The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 58, No. 24, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 15, 1971 Page: 2 of 8
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:
French collection offered to Rice
editorial
President Norman Hackerman has been at the Uni-
versity for almost a full academic year. He has had time
to observe the University and its problems, and also the
way it handles and reacts to these problems (with what
sometimes must surely be a little bit of amazement).
In private conversation and in his address of last week
he has shown an awareness of the problems at Rice.
While it is not possible to agree with all the ad-
ministrative positions (unless you are the administra-
tion), President Hackerman has begun an administration
that could be as progressive as those of either former
presidents Lovett or Pitzer. He has shown a willingness
to listen to all sides of a question, and has conscientiously
tried to avail himself of all the facts. As he grows more
familiar with the perspectives of the institutions at Rice,
one feels that he will lend much to the harmony of the
University. He has indicated that he is willing to speak
any time and is waiting for invitations.
It should be noted that the President is merely one
man. and that his duties are numerous. He should not be
expected to make all the innovations at Rice. Hackerman
has stated that he is willing to listen to any suggestions.
The: rest of the University community should not only
take up this offer, but should ask to help in the study
or implementation of the suggestions.
mauldin
by SUSAN BIELSTEIN
One of the chief requisites of
a top-notch studies center is
an excellent research collection.
Sutfh a collection, rich in the
area of French literature, mu-
sic and art, is currently being
offered for sale to Rice.
The list of writers, artists,
and musicians represented in
this assemblage is formidable: a
complete manuscript off Camus'
"La Devotion a la croix;" 38
pen and ink drawings by Jean
Cocteau; original scores by
Claude Debussy; linoleum blocks
by Matisse; letters of Max
Ernst, Renoir, Ezra Pound,
Toulouse-Lautrec; and a first
draft of Sartre's "Liberte-Ega-
lite." Also included are num-
erous letters and manuscripts
of virtually hundreds of other
major artists and writers of the
nineteenth and twentieth cen-
turies.
The collection, now in Boston,
is being offered to Rice by an
anonymous gentleman who s^ent
20 years in Paris and became
well acquainted with Cocteau
and his artistic circle. The
agent for the transaction is a
Houston rare book dealer,
Franklin Gilliam. He feels that
the price of the collection, $165,-
000, is reasonable in view of
the collection's importance. Un-
fortunately, the university does
not have the funds readily
available. Dr. William Cam-
field, acting chairman of fthe
department of art history, says
that private contributions will
be necessary to pay for the col-
lection; however, he is encour-
aged on this score and says that
several individuals and founda-
tions have shown interest in the
project.
Several other faculty and
Staff members have participated
in this project including Dr.
Lecuyer of the French Depart-
ment and Richard O'Keeffe,
Rice librarian, who said in a
Found in a waste basket...
President's Office
Lovett Hall
Dear Dr. Garside:
After lengthy discussions,
Coach Peterson decided that a
course in Athletic History would
benefit development and help
to generate greater understand-
ing an# support within the Rice
Student Body.
Since it is felt that Mr. Rob-
erts' work should sufficiently
cover any ecclesiastical ques-
tions, your course on the two
Reformations becomes an un-
necessary redundancy. We know
that you will want to take part
in this new program, thus drop-
ping this course will allow you
to lead this important seminar.
Stress should be placed on
recent football developments,
particularly those pioneered by
our illustrious coaching staff.
Discussions of the contributions
Financial aid to athletes-Part I
The Senate Financial Aid
Committee was reactivated last
semester in response to rumors
concerning a cutback in tuition
aid. The rumors began when it
was discovered that an impor-
tant statement had been re-
moved from the university cata-
log. The 1969-70 catalog stated
■hat the University provides a
program of financial assistance
hased on an applicant's need "in
order that no qualified student
will be denied admission because
of inability to pay tuition." Ill
the 1970-1 catalog, the above
.-iatement was removed.
This semester,, on behalf of
the Senate Financial Aid Com-
mittee, I began a small investi-
gation to determine whether
there existed a relationship be-
tween allocations to Tuition Aid
and allocations to the Athlecic.
