The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 82, No. 25, Ed. 1 Friday, April 7, 1995 Page: 2 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:
z FRIDAY,7tf>R(k 7. 1995 . TH| RICE THRESHER
OPINION
Speak Out
Thresher staff wants to serve student
needs better, but we need your input
For almost 80 years now, the Rice Thresher has had no trouble
criticizing everyone from the administration to student organiza-
tions. And for almost 80 years now, the administration and student
body have had no trouble criticizing the Thresher, but now the
Thresher is asking for your comments and advice.
Over the summer, the Thresher will be undergoing a bit of a
facelift. Every aspect of the paper will be scrutinized and examined.
The organization will be streamlined and made more easily acces-
sible. A World Wide Web homepage will provide students with
Internet access to each issue of the paper.
We want the Thresher to be a top-rated collegiate newspaper, but
at the same time we want to make changes that reflect exactly what
the undergraduate student body wants. To do this, we,need your
help.
Some complaints over the past few years have ranged from the
credibility of the news to the crassness of the Backpage. We have
already begun looking into ways to make the news more balanced,
objective and accurate, but the Backpage and other issues are
W
something that the students must
Pini0n&: decide.
kJ- If you have something to say,
O you have several options available.
If you have comments or criticisms
^^Vpinion
v s&C
gp about the Thresher in general, e-
mail the editors at klein@owlnet or
vivekrao@owlnet. If you wish for your comments to be anonymous,
send them via Campus Mail to the Thresher.
Other possibilities include letters to the editor or submissions to
Notes and Notices, Calendar or Misclass.
In addition, listen to KTRU (91.7 FM) tomorrow at 3 p.m.; one of
us will be on the air at that time to answer questions from callers
regarding Thresher policy.
The next time you see something you like or don't like in the
Thresher, let us know. We can't find ways to serve the student body
more effectively if we don't know what you want from us.
— Charles Klein & Vivek Rao, editors in chief
The rpl 1 SINCE 1916
Kice Thresher
Charles Klein, Vivek Rao
Editors in Chief
George E. Hatoun
Business Manager
Drew Bagley
Advertising Manager
George E. Hatoun
Chetan Kapoor
Felisa Yang
James Ling
Shan Chang
Marty Beard
Heather Smith
David Gordon
Tony Tran
Grant Flowers
Peter Stokes
Kate Hallgren
Christof Spieler
John Koshy
Robert Koslow
Packy Saunders
Joel Hardi
Chris Sanders
Nina Olien
Lily Fu
vSatoko Igarashi
tv
News Editor
News Editor
Asst. News Editor
Opinion Editor
Asst. Opinion Editor
Arts & Entertainment Editor
Asst. Arts & Entertainment Editor
Sports Editor
Sports Editor
Asst. Sports Editor
Asst. Sports Editqr
Features Editor
Features Editor
Backpage Editor
Backpage Editor
Backpage Editor
Photography Editor
Graphics Editor
Ads Production Manager
Asst. Business Manager
Staff Cartoonist
WE WANT COLUMNISTS AND FUNKY CARTOONISTS FOR
THE OPINION SECTION. APPLICATIONS ARE ON THE OFFICE
DOOR! The Rice Thresher (not Trasher, mind you), the official student
newspaper at Rice University since 1916, is personally delivered to
yourcollege each Thursday (so take advantage ofit,freak!) during the
school year, except during Bacchanalia and war.
Editorial and secret intelligence offices are located on the second
floor of the Ley Student Center, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, Texas,
77251. Phone 527-4801. Fax 285-5238. e-mail: thresher@
owlnet.rice.edu. Advertising information 'available on request.
Subscription rate: $22.00, 21 yens. Non-subscription rate: first copy
free with "I suck up to animals" sticker, second copy $2.00 with a mug
shot of Jym Schwartz shaking hands with Satan.
The Thresher reserves the right to refuse any advertising for any
reason. Additionally, the Thresher does not take responsibility for the
factual content of any ad. It generally is responsible, though.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the Thresher
editorial staff, especially Tony 19 (I think he's getting old). All other
pieces represent solely the opinion of the author. Obviously. Brown
men should aim for toilet bowls. © COPYRIGHT 1995
*¥ A?RU WIS
AHH, PARKINC PROBIFAS
Animals deserve hnman(e) care
To the editor:
This letter was written in re-
sponse to Mike Nabavian's recent
article entitled "'Cuddly' Factor In-
fluences How an Animal Is Treated"
(March 17 Thresher).
We would like to credit Mike for
making a correct observation about
our society. In society, animals are
often treated based on the empathy
and emotions that humans feel to-
ward them — emotions that are in-
fluenced by their "cuddly" factor. So
according to this logic, a bunny rab-
bit would receive better treatment
than a lizard. Mike seems to believe
that because this is how our society
currently is, this is the way it should
be.
