The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 20, Ed. 1 Friday, February 14, 1992 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:
OPINION
THE RICE THRESHER FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14. 1992 3
ARC report should prompt elimination of athletics at Rice
Amit Dinesh Mehta
Rice University is at a cross-
roads. Amidst an extensive
debate over the future of Divi-
sion I-A athletics at Rice, the Athletic
Review Committee has finally re-
leased its report to the university
community. Although the report ar-
ticulates many concerns on both sides
of the issue, I believe its most power-
ful messages are overwhelmingly
negative. The ARC report solidifies
arguments and suspicions regarding
the athletic department's unhealthy
consequences: that current policies
have created a subculture that under-
cuts the goal of increased student
diversity, that the associated prob-
lems—the sacrificing of admission
standards and academic integrity—
are far worse than previously believed.
These conclusions should prompt us
to consider seriously what was once
unthinkable: an end to organized
intercollegiate athletics at Rice.
The biggest advantage of diver-
sity cannot be realized by watching
semiprofessional athletes on the field;
it lies in the opportunity to interact
with others of different backgrounds
and different perspectives. Division I-
A participation and conventional
coaching necessitate practice re-
quirements that isolate athletes and
foster a separate subculture—an un-
healthy development that subverts
the advantages of a diverse student
body. As the committee notes, the
Committee of College Masters and
Co-Masters has observed this social
segregation and noticed that "schol-
arship athletes...are integrated into
the colleges only with great difficulty."
The 1984 Rice University Self-
Study Panel on Athletics declared
that "Rice University should not
modify or compromise its academic
standards for the sake of athletics.
Athletes who are recruited should be
able to major in a broad range of areas
and be well integrated into the student
body [emphasis added]." This is a
worthy and perhaps essential goal,
one consistent with our university's
priorities. And, as the ARC report
indicates, this goal is incompatible
with continued participation in Divi-
sion I-A athletics.
Itiswell known that Rice sacrifices
its SAT and HSR (High School Record)
indices in the admission of scholarship
athletes. These standards are re-
garded as the best available indica-
tors of academic performance at the
collegiate level. With a mean athlete
SAT score of985 and recruits scoring
as low as 290on the verbal section, we
should not be surprised to see a host
of problems facing any attempt to in-
tegrate scholarship athletes academi-
cally with the rest of the student body.
These problems range from the
high degree of failure on the English
Competency Exam (40 percent for
athletes, 60 percent for football and
basketball players, eight percent for
non-athletes) to the erratic patterns
in the natural science foundation
course (69 percent of athletes as op-
posed to 16 percent of non-athletes
dropping or failing) and the academic
segregation of athletes from their
For decades, we
have set dead-
lines, attempted
reforms, warned
coaches, and
launched investi-
gations. We have
been assured re-
peatedly that the
situation will im-
prove. It hasn't.
fellow students. Seventy-six percent
percent of all athletes with a single
major are studying Managerial
Studies or Health Science and Hu man
Performance, while 84 percent of all
athletes are majoring in one or the
other. Even in these majors, athletes
with lower SATs "typically have much
lower GPAs and often make Ds in
required Managerial Studies courses
such as Economics and Accounting."
The report describes in detail how
athletes can maneuver through Rice
to graduation with minimal difficulty:
Many athletes, especially those who
are the least well-prepared for college,
seem to take the same set of courses.
Athletes who major in Managerial
Studies take a large number of courses
in the Health and Human Performance
(HPHS) Department, and athletes
who major in HPHS take quite a few
courses acceptable for the Managerial
Studies major, especially Political Sci-
ence. Students from both majors take
several courses in the Religious Stud-
ies department and often thesameone
or two courses each in Education,
Sociology, and Psychology... Except for
the remedial English classes, very few
courses are taken in English, and one
sees few History, Foreign languages,
Mathematics, Art History, Engineer-
ing, or Natural Science courses on
their transcripts. Some of the more
difficult classes are taken in summer
school at Rice or in summer school at
a community college.
This is evidence of the existence
of an academic subculture that is not
consistent with our priorities and
goalscthe recruitment of true scholar-
athletes who are compatible with the
academic texture of the university.
The report also notes that the per-
centage of Honor Code violations by
scholarship athletes—representing
11 percent of the student body—has
remained higher than 50 percent in
the 1986-1991 period. Furthermore,
the ARC argues that the serious
Honor Code violations by scholar-
ship athletes have "shaken the cam-
pus and threaten the integrity of the
Honor System at Rice University."
Although no data regarding indi-
vidual athletes' goals was collected,
the committee wondered whether
many athletes "come to Rice with
dreams of becoming an engineer or a
physician only to find out that, in
order to survive, they need to take
the least difficult classes in the least
difficult majors."
Given Rice's size, the current ath-
letic program necessitates that more
than 11 percent of the student body
be comprised of scholarship athletes.
The committee observed that, "as
was pointed out in the '84 self-study,
even a small number of academically
unprepared students can have a sig-
nificant impact on a small university.
lemphasis added]" This situation is
at odds with Rice's goals ofrecruiting
a diverse student body within a se-
lective academic range.
