The Rice Thresher, Vol. 88, No. 15, Ed. 1 Friday, December 8, 2000 Page: 2 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 OPINION FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2000
the Rice Thresher
Brian Stoler
Editor in Chief
Jose Luis Cubria,
Mariel Tarn
Managing Editors
Michael Nalepa
Opinion Editor
An unfair example
We are upset, but not surprised, that former Sid Secretaries Patrick
Murphy and Vinay Kini were suspended for a semester due to the Oct. 24
Sid Richardson College Council minutes.
The minutes — a parody of a Thresher opinion column written by a Sid
sophomore that included generally insulting statements and insinuations
that the girl and her sister had sex with each other — were quite terrible.
However, Kini and Murphy were under a lot of pressure from the college
to be more vulgar. Just two weeks before, a set of "underground minutes"
showed the secretaries what the minutes should be like — raunchy and
generally disgusting. They were doing what they were expected to.
We recognize that environment alone cannot excuse someone — "We
were just following orders" has a very chilling ring to it — but we also have
to note that no one's life was in danger because of these minutes. They were
clearly a parody, were somewhat mean-spirited, and were read and then
thrown away by the members of the college. Nobody thought they were
true; most people thought they went somewhat too far.
That's it.
Now, let's look at what's going to happen to Murphy and Kini: Murphy
will likely have to enlist in the Navy after he graduates because he is going
to lose his eligibility to be in Navy ROTC. Kini's chances of getting into
medical school are seriously jeopardized.
This sentence is going to have permanent, detrimental effects on Kini
and Murphy's lives. And can their suspension do anything to help the
targets of the minutes?
And what is all of this going to accomplish in the long run? We have two
students who have been made into examples. But examples of what? Ex-
amples of the fact that Rice students are conditioned to think that it's OK to
talk about sex in an explicit and derogatory (though often lighthearted) way?
Examples of the fact that nobody's embarrassed to say "cunnilingus" so
students don't think it's a big deal to write about it in their college minutes?
Rice might need change, but it doesn't need sacrifices to the altar of
"examples." Kini and Murphy deserve punishment, but suspension goes
too far.
H6LLO SIRJ WOULD you
LiKeTo rpy our new
Rice umveRSiTy Rat>io
uSTeninG- exPeRience
i>eaL th3t cortes with
two Sonic youTHS, a
Sioe of unat>uLTeRaTeD
fcasKeTbaLL, ani> one
CHiLLeD FRanK zaPPa
noise-FReaK-ouT?
n>
:0-£O_
i 2-(
KTRU FRienOLy coHWiTTee:
THe new PRo&Ra«\ Poucy ef\a*eRS
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
A new era for KTRU
As it turns out, the world is going to be OK. Sort of.
KTRU is back on the air, and students are (mostly) going to be in charge
of the student radio station.
We've all learned something about accountability. The formerly decen-
tralized KTRU management is going to become more effective, and
everybody's learned that there are consequences to actions.
We've learned about appropriate responses, as opposed to overkill. The
administration has learned that students aren't quite as apathetic as any of
us thought. Students have learned that they can stand up, just on principle,
for a radio station they never listened to.
-And we celebrate as the station goes back on the air today.
So why are we left with such a bad taste in our mouths?
KPRU may be back on the air, but the dust hasn't quite settled. The
administration went behind our backs and we don't know why. Why weren't
students warned about what might happen? Who thought it would be a good
idea to lock students out of the station?
We are annoyed with the letter sent from Provost Eugene I,evy to the
faculty. Except for the utterly false paragraphs about how K'l RU has
resisted "sustained, collegial efforts" from the Student Association to bring
it back in line with the other blanket tax organizations, it's mostly true.
However, the facts omitted spin events so it seems that the students at the
station have been recalcitrant hooligans for years.
For example, the letter omits the fact that the Board of Governors gave
permission to get the license in 1970 at the explicit request of a group of
students. It only includes the statement that the president should supervise
the broadcasts and determine the policies to operate the station. Crucially
left out of levy's letter: the board minutes from that meeting stating "the
broadcasting (should] clearly state that the station is operated by the
students of Rice University and reflects their opinions; that it is does not
represent the official position of the University."