However, throughout our history,
if our actions toward others had been
solely determined by these ambigu-
ous and often prejudicial standards,
we would be left with a cruel, unjust
society where many are unfairly op-
pressed.
society would have no obligation to
ever provide rights for blacks. Abo-
litionists' attempts to "reorder these
sympathies radically" also could be
seen as an "invention," an artificial
alteration.
' Mike's standards
when applied to animals
foster a, state where
justice is obscured by
societal conditioning '
and prejudice. '
THE EDITOR
Letters
Mike writes, "The fact is that most
people empathize more with humans
than with ferrets, more with ferrets
than with wood lice, more with wood
lice than with bacteria. Any prin-
ciple that compels people to reorder
these sympathies radically can be
nothing but an invention, an ^Iter-
ation in our starting point meant to
embody the personal preferences of
animal rights activists."
However, 200 years ago, a simi-
lar argument could have been made
about slaves. At that time, main-
stream society's "sympathies and
emotions" clearly did not lie with
blacks.
According to Mike's argument,
In short, Mike's argument pro-
duces a society where rules and
morals are based only on prejudices
and emotion, where exploitation and
cruelty'is allowed if it does not of-
fend the sympathies of the main-
stream. Clearly, these standards
should not be used to dictate our
interactions with other people if we
are striving to achieve justice. Just
as with slavery, Mike's standards
when applied to animals foster a state
where justice is obscured by soci-
etal conditioning and prejudice.
So what standards should be uti-
lized? Contrary to Mike's argument,
most animal rights activists do not
base their, ideology on the belief that
other animals are equal to humans.
The predominant argument for ani-
mal rights activists proceeds as fol-
lows.
First, it must be understood that
the case for giving equal rights to
humans is not based upon an inher-
ent equality among humans. "The
principle of the equality of human
beings is not a description of an
alleged actual equality among hu-
mans; it is a prescription of how we
should treat human beings," accord-
ing to prominent animal rights au-
thor Peter Singer in Animal Libera-
tion. Humans are fundamentally
unequal — they have different intel-
lectual capabilities, different artistic
and athletic abilities, etc. According
to the principle of equality, a nor-
mally functioning adult should not
be given more consideration than a
mentally handicapped person.
Furthermore, the principle of
equality does not even demand we
give identical rights to all human
beings. Rather, it demands that we
give equal consideration to their in-
terests. Since different people have
different needs and interests, differ-
ent rights are sometimes in order.
SEE ANIMALS, PAGE 3
7oWsrii^
Short letters <200 words or
less) may fee sent in by
E-MAIL:
lingjj@owlnet.rice.edu
CAMPUS MAIL:
Thresher
Longer letters should
be submitted on a Macintosh
disk in the Microsoft Word
format. Include a paper copy.
Deadline for all letters is
5 p.m. on Monday
All letters must include
your name, college,
year of graduation and
phone number (names
may be withheld by
- request in special
circumstances).
Fee increase for unused shuttles unfair
To the editor:
We are writing in response to the
recent Thresher article regarding
parking fee increases. As seniors,
we have had the unfortunate oppor-
tunity to see the parking policies at
Rice digress from good to bad.
When we were freshmen, college
parking fees were zero dollars. Now,
because of the imposition of exer-
cise-inhibiting shuttle buses, the pro-
posed parking fee will be raised to a
whopping $96 per year — a $21 in-
crease over this year.
This fee is entirely unfair to on-
campus students since they virtu-
ally never use the shuttle buses. Why
should a group of students be forced
to pay more for a service that they
don't use?
Neill Binford's shakyjustification
for the fees that rates are reasonable
compared to other universities ap-
pears even weaker in the face of
recent faculty discussions on gradu-
ation honors.
This [parking] fee is
entirely unfair to on-
campus students since
they virtually never use
the shuttle buses. '
If Rice does not need to have
similar policies to other universities,
why then must Rice have high park-
ing fees and shuttle buses like other
universities? Common sense de-
mands that those who use these ser-
vices should pay for them.
Of course, common sense may
be too much to expect of a university
which will charge everyone for cable
whether they want it or not.
Yhe solution, of course, is to walk.
Wouldn't it be revolutionary if we
got rid of the shuttle buses and actu-
ally decreased fees on something at
Rice? <J
Give it some thought, Neill. Per-
haps you could even try consulting
some students this time.
Steven Fleming
SRC *95
Kyle Price
SRC '95
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.
Klein, Charles & Rao, Vivek. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 82, No. 25, Ed. 1 Friday, April 7, 1995, newspaper, April 7, 1995; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth246510/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.