The committee also argued that
"the expenditures of Rice's
intercollegiate athletics program are
at a level both reasonable and nec-
essary if Rice is to participate in
NCAA Division I-A athletics. How-
ever, the net costs are extraordi-
narily high and, because of Rice's
small size, are disturbingly large
Practical reasons on Revisionism flawed
To the editors,
After reading Mark David
Schoenhals' articles on the decision
not to print the Holocaust
Revisionist's advertisement, I felt
compelled to respond to some of the
ideas included therein. I think that
Schoenhals made interesting and
valid points about the freedom of
speech in his first article, but I would
like to take issue with the overall
premise in "Print Holocaust Revi-
sionism for Practical Reasons."
Schoenhals was astute in seeing
through Smith's attempt to put aside
real issues in favor of CODOH propa-
ganda; where he fails is in his reason-
ing that this evasive manner is reason
enough not to believe Smith. He says,
"The problem is that he always evaded
my challenges to the concrete evi-
dence by emphasizing the other point
he made in his ad...." Smith's evasive-
ness is a minor point; one only has to
look at what he is trying to do to
understand how destructive it is.
Schoenhals remarks that refus-
ing to print the ad has two effects.
First, it satisfies the legitimacy of
Smith's claim that his only job is to
ask for an open debate of this issue.
I think this is completely untrue. Rice
is one of the leading colleges in the
country. If Schoenhals thinks that
the only way to foster debate on the
Holocaust is to print such an ad, I
think his expectations and opinions
of this community are quite low. Sec-
ond, he assumes that because we are
not allowed to read the ad ourselves,
we cannot make a decision of our
own about its content Those people
who would not agree with the ad in
the first place already realize the ab-
surdity of such claims. However,
there may be one student on this
campus who does not know anything
about the Holocaust or Jewish his-
tory. If this person saw the ad and
was convinced that the Holocaust
was a fabrication, not only has Rice
been done a great disservice, but so
has its Jewish community and the
community of Houston. I for one do
not want to see a risk like that taken
by the Thresher.
Schoenhals also thinks that
"Jewish centers...do not respond as
strongly as they could." This is not
because they feel superior to those
making the radical claims, as
Schoenhals suggests. These centers
do not want these people to gain any
more publicity than they already
have. Jewish centers are continually
trying to provide education and infor-
mation aboutthe Holocaust for people
that may not know about it. They use
detailed documents, pictures, movies
and eyewitness accounts.
I would be happy to organize a
seminar in conjunction with Rice
Hillel, the Simon Wiesenthal Center,
the Holocaust Education Center, and
members of an organization like
CODOH. I would like to see what
these people would say when faced
with survivors of the Holocaust who
still bear the mark of their torture: a
tattoo of a number they were assigned
when thrown into a death camp. I
would be interested to see their reac-
tions when watching films taken af-
ter the death camps were opened
and when they hear the stories of
survivors who watched their parents
getplaced on a freight train likecattle
being hauled off to the slaughter. I
would like to hear what they had to
say about that This would hopefully
address the issue through scholarly
and open-minded channels that will
not try to distort the facts in any one
particular way. Schoenhals feels
these claims will eventually be
brought into the open somehow, so
the 77tres/ ershould have printed the
ad. This to me is not a logical reason
for running the ad. It seems that a
seminar involving all the parties
would do more to lessen the damage
of the claims made by CODOH.
I would like to conclude by ap-
plauding the editors' decision not to
print the ad. Only two generations
ago, my family's history was irrevers-
ibly changed by this singular disas-
ter. Like some of your staff mem-
bers, I also lost much of my family to
the horror of the Holocaust It is
partly for their memory that I thank
you. But it is also for the memory of
all the Jews killed in Nazi Europe, the
memory of the 5,000,000+ non-Jews
also killed, the feelings of those who
survived to tell the story, and for my
own piece of mind that I thank you
for not allowing th is destructive piece
of propaganda into the Thresher.
Jonathan Horowitz
Baker '94
Margot Merek
Baker '91
when considered as a fraction of
resources available for university
operations." Although many have
argued that this money may not be
redirected into more productive
causes, we should still consider the
opportunity cost, especially at a time
when funding shortages are forcing
the administration to increase tu-
ition and requiring club sports pro-
grams to collect dues from individual
members. Furthermore, when one
considers the additional $30,000 or
so taken from Rice's endowment to
support each student—and the
competitive Rice applicants that are
displaced to maintain the athletic
program—the societal cost of sup
porting individuals unable to take
advantage of available academic op
portunities becomes enormous.
The ARC report indicates that,
according to Donald Kennedy of
Stanford University, "the underlying
cause of the serious illness in
intercollegiate athletics is that 'uni-
versities enroll athletes who do not
meet their own admissions stan-
dards.'" And the fact of the matter is
that Rice must enroll such students.
