The Rice Thresher, Vol. 95, No. 21, Ed. 1 Friday, February 22, 2008 Page: 3 of 28
twenty eight 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:
Self-proclaimed gadfly
THE RICE THRESHER OPINION FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2008
Student Association on brink of change
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a
voting member of the Student Senate.
But for some twisted reason, I have
found myself at nearly every Student
Association meeting, Mon-
day after Monday, for the
past three years.
At first, I went as a
young and naive assistant
opinion editor, hoping to
get the pulse of campus
goings-on. But it did not
take too long to realize that
the SA was, at the time, little
more than a talking club.
Presidents and senators
discussed issues without
knowing the facts, treated
the whole thing like a joke, and then
put it all down on their resumes.
However, this pathetic excuse for a
campusstudentgovernmentdid serve
as an excellent resource for Monday
night schadenfreude and free pizza,
and I had a prime seat to watch the
administrative sucking-up that could
only be described as pornographic.
Sophomore year was marked by
the James Lloyd presidency, a time
where I recall just one raucous debate
taking place in the hallowed halls
of Farnsworth Pavilion. It was back
when Jimmy tried to push through
a resolution supporting President
David Leebron's Call to Conversa-
tion, the prototype for the Vision for
the Second Century. Lloyd expected
the resolution — I think the only
one brought up that entire year—to
pass straight through the apathetic
Senate, but then Lovett President
Evan Ross" stood up to oppose the
brown-nosing white paper.
Chaos erupted in the normally
sanguine proceeding, with the
two self-righteous representatives
at each others' throats, rhetori-
cally speaking. Luckily, a spry young
freshman by the name of Christopher
Warrington stood up, brandishing
his personal copy of Robert's Rules
of Order like it was the King James
Bible. Eventually, the resolution was
tuned to express the sentiment that
students liked the process of the
Evan
Mintz
V2C, but not necessarily the results.
Ah, now that was standing up for
student opinion.
Junior year was the year of the
puppy president, Althea
Tupper, who was elected
despite unironically creat-
ing the Facebook group
"Most Rice people are
Weird and We Don't like
them," and having just lost
the election for Hanszen
College president. Way to
represent the students.
I do not know which
anecdote describes that
year the best: the time
the SA tried to pass off
a reprinting of sections of the V2C
as a resolution, or the time Tupper
wrote a letter to the Thresher ex-
plaining that her administration had
accomplished a lot, like "Sammy's
Picnic, the HedgeHopper Card,
2006 Homecoming Tailgate, [and
the] 2006 Powderpuff All-Star game"
("Critics ignore SA's year of worth,"
March 16, 2007).
But in that first meeting
I saw something that 1
had yet to see
in the SA: a plan.
Both a picnic and a tailgate? Wow.
'Hie letter also said critics only
attacked the SA while not proposing
any specific recommendations. I sit
back and contemplate her point as I
eat some food from the new 24-hour
vending machine in the RMC and
get some coffee from the 24-hour
coffee machine in the library. Alas,
apparently the problem was that the
Thresher dk\ not "grant prior review
of information posted in the SA
information box." Only a little more
presidential power and she really
could have shaken things up.
Given these experiences, I waited
for this year's first SA meeting like
a film critic waiting for a remake of
Ernest Goes To Camp. But in that first
meeting I saw something that I had
yet to see in the SA: a plan.
The agendas for the first four
weeks were already laid out, with
more proposals, resolutions and
avenues for student input in that first
month than the two previous years
combined. I^ura Kelley knew what
she wanted to do and got it done:
pursuing an environmental policy, ad-
dressing construction problems and
passing resolutions that take a strong
stance to the Faculty Senate.
Of course, the Kelley administra-
tion was not alone, with senators like
Brown sophomore Patrick McAnaney
always taking a hard position to fight
the good fight, treating the SA like an
actual government body rather than
a break before pub. The SA began to
show its power—soft power, but power
nonetheless — and the change on
campus was palpable. Faculty actually
began to listen to the SA and started
actively seeking out student opinion
before pursuing changes—something
that would have been nice before the
last winter break change.
So after two years of having a good
chuckle every Monday evening after
leaving Farnsworth, I am almost sad to
see that the SA is no longer a big joke.
Sure, the environmental committee
fiasco and flip-flop on putting Mithun
MansinghaniandZach Marshall on the
ballot show that many members of the
Student Senate still do not know how a
government is supposed to work, but
at least we know that it can.
