a
public space. We have not developed
social norms conducive to healthy
public discourse.
It is crucial that we construct and
sustain a lively, healthy public sphere.
It is a necessary part of what every'
university ought to be.
Mark Schoenhals, Opinion Editor and
Columnist, is asenioratLovettcollege.
serious consideration of them, pre-
ferring instead to enjoy the next foot-
ball or basketball game
Coupled with the regimented
schedule and time constraints which
athletes must face, an inferior
academic preparation could be an
overwhelming handicap for many
athletes who may otherwise have
entered more competitive fields.
Additionally, this handicap can be
expected almost to induce cheating
as a means to stay afloat in an envi-
ronment where competitors are
much better prepared and have con-
siderably more time to pursue their
studies.
Athletes do provide many ben-
efits to the university. However, Rice
can tolerate no diversity when it
comes to academic integrity. The
historically disproportionate rate at
which athletes have violated the
Honor Code cannot be allowed to
continue. The stakes, including the
viability of the Honor System and the
value of a Rice diploma, are far too
high to gamble.
The student body has been vigi-
lant in criticizing and reevaluating
the Honor Code. However, the Ath-
letic Department should not be seen
only as a scapegoat for an Honor
System problem It should be seen as
a problem in itself, deserving at least
equal attention. Without a serious
change in the role of intercollegiate
athletics at Rice, I fear that a
reoccurence of Case #6 could force
the university to make some painful
decisions under high pressure,
decisions that might be avoided if we
properly consider these issues now.
Subculture
FROM PAGE 4
sider throwing tomatoes at and spit-
ting upon violators part of our aca-
demic duty? Should we take pride in
publicly humiliating someone who
has, intentionally or not exercised
poor judgement and made a mistake?
More important, shall we enhance
our own moral stature and sense of
superiority by berating these mis-
takes? Are we, as one person sug-
gested, merely out to satisfy our curi-
osity? Either way, it hardly seems
appropriate or just to squash some-
one else for such a self-serving, petty
reason.
We have seen on these Opinion
pages of the Thresher an influx of
commentary on the severity of pun-
ishment meted out by the Honor
Council. And we have seen much
speculation that a "subculture" at Rice
is responsible for these problematic
Honor Code violations.
Many have expressed dismay over
the leniency of the quadruple loss of
credit which most guilty students
received. One letter, written by Amit
Mehta and Mark Schoenhals,
seemed particularly credible because
it was signed by each of the college
presidents. They collectively "won-
der why the consensus penalty was
so weak." I'm amazed that our com
munity leaders waited for almost 10
weeks after the consensus penalties
were published in the Thresher to
"wonder" this aloud.
The next paragraph also sur-
prises: "it would be useful to examine
the possibility that it is a particular
subculture in our university that en-
genders such a blatant disrespect for
the Honor System" I wonder if we
are dumping our problems on a
"particular subculture" because of
the rather speculative Thresher
headline, "Large Honor Council case
involved athletes'recitation section."
It is ironic that those command-
ing the very medium by which the
Rice community is exposed to self-
serving moralistic accounts of a coor-
dinated subversion of the Honor Code
have had no qualms about violating
the confidentiality of the case in
question by using dubious sources
of information and attention-grabbing
headlines.
Many of the revisions suggested
recently reflect an understandable
frustration and disillusionment with
the idea that an Honor Code violation
on such a grand scale could happen
here at Rice. The convenience of
being able to dump this scandal on a
"subculture" (athletes) is an
appealing out for individuals who
don't like to admit that "mainstream"
students may cheat Worse yet the
scandal may be exploited by those
who do not want athletics at Rice.
We must address the problems of
large-scale violations like Case #6,
but not with the holier-than-thou,
simple-minded rhetoric that has been
generated in the past few weeks. Al-
though we are disappointed and even
angry about the recent events, we
cannot allow those feelings to inter-
fere with ourunderstanding of where
the problems involving the Honor
System lie and how we should ad-
dress them.
By isolating a single student, a
group of students, or a "subculture,"
a grave injustice is done to many by
implication. As much as we would
like to be able to dismiss Case #6 by
naming names or saying "it's just
athletes," we must not allow ourselves
to permit a system which can lead to
incrimination by group association.
To do so invites misunderstanding,
divisiveness, and ultimately preju-
dice. Such a state of affairs makes an
even worse statement about the
character of the Rice community than
an honor code violation.
APRIL
MCAT?
Yes, You Can!
• You can prepare with
the best test prep in town.
• and you can be ready...
• Small classes. Big scores.
Guaranteed,
Classes start Feb. 1st,
Call for information.
688-5500
PRINCETON
REVIEW
We Score More!
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. 14, Ed. 1 Friday, December 6, 1991, newspaper, December 6, 1991; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245799/m1/5/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.