We're distressed by the letter's statement that the university has spent
$223,940 "for KTRU capital equipment and other costs" without explaining
what these costs were. Was it transmitter maintenance? Was it the salary of
the Student Affairs staff members hired as a result of the 1997 KTRU
review? Did it take into account the money the university receivesasaresult
of their contractual agreement with KRTS from 1991 that allowed KI RU
and KRTS to both become 50,000 watts?
A month ago, Associate Vice President for Finance and Administration
Neill Binford told us the money to run and maintain the tower was almost
entirely covered by the KRTS deal and by renting out space on the tower.
Why did no mention of this money appear in levy's letter?
We don't believe the statement that a partial reason for the 1996-'97
KTRU review committee was that it was operating "in a manner de facto
inaccessible to ... the Student Government Association." In fact, as far as we
can tell, the SA didn't say a dissatisfied word to KTRU until this year when
the rewriting of the SA Constitution brought up the fact that KTRU doesn't
have an elected student leader, a problem that will shortly be fixed.
Now with the station going back on the air, maybe all of this nitpicking
doesn't mean anything. But maybe what we learned best is how much more
effective confusion can be than honesty and fairness.
After all, the stories told by members of the administration rarely
matched up from day to day, much less from person to person. And, as was
most flattering to our university, the negative impact of outside media
reports was lessened because they were so inconsistent.
And now, students aren't mad anymore, but they've been rushed into a
new permanent operating policy for the student radio station.
We wanted this KTRU situation to be resolved, and to be resolved in the
best possible way, for KTRU and for the rest of the student body. And we
think that the current proposal is pretty good. But we will not forget what
happened in the past week, and we hope no one else does either.
Resignation stems
from KTRU incident
To the editor:
I am resigning from my job at
Rice University.
Rather than biting the hand that
feeds me, 1 choose temporaiy hun-
ger.
I refuse to profit from an adminis-
tration that chooses unilateral ac-
tion when confronted with the natu-
ral struggles that arise from sitting
at the helm of the unwieldy and
wonderful ship that is Rice Univer-
sity.
I am optimistic that a resolution
can be found and KTRU can be put
on the air with satisfactory student
oversight; however, reading be-
tween the lines of Dr. Gillis' bom-
bastic remarks to the Thresher
("President Gillis comments on
KTRU situation," Dec. 5) tells me
that KTRU could be sold to the high-
est bidder someday. I don't want to
imagine Rice without KTRU, with-
out the Thresher, without Rice Cin-
ema and all those other student ve-
hicles that give Rice University's
creative voice local and national rec-
ognition. My hope is that the admin-
istration closes this unfortunate
chapter of Rice history by starting
next semester with less mandating
and more dialogue. At the very least
with more diplomacy.
I have enjoyed my four and a half
years in the Admission Office. They
bear no responsibility in my deci-
sion to leave Rice. ITie Admission
Office works tirelessly to recruit the
most creative minds and the most
effective student leaders to campus.
This crisis is a good gauge of their
efforts to that end.
I wish the student body the best
of luck.
This Houstonian stands with you.
Keep up the good fight.
Rosa Maria Guerrero
Admission Office staff assistant
Criticism of James A.
Baker III uncalled for
To the editor:
I am appalled by the disrespect
shown for James A. Baker III in last
week's guest column ("James A.
Baker Ill's actions embarrass Rice,"
Dec. 1) by Robert Reichle.
Reichle refers to Baker as "the
wacky uncle of our Rice family," "just
another one of Dubya's many flun-
kies" and "an heirloom of a political
janitor." Further, he projects insin-
cerity into the most fragmented quo-
tations, such as Baker's statement
that vote recounts are causing "un-
certainty abroad." Reichle suggests
we find a benefactor who is "cooler
than J B3" and concludes by express-
ing the desire to see David Boies
"kicking Baker in the crotch."