So when you vote, please, vote for
a serious candidate. Vote for someone
with experience. Vote for someone who
wants the position, not just a line on a
resume. Hie alternative is damning
students back to a time when the faculty
saw usas spoiled drunkards who cared
more about summer camp color wars
than the future of our campus.
Evan Mintz is a Hanszen College senior
and executive editor.
Guest column
Students must close Honor Code loopholes
As mentioned in the Thresher,
Rice's Honor System currently
allows students who have been ac-
cused of a violation to withdraw from
Rice for the rest of the
current semester as well
as the following semester
("Honor Council closes
loopholes in penalty struc-
ture," Nov. 9). In return,
their case is dropped
and the accusation does
not go on record. About
eight students every year
invoke this option. Other
students who do not with-
draw in this way undergo
a hearing with a panel
of nine Council members, after
which they can only be found in
violation by a unanimous vote from
the panel.
Because of these conflicting
standards, Rice's Honor System is
Hawed — no other university with
a similar honor system allows its
students to dodge an accusation in
this way. The escape option is unfair
to the Rice community at large, as
it allows accused students to essen-
tially bypass the process we have all
agreed upon to handle accusations
of academic fraud and other forms
of cheating. Thus, a change in the
Constitution is imperative.
Some of you may remember that
a similar amendment was approved
only a few years ago. That change
requires accused students to not
only withdraw, but also to forfeit
credit for the course in which the
accusation occurred before the case
disappears as previously described.
Ryan
Stinnett
step in the right direction, it still al-
lows accused students to circumvent
the spirit of the Honor System by
forcing the case to be dropped.
An amendment to fix
this problem was ap-
proved last semester by
both the Honor Council as
well as the Graduate Stu-
dent Association and will
be enacted if approved by a
minimum of three-four ths
of the voting undergradu-
ate student body in the Stu-
dent Association elections
that begin Feb. 21.
Under the proposed
change, an accused stu-
dent would still be free to withdraw
at any time, but if they did decide to
leave Rice, the accusation would no
longer simply disappear. Instead,
they would go through the Council's
standard procedure for investigating
accusations prior to returning to
Rice. Additionally, a note would be
added to their internal record — not
their transcripts — stating only that
they have a pending accusation, and
they will temporarily lose credit for
the course until the matter is re-
solved. If a student decides to move
forward with the Council's investi-
gation before seeking readmission,
the note will be removed and credit
restored until the Council is able to
reach a decision on the matter.
Thischange in the Constitution of
the Honor System iscritical because
it ensures that the same standards
apply to all students accused of a
violation and that the Council can
continue to do its part to protect
For the purpose of clarifica-
tion, the Council officers will
be going to college government
meetings to answer any questions
that students may have about this
proposed change. Also, please feel
free to contact Council members
at any time with questions about
this issue.
Ryan Stinnett is a Sid Richardson
College senior and Honor Council
chair.
Guest column
The objective fact: morality
compatible with religion
Three weeks ago I attended
"Religion vs Morality," a lec-
tuere sponsored by the Rice
Objectivism Club given by Ayn
Rand scholar Andrew
Bernstein. I expected
to hear arguments for
how we can have moral-
ity without believing in
God, but I got much
more when Bernstein
claimed it is impossible
to have morality within
true religion. I am not
going to argue with the
former statement, but
I completely disagree
with the latter.
From the beginning of the talk,
Bernstein leveled his rhetorical
guns at religion, insisting that
true religion equates with the Tali-
ban's killing of women who have
learned to read or the 15th century
Catholic Church's Inquisition.
The nice religious people you
meet today, he said, have mixed
watered down religious teachings
with secular reasoning.
In fact, we know the opposite
is true if we consider the most
quoted set of moral rules ever pro-
duced: the Ten Commandments.
The last six Commandments are
honor your parents, do not mur-
der, do not commit adultery, do
not steal, do not bear false witness
and do not covet. These formed
the moral foundation for how
the ancient Hebrews interacted
with one another, and I do not
expect Bernstein would object
to any of this.
Of course he would disagree
with the first four command-
ments: have no other gods, do
not make idols, do not misuse
the name of God and honor the
.Sabbath day. Bernstein would
say it would be irrational to fol-
low these commands, but his
reason is precisely because he
does not believe God exists in
the first place. If we consider
for a moment that the Hebrews
believed there was a God giving
Moses these commands, then it
would certainly be rational for the
Hebrews to follow them.
The question really comes
down to: "Can one rationally
believe in God?"
