The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 51, No. 18, Ed. 1 Wednesday, February 12, 1964 Page: 2 of 12
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
In the long run, creative and vigorous manage-
ment, not a court of law, will make of Rice a
first-class institution of discovery and education.
The legal action to change the Rice charter is only
the first step in what must necessarily be a long
process of qualitative university expansion; it is
not and must not be an end in itself.
Il is, nonetheless, a decisive step. Even those
who oppose the Trustees' suit must do so with the
clear knowledge that a university free and segre-
gated cannot compete in the modern struggle for
academic excellence. A private university which
limits its means and restricts its admissions will
never live up to the vision of its founders, the
promise of its charter, or even the pretensions of
its press office; these are the realities, hard and
uncomfortable though they may be, which Rice
confronts in its continuing attempt to fashion its
own destiny.
In a sense, fifty years of academic history
on this campus have been a preparation not alone
for our day in court but for all that is to follow
it. We present on the next page extracts from
some of the most important documents of that
history, documents which speak as eloquently for
the seriousness of our concern for excellence as they
testify for the specific means we may legitimately
employ to achieve it. How the specifics are to be
interpreted the courts will soon decide; what is to
be made of the concern only we can determine.
1" or the remainder of the year, the Thresher
will take part in what we trust will be a lively
and continuing discussion of the consequences of
the court's final decision. If the court grants the
University's requests, we must recognize that our
new freedom raises pitfalls as well as possibilities,
and that our opportunities must be used wisely
and prudently or they are better used not at all.
And if the decision goes against us, we must
determine what to make of our disappointment,
and adjust our goals and our actions accordingly.
We have always believed that the participation
of students as well as faculty and administrators
in the continuing process of evaluation . and plan-
ning that is so unique to Rice, is a vital part ot
an academic community that is at once practical
and idealistic, that is never loo satisfied with
the present or too sanguine about the future but,
for all its self criticism, ever ready to welcome
constructive change.
Rice is and must continue to be responsive to
the demands of reality but always open to the
possibilities of the grand vision. If we are to ful-
fill the conception we all share of the University's
potential greatness, we can surely do no less. This
double imperative is now more relevant than ever,
and the presence of the charter suit in the courts
is no reason to hold either in abeyance. The legal
action may make today's headlines, but what we
do with it will make tomorrow's University.
EjK
*Deat6, 2^
LaSt week's meeting of the Student Senate
was the liveliest and most entertaining in a long
while. I he attempted censure of any elected
official is always quite a spectacle—particularly
when the issues do not seem to matter much
and the viewer can sit back with a detached and
somewhat bemused attitude to enjoy the show.
What was involved there was not graft and
corruption in the good old-fashioned sense, but
the misuse of authority and the usurpation of
power (insofar as authority and power exist on
this campus to be misused and usurped.) S.A.
President Jaffe defended himself by claiming
that he was simply exercising his prerogative of
executive action to "get something done" ifi the
face of a stalled and indifferent legislature.
Jaffe's theory is sound enough. What he may
have lacked was judgment and a program of
popular appeal. Other presidents before him have
taken matters essentially into their own hands
without incurring the messy business of a censure
attempt. The difference seems to be that Jaffe's
predecessors set about their work with a well-
defined program of action and an acute sense of
what is and what is not considered legitimate on
this campus.
But Jaffe's inability to carry off his plans and
the senate criticism of his actions does not weaken
the inescapable logic 6f his arguments. When the
Senate considered the censure of their president,
they were considering their own censure as well,
and many of them seemed to know it. Too large
to be flexible, too moribund to be creative, too
preoccupied with College affairs to become an
effective all-school government, the Senate is
destined for a certain if lingering death.
Many senators and most of the college presi-
dents seem to agree with the inevitability of the
senate's ultimate demise, although almost all argue
that such a "drastic" change is not immediately
feasible. What is likely in the immediate future
is a reduction in the size of the senate, a move
clearly calculated to point toward the time when
it will be reduced to nothing.
1 he Senate is not an oppressive body—it does
not have enough power to do anybody any real
harm—and the most any of us suffer from it is
boredom.
EJK
^ettei
A letter similar to the following greeted many
Rice students when they returned for second
semester classes:
Mr. John Rice Student
Room 1 444 New Men's College
Campus
Dear Mr. Student:
The university records show that you are
in arrears on payment of a parking fine in
the amount of $5. Unless this delinquent
account is satisfied before February 4,
1964, I will be obliged to ask the Registrar
to have you withdrawn from the University.
Yours very truly,
H. R. Pitman
Chief Accountant
Justice swift and sure, thy name is Rice. And
with a vegeance.
s4& *7tee, s4& 7S><yc&et
( I he article excerpted below appeared in last
Sunday's home delivered edition of the Houston
Post. Italicized notes are our own.)
"A multi-million-dollar university that charges
no tuition but demands nothing short of academic
excellence from its students . . ."
Who?
"A small university, deliberately limited in
size, which is quietly assuming a national im-
portance in the Space Age ..."
Who?
"A beautiful ivied campus with trees and formal
gardens reminiscent of the Old World, which
contains a huge nuclear reactor and laboratory
equipment to develop a rocket probe for outer
space . . ."
Ah, tree, ah rocket, can it be?
"A school which is regarded as an 'egghead
factory,' but which consistently fields winning
football teams . . ."
Was that "fields" or "hires" (winning aside)?
"These are some of the contradictory 'facts'
which make up what has been called ..."
Watch the emphasis on that word "facts." Now
here it comes:
". . . the 'Rice University Mystique'."
Nice going, Howard.