The committee employed Mark
Scheid's data to demonstrate that "the
only way Rice could have recruited
football and basketball players whose
academic qualifications were similar
to those of the non-athletes would
have been for Rice to recruit every
available athlete [in the nation] who
scored above 1250 who did not go to
the Ivy League and a few who did." If
Rice is to remain athletically com-
petitive, it must continue to compro-
mise its academic integrity to sustain
its athletic program. Such a course is
unacceptable.
The committee has presented us
with the option to "abandon alto-
gether Rice's organized program of
intercollegiate athletics and empha-
size instead an expanded and better
supported club sports program." I
propose that we immediately an-
nounce our intention to terminate all
Division I-A athletic programs as of
Fall 1996. This would allow Rice to
graduate its current athletes, fulfill
its contractual obligations as part of
the Southwest Conference, and avoid
giving false impressions to incoming
students. At this junction, I believe
that President Ruppand the Board of
(k>vernors should seriously consider
such a policy option.
Many have suggested that Rice
could reform its current program,
increase admission standards for
athletes, and emphasize honor code
compliance to mitigate the problems
surrounding us. However, similar
reform proposals and warnings to
coaches have appeared throughout
the past forty years, and we are still in
the midst of an intolerable situation.
The ARC report clearly indicates that
Rice must continue to sacrifice its
academic standards and suffer an
extraordinary fiscal drain to maintain
Division I-A participation.
In 1972, Rice President Norman
Hackerman declared that "the ath-
letic program is the only one that has
a deadline—breakeven by 1975-6 or
quit I should add that this means...
the total intercollegiate program." For
decades, we have set deadlines, at-
tempted reforms, warned coaches,
and launched investigations. We have
been assured that the situation will
improve, that the athletic "experi-
ment" should begiven achance. Now,
the ARC report has indicated that we
are at a pinnacle, that we cannot do
tilings better than we are doing them.
The academic and fiscal problems are
a necessary price for Division I-A
participation; no "reforms" can
eliminate them. It's time to end de-
cades of rhetoric and take action.
The ARC report confirms that the
"athletic experiment" has failed, and
it is now time to end it
Am it Dinesh Mehta is a senior at
Ijjvett College.
Notice difference between
editorials and advertisements
To the editors,
After reading last week's editorial
page, I would like to come to the
defenseofAnnand Harlan's unpopu-
lar decision to forego printing an ad-
vertisement proposed by the Com
mittee for the Open Debate of the
Holocaust Mark Schoenhals' edito-
rials concerning the matter brought
up many good points, but to accept
his argument, we must assume that
we can deal with advertisements and
editorials in the same manner.
On the contrary, advertisements
and editorials are entirely different
conventions in our journalistic tradi-
tion, and the distinction is one we
should try to maintain. After all, an
ad verti semen t results from a business
agreement between the newspaper
and its client, and an editorial results
from a contract between a newspaper
and its community to present opin-
ions on relatively neutral ground.
Why did Mr. Smith make the de-
cision to place advertisements in fa-
vor of his political cause rather than
to write letters to the editors of the
various campus newspapers? Prima-
rily, he wanted to guarantee that the
papers would print it exactly as he
wanted it printed. But, I think that
there is a much more significant rea-
son why Mr. Smith took the approach
he did. An advertisement implicitly
communicates to us how powerful
and organized the advertiser is. Not
only that, but the fact that a newspa-
per will accept money from an ad-
vertiser indicates that the newspaper
respects him as a sort of business
part ner. Thus, a radical fringe group
becomes just another member of the
business community.
We read editorials in a much dif-
ferent light. A forum such as the
editorial page provides a fairly neu-
tral ground for debate and allows
anyone, regardless of how much
money or power he or she has, to
express his or her views. True
enough, even with the most impar-
tial of editors, complete neutrality in
such a forum is impossible, but the
principle is there, and bias in lay-out
or presentation is generally slight
In advertising, he who has the
most cash gets the most space in the
paper and the flashiest advertising
firm to produce it There can be no
neutrality when money is the deter-
mining factor in how and which group
has access to the pages of a newspa-
per. We should not confuse the two
often contradictory goals of provid-
ing a forum for public debate and
funding a newspaper.
After all, accepting money from
someone, means giving him or her a
small amount of control over your
publication. Smith's $310, of course,
would not mean much control but
accepting the money could set a dan-
gerous precedent. For example, when
a business interest funds over 50 per-
cent of a publication, that business
interest is bound to have some influ-
ence over what it prints or does not
print So, of course, a newspaper must
be careful in deciding who it accepts
money from and maintaining the dis-
tinction between the advertisement
and the letter to the editor.
I hope 1 have made my case clear.
I think The Thresher should invite
Mr. Smith to write a letter to the
editor, so that we can bring the Holo-
caust Revisionist stance out into the
open and discuss it. Hopefully, such a
discussion would make us all aware
of the threat Holocaust revisionism
poses to our society. But I do not
think we need to grant the Holocaust
revisionist position the same status
as that which we grant to other mem-
bers of the business community.
John Schwetman
Brown '92
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. 20, Ed. 1 Friday, February 14, 1992, newspaper, February 14, 1992; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245805/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.