Bernstein would say no, and
said so during the question and
answer session when he defined
religion as a philosophical system
that denies reason and requires
faith in some sort of divine god. I
agree that it requires some faith,
but 1 disagree with the idea that
religion inherently denies reason.
I cannot prove that God exists, but
Pat
Hastings
he cannot prove God does not, and
I think it is entirely reasonable to
believe God does.
In fact, 1 will briefly sketch two
classic arguments for
the belief in a God — I
will not even argue that
this God must be the
one of the Christian
Bible, which is what
I believe. The first
is the cosmological
argument. It works
something like this:
Everything that exists
right now must have
come from something
else or always existed.
If it came from something else,
then that something else must
have come from nothing, always
existed or come from something
else itself. Ultimately, either
something came from nothing or
something has always existed. If
we choose the latter, then we have
to pick from an eternal being or an
eternal universe. Since scientific
evidence suggests the universe is
not eternal, we are left with God
as a reasonable option.
The second is the moral
argument, which recognizes hu-
manity's (mostly) universal and
inherent sense of right and wrong.
Every time we argue over right
and wrong we appeal to a higher
law that we assume everyone is
aware of and not free to subjective-
ly change. This implies a higher
standard or law, and law requires a
lawgiver. Because this moral stan-
dard transcends humanity, this
universal law requires a universal
lawgiver. Again, God appears to be
a reasonable option.
I do not expect these simplified
arguments to persuade anyone
that God exists, only that the belief
in one is a rational thing. As Catho-
lic scholar Peter Kreeft writes,
"Arguments can lead one to the
water's edge, but faith is neces-
sary to jump into the sea of God."
I am always delighted to see more
discussion at Rice about deeper
issues like religion, morality and
what is worth living for. I wish
the Rice Objectivism Club the
very best in promoting this dia-
logue, but I hope that Bernstein's
unilateral dismissal of religious
faith will be an example of how
not to do it. I hope we will engage
thoughtfully with those who are
willing to engage with us, and
search honestly in the pursuit of
an often elusive truth.
Pat Hastings graduated from
Martel College in 2007 and is a
Hanszen College associate.
While this is certainly a significant academic integrity at Rice.
the Rice Thresher
NEWS
Lily Chun, Editor
Sarah Rutledge, Ass(. Editor
Jocelyn Wright, Asst. Editor
Sean McBeath, Designer
OPINION
Amanda Melchor, Editor
Dan Derozier, Cartoonist
SPORTS
Casey Michel, Editor
Natalie Clericuzio, Asst Editor
ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
Nikki Metzgar, Editor
COPY
Nick Schlossman, Editor
Ryan Stickney, Editor
Dylan Farmer, Staff Coordinator
Stephen Whitfield
Editor in Chief
Evan Mintz
Executive Editor
PHOTOGRAPHY
Taylor Johnson, Editor
lan White, Editor
David Resales, Assf Editor
Lauren Schoeffler, Asst. Editor
BUSINESS
Sarah Mitchell, Business Manager and Payroll
Jessie Huang, Asst. Manager and Subscriptions
Joe Passaro, Distribution Manager
Sean Monks, Distribution Manager
ADVERTISING
Joseph Ramirez. Ads Manager
Thomas Yeh, Asst. Ads Manager
Tiffany Kuo, Classified Ads Manager
CALENDAR
Sean McBeath, Editor
The Rice Thresher, the official student
newspaper at Rice University since 1916, is
published each Friday during the school year,
except during examination periods and holidays,
by the students of Rice University.
Editorial and business offices are located
on the second floor of the Ley Student Center,
61(H) Main St., MS-524, Houston, TX 77005-
1892. Phone (713) 3484801. Fax (713) 348-5238.
E-mail: thresher@rice.edu. Web page: www.
ricethresher.org.
Annual subscription rate: $60domestic, $ 125
international. Nonsubscription rate: first copy
free, second copy $5.
The 'thresher reserves the right to refuse
any advertising for any reason. Additionally, the
Thresherdoes not take responsibility forthe factual
content of any ad. Printingan advertisement does
not constitute an endorsement by the Thresher.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority
opinion of the Thresher editorial staff. All other
opinion pieces represent solely the opinion of the
author. The Backpage is satire.
The Thresher is a member of the Associated
Collegiate lYess. Google: Dr. McNinja. Sweet!
i COPYRIGHT 2008.
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.
Whitfield, Stephen. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 95, No. 21, Ed. 1 Friday, February 22, 2008, newspaper, February 22, 2008; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443058/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.