THRESHING
Edwards Questions Cost Of Tuition
The
■ Thresher
EDITORIAL STAFF
EDITOR EUGENE KEILIN *64
ASSOCIATE EDITOR ..HUGH RICE KELLY *65
BUSINESS MANAGER DAN TOMPKINS '63
To the Editor:
The recent campaign to "sign
the petition" has apparently
been put on the same basis as a
Red Cross drive or a safety
campaign with the result that
at least one important side of
the question has been discussed
'little or not at all.
' That is the cold, simple
change that the charging of
tuition will force upon the so-
cial and economic composition
of the Rice student body.
JUST CONSIDER the appli-
cants for admissions in any
given year. First consider them
ranked in order of academic po-
tential. We may assume that the
committee on admissions will
attempt to formulate some such
ranking and to make up the
next freshman class from the
top of it.
The freshman class that they
make up will still be ranked in
order of academic potential.
Now consider this same fresh-
man class ranked in order of
economic competence—ability to
pay.
OBVIOUSLY, those in the up-
per third or the upper quarter
of the ability ranking will be
able to finance their education
no matter where they are in the
economic ranking. The combina-
tion of $1200 tuition with schol-
arships for gifted students will
take care of them.
But what about those stu-
dents who are in the lower half
or lower third of both the eco-
nomic and the academic rank-
ing ?
WILL THE scholarships that
the university has promised to
give reach them? Will they be
lai'ge enough to enable these
students, with what they can
earn during summer and part-
time, to maintain themselves at
Rice ?
Obviously, scholarship aid is
limited by the same financial
difficulties that are given as
reasons for charging of tuition.
Summer jobs are limited and
low in pay for most freshmen
and sophomores, and the aca-
demic pressure limits part-time
employment during the- school
year alnfbst to the vanishing
point, especially for freshmen.
IT SEEMS to me that a large
portion of this group will be
forced to attend other schools
and their places necessarily will
be taken by moving up students
from below them in the academic
ranking, who otherwise would
have been refused on academic
grounds.
To consider another point,
who are likely to be members
of this group of students who
would attend Rice without tu-
ition, but would not if tuition
were charged ? Applying a little
imagination, it seems very rea-
sonable to believe that students
from lower economic back-
grounds would tend very strong-
ly to direct their studies to-
ward vocational preparations
that would enable them to raise
their earning capacity.
IN OTHER words, the stu-
dents affected would be the vo-
cationally oriented students,
predominantly in business and
technical education. This, of
course, is speculation, but I be-
lieve statistics will bear it out.
Now it is no secret to any-
body that this same group of
students who are more concern-
ed with vocational preparation
than with extra-curricular ac-
tivities or "well-rounded" intel-
lectuality are perennial whip-
ping-boys for student leaders
and for Thresher editorials.
BUT DO WE really have the
right to say to these people on
economic grounds alone, that
their ideals are not worthwhile,
that they have no place on the
Rice campus ?
I don't wish to make things
sound worse than they are. The
problems introduced by charg-
ing of tuition are not insoluble.
But they won't solve them-
selves. And they won't be solv-
ed by bland generalities from
the administration, or by ar-
mies of student pitchmen with
pens and petitions.
WHAT IS needed is a def-
inite, explicit plan for distri-
bution of scholarship aid, which
should be proposed and discuss-
ed by students as well as ad-
ministration as soon as possible.
It is also absolutely essential
to augment the usual employ-
ment aids available to the stu-
dent for financing his own ed-
ucation.
THE BUSINESS and tech-
nical schools of many univer-
sities have "co-op" programs
which permit the student to
work half the year and attend
classes half the year, financing
his education and gaining val-
uable experience. Why not at
Rice ?
The important thing is that
the problems must be discussed
and the facts known.
Bill Edwards
Hanszen '64
Clyde, Wilmore
Risk Literature Ban
To the Editor:
At the risk of being banned
from our 18th Century Litera-
ture course, we would like to
say that the 1963-64 Rice
Thresher reminds us of Alex-
ander Pope's Moral Essays:
Correct . . . but boring.
Where, oh where, is the lead-
ership which was to make of the
Thresher a vital, stimulating,
moving force on the Rice cam-
pus? It exists only in the cam-
paign speeches, certainly not in
the newspaper.
Will you answer the challenge
to produce a newspaper which
is more than a mere "list" of
current events? We certainly
hope so.
Catherine Clyde '65
Elizabeth Wilmore '64
Jones
Zapp Questions
Bleacher Stacking In Gym
To the Editor:
Rice Business Manager Em-
mett Brunson estimated that
there were 6500 people at the
recent Rice-A & M game.
I estimated that there were
about 500 too many people at
the game. Many of my fellow
students and I had to stand or
sit two-abreast in the aisle
throughout the entire contest.
WHY DID this situation
arise ? When Rice students pay
the general fee each year they
are paying for a seat at ath-
letic contests, a m o n g other
things.
However, the Athletic Asso-
ciation, including Messrs. Neely
and Brunson et al., which is cer-
tainly not suffering from any
economic disaster, in their thirst
for more money, sold too many
tickets for the game in ques-
tion.
I PERSONALLY would like
to see thousands of spectators
at all Rice athletic events, but
let's be realistic about it. You
cannot squeeze 20,000 people
into a band box.
If Messrs. Neely and Brunson
unselfishly want to give more
people the opportunity to at-
tend Rice basketball games,
why don't they schedule the im-
(Continued on Page 10)
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.
Keilin, Eugene. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 51, No. 18, Ed. 1 Wednesday, February 12, 1964, newspaper, February 12, 1964; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth244907/m1/2/: accessed April 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.