Department. It was a combina-
tion of events that prompted me
to launch the inevstigation. Tu-
ition was increasing, incoming
students no longer had a guar-
antee that, their tuition would
not increase, and the statement
pertaining to admission and fi-
nancial aid was removed from
the catalog. At the same time,
although the University was ex-
po i'i e ncing fina nc i a 1 d i ffi cultie s,
it embarked on a major, five-
year expansion of the Athletic
Department. Was there a ques-
tion of priorities?
(hresirer
Charles Szalkowski Editor-at-Large
Mike Smith Exec. Assoc. Ed,
Marty BeJasco Sports Ed.
After a semester-long investi-
gation, I have come to two basic
conclusions. These conclusions
pertain only to the financial as-
pects of budgeting the alloca-
tions to Tuition Aid and to the
Athletic Department, and per-
tain to its accompanying effect
upon student attitudes toward
the administration. First, be-
cause of the manner in which
the cost of the Athletic Depart-
ment is budgeted, whether in-
tentionally or not, the admin-
istration lias given the impres-
sion that it is deliberately at-
tempting to deceive Rice stu-
dents, faculty and alumni. It is
this deception, or impression
thereof, that has not only lent
support ^to the argument that
there should not be intercollegi-
ate sports on the level we pres-
ently have, but has also aug-
mented the feeling of distrust
of students toward the new ad-
ministration. Second, calthcjugh
Chart Two casts doubt upon the
adequacy of next year's Tu-
ition Aid Fund, I found no rea-
son to doubt,the sincerity of the
administration in providing fi-
nancial aid in the form of either
grants or loans. However, again
it was the lack of communica-
tion, along with the silent pa-
ternalism of the administration
that precipitated a flood of ru-
mors along with consequent
feelings of distrust.
JOHN MAULDIN
Editor-in-Chief
RICK GRIDER
Business Manager
DeBow Freed Managing Ed.
Jack Murray Senior Editoi
Gary Rachlin Sports Ed.
Staff: Kathy Boh rev, Maureen Cunnion, H. David Dannlo. Emily DeWitt,
Mark Friedman, Steve Jackson, Peter Jordan, Mark Si vers, Becky Strader, Bill
Slarnes.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of its writers and editors
and are not necessarily those of Rice University, its administrators or
officials.
Advertising: Jack Murray.
Circulation: Doug Williams.
The Rice Thresher, official student newspaper at Rice University, is
published weekely on Thursday except during: holidays and examination
periods by Btudents of Rice University, Houston, Texas 7701. Phone JA8-4141,
ext 221, 645.
I came to the conclusion that
the administration was being
deceptive about the cost of
maintaining the current athletic
program because of what the
Athletic Department Budget did
not include. It does not include
the athletic scholarships, nor the
Commence Department, nor
single major expense on behalf
of the e Athletic Department.
Athletic scholarships amounted
to some $320,000 annually for
the past two years, and will rise
to some $398,000 for the next
year. Although the Commerce
Department costs only $35,000,
it is my opionion that as long
as the Commerce Department is
open only to athletes, it should
be budgeted under the Athletic
Department. Such major expen-
ses as the astroturf, which cost
$355,000, were budgeted under
'Other-" in Construction, in the
official auditor's report on the
University Bldget.
Last semester, the administra-
tion circulated a pie chart of
University income and expendi-
tures. The chart proudly showed
that the Athletic Department
had made a profit of $'40,000 last
year. The revised figure on last
year's Athletic Department
shows a deficit of $22,000. How-
ever, I only mention this as a
point of fact, as the actual fig-
ure is irrelevant to the point I'm
trying to get across. But in the
preceding year the Athletic De-
partment had shown a deficit of
$117,000. The chart neglected to
note that during the year 1968-
09 there was $160,000 in athletic
scholarships budgeted under the
Athletic Department. During
1969-70, these $160,000 in ath-
letic scholarships were shifted
from the Athletic Department to
Undergraduate Tuition Aid. As
of 1970-1, there was approxi-
mately $320,000 in athletic
scholarships budgeted under Un-
dergraduate Tuition Aid. A high
official in the administration
told me why this unpublicized
change in budgeting was made.