First of all, it is rude to speak so
insultingly of anyone, magnanimous
member of the Rice family or not.
Second, Reichle complains about
Rice's being "blatantly partisan." But
Baker's loyalty to the GOP is Baker's
loyalty to the GOP — not ours. And
in any event, one would be hard-
pressed to find a supporter on the
level of Baker who is interested in
higher education and yet has no
political involvement.
Reichle also attacks Baker's
"bias" in favor of his "longtime asso-
ciates, the Bush family." But should
we be proud to be associated with
Baker if he abandoned his longtime
friends? What if he abandoned Rice?
The embarrassment to Rice is
not the generous man who has con-
tributed so much to both our univer-
sity and our country; rather, it is the
ungrateful student who mocks him
out of the shame of being associated
with one whose views do not coin-
cide with his own.
Olen Rambow
Hanszen sophomore
Pondering legal
implications of cheers
To the editor:
Reading through last week's let-
ters, I felt that there was a profound
misunderstanding of what is pro-
tected speech. For there to be a
sanction for such conduct, a right to
be infringed by the university or
college masters, there must be an
underlying right to be violated. Col-
lege cheers are not protected
speech, anil no one is violating your
right. I"he dependence on the term
"free speech" speaks to a profound
misunderstanding of the doctrine
itself. No right is absolute.
A fundamental tenet of legal rea-
soning is that constitutional provi-
sions will not be read in a manner
contrary to the intent of the Found-
ing Fathers. The framers envisioned
the First Amendment as a vehicle
for promoting social change, not sti-
fling it, for enabling political criti-
cism, not silencing the opposition.
In this vein, the law provides no
shelter for speech which is found to
be lewd and lascivious, based on the
reasoning that not every utterance
qualifies as speech of a dimension
warranting constitutional protection.
The promotion of the denigration of
women and members of the gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender
community does nothing to add to
the bold debate envisioned by the
framers. It is, in essence, little more
than playground name-calling.
Second, the reliance on tradition
is wholly misplaced. Hiere is no
protection of historical bias and dis-
crimination. In fact, that whole argu-
ment runs counter to the basis of
equal protection. Regulation exists
to draw lines between the rights of a
person and her neighbor. When your
right to free speech impinges upon
that of another, the state (or educa-
tional institution) has every right to
draw a boundary around that right.
Third, even if the college cheers
are deemed speech, the interest in
promoting t he "expressive message"
(women and gays are cheap, and to
be mocked in our community) must
be balanced against the interests of
the regulatory body in promoting
the regulation. When the interest
underlying the regulation is com-
pelling and unbiased, and the ef-
fects nondiscriminatory, the regula-
tion passes First Amendment mus-
ter.
Here, the interest of the univer-
sity in achieving compliance with
federal and state antidiscrimination
and sexual harassment law is more
than sufficient to outweigh the inter-
est in voicing nonpolitical, discrimi-
natory viewpoints that do nothing to
add to the free debate of issues on
campus.
See CHEERS, Page 4
CONTACTING THE
THRESHER
Letters
m Letters to the editor
should be sent to the Thresher
by mail, fax, e-mail to
thresher@rice.edu or be deliv-
ered ir. person. We prefer that
letters be submitted on disk
or by e-mail. letters must be
received by 5p.m. on the Mon-
day prior to a Friday publica-
tion date.
■ All letters must be signed
and include a phone number.
Rice students and alumni must
include their college and year.
We will withhold names upon
request.
■ Letters should be no
longer than 500 words in
length. The Thresher reserves
the right to edit letters for
both content and length.
News Tips
■ l ips for possible news sto-
ries should be phoned in to
the Thresher at (713) 348-4801.
Subscribing
■ Annual subscriptions are
available for $50 domestic and
$105 international via first
class mail.
Advertising
■ We accept both display
and classified advertisements.
Contact the Thresher [or more
information.
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.
Stoler, Brian. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 88, No. 15, Ed. 1 Friday, December 8, 2000, newspaper, December 8, 2000; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443216/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.