The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 12, Ed. 1 Thursday, October 23, 1980 Page: 2 of 32
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:
Questions redux
Many good professors are leaving Rice these days. About 15 full
professors with tenure have left in the past 15 months. Another 15 left
in the three years preceeding that. Most were excellent teachers and
professors: history Professor and Provost Frank Vandiver, economics
Professor Stanley Besen, administrative science Professor Arne
Troelstra and...the list goes on. Now former Baker Master and
English Professor David Minter. Soon former Wiess Master, Director
of Student Advising and English Professor Stewart Baker is expected
to announce he, too, is leaving.
Perhaps such a turnover is not unusual, but that does not mean it
should be expected. President Norman Hackerman seems to have
taken a "win-some-lose-some" attitude and stresses that the losses are
being replaced by good people.
And Rice is finding good people. But those good people should be
replacing the weak, not the exceptional. The new are only rarely able
to fill the shoes of the old. Exceptional professors leave; good ones
take their place; the quality of a Rice education slowly creeps down.
Why do those professors leave?
Some leave for opportunity. That's not unimportant, but it's hard
to measure.
Some leave for money. That's a little easier. When compared to
other academic institutions, Rice doesn't appear to be doing too
badly. Salaries don't compare well with those of our model — the Ivies
— but we do compare reasonably well with our neighbors
in Texas.
But they don't compare well with salaries outside of academia.
Most professors can easily make more money working for outside
corporations. Hackerman may think that's where they should go if
they don't like it here. (Remember his "let them go to Tenneco"
comment last year.) Rice can save money that way. But it can't become
the great academic institution we continue to pretend — but only
pretend — to be.
Faculty salaries across the nation fell in real terms throughout the
seventies. Salaries fell by an average of 18 percent nationwide
according to the A AU P report. "The decade of the 1970's has been one
of accelerating declines in real faculty salaries," the report bluntly
states.
Many professors here have less spending money now than they did
when they came here, even though they have been promoted through
the ranks. That's the problem with salaries today. Rice may be on the
upper deck of the ship, but what difference does it make if you are on
the Titantic?
As long as the attitude of the president remains the same, there is
little hope for change. And as long as that attitude exists, Rice's
reputation as a quality institution will become merely a joke.
So I can only ask again. Why doesn't Rice offer the money and the
opportunities to keep good professors here?
— Richard Dees
H/W£ ieo seen
CKP'N RlFF
AT A TAKLE IN A SMALL INTEeSTELLAI?
Pll/E CALLft) "AfcMPrT OF THe UWH/EK-re
gtrel<jbuse crm, sTtt r* noroi>o, cwef
Physic iftfi of tHe stellaih albatross
NCKLE (TAfN
SwftVBAR7
PASSED
fAESSAfet rofc HIM
/"excuse ME
. Dt rion do'
CAP'M SwA7tA£,S IR, Tire
FATE OF Tttt CKJJDJSl avium-
(jNt/El^iE MAfXaS THE MLAUCE
■/OU AvNb KMK SHIP <n)R
1.AST AmD only HbTC of- SToPPw
ittt Maown«ifr sflOMfflcis ee*en«
r A?'M SuAYSAE, Kit YflU 1*1
TtfCfcE"?
DAMIJ sn?AiemT^\)
HEtMES1 YOU'IE AM \
o.t.&uyeN/Bd IF 1
yiu to HAVE wipes' A
ON yjut sttoes J\
IT'S A &oob
THlvJfa I
CAfNl SWAYBAfcjS
ALWAYS
SIHSULD SEt ThE
aSPABt
T&lRIBLG
OTttEP T B'TTLE-S
OACSOR TACOl
OF WILD
I UtEt
T*ro. BADlY
NEXT
LUKttes
A "CAMPAIGN OT IPEA&" ***-..
HERE'S AM IWA-
HE COULD GO BACK
TOROCKfORPAMD
pwscncEixw-
WHWT ABOUT
W IDEA,?
>WE COULD MX RLE
FORUHEMPUWEMT-
THAT'SONEIDE^-
1UKED MY IDEA'
>ME COUU>TAKE
THEWEELSOFF
THIS THING AKD
-THAT >NE ALL JOtH
THE HARE KWSHNAS?
YOUCALLTHW
-BETTER THAN THE 1DEK
OF STARTW& K PUHK-BCXK
BAKD-AK/