Since tuition varies from- school
to school, he said, it is necessary
to budget athletic scholarships
separately in order to allow a
comparison of the costs of the
Athletic Departments of various
schools. Considering that there
was no footnote on the pub-
licised material to indicate the
non-inclusion of athletic schol-
arships (I learned of the non-
inclusion of the athletic schol-
arships in a copy of the Audi-
tor's Report on University Bud-
get. This audit was made avail-
able at the alumni office
through the combined efforts of
Mr. Ballew and Dr. Hacker-
man.) 1 regard the above ex-
planation as more of a rationali-
zation of some other policy than
as, a reasonable explanation of
the change. I'm not intending
to assert that if there weren't
any athletic scholarships, all
that money would go to tuition
recent Post Article, "This is
the kind of collection that wpells
the difficult difference between
being a research library and
not being one . . . This collec-
tion would go a long way in
building strength in fine arts
and French literature."
Camfield claimed that this
particular collection is un-
usually important to Rice be-
cause "ti is so diverse. It would
provide a framework for fu-
ture purchases" which would
add depth and dimension to
academic research. The collec-
tion would be housed in the
Woodson Research Center in
Fondren Library and would be
available for both graduate and
undergraduate us. Camfield
says that this is a "rare
opportunity" which may not be
afforded to the university
again, and he urges the faculty
and student body to support
this endeavor to upgrade Rice's
academic departments.
of intercollegiate athletics to
the university and papers on
rule changes would be appro-
priate.
In order to strengthen the
bond between athletic and scho-
lasticism, we have moved all
classes for Rice athletes to the
gym; where they will be able
to attend in uniform.
We look forward to your
speedy compliance.
aid; in fact, according to this
year's statistics, only about 38%
of it would go to tuition aid
(See Chart One). All I'm say-
ing is„ that as athletic scholar-
ships are not based on need nor
on academic excellence, but on
one's athletic, prowess, the
scholarships are an integral part
of athletic program and they
• should be included as a cost of
the Athletic Department.
The expenditures of the Ath-
letic Department next year will
rise some $300,000 to $400,000.
At the same time, the admin-
istration expects a higher rev-
enue return that'll compensate
for the increased expenditures.
However, to say that the Ath-
letic Department will pay for
itself, as some have said it will,
is being deceptive as long as
expenses totaling some $'435,000
($398,000 in scholarships and
$35,000 of Commerce Depart-
(Continued on Page 6)
CHART ONE*
A. Athletic Scholarship & Tuition Aid 1970-1
11.) $ Tuition aid to non-athletes equals $.1,252,000 equals $5S0 per person
No. non-athletes 2150
(2.1 $ Athletic Scholarships equals 320.000 equals $1520 per person
No. athletes 210
(1) equals 38% or $122,000
"(2)
This indicates the amount of athletic scholarship that would
be used for tuition aid according to average amount of aid per
non-athlete. This does not give any value judgement as to whether
the average amount of tuition aid per non-athlete is too high or
too low.
B. Athletic Scholarships & Number of Athletes
1070-71
(1.) No. athletes equals 210 equals 8.9%
No. students 2348
(2.) $ athletic Schol. equals 320,000 equals 20.2%
*$ total tuition aid 1,572,000
(2.)/(l.) equals 2.3
1971-2 (est)
225 equals 9.4%
2400
398,000 equals 23.8%
1.668,000
(2.)/(l.) equals 2.6
This shows that athletes are proportionately receiving in
tuition scholarship money (2.) / (1.) time amount their proportion
in student body.
♦Total tuition Aid — Athletic Sch. (320,000) plus Acad, Tuition Aid (1,252,000)
(398.000) (1,270,000)
* The word equal has been substituted for the mathematical sym-
bol.
the rice thresher, april 15, 1971—page 2
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.
Mauldin, John. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 58, No. 24, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 15, 1971, newspaper, April 15, 1971; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245105/m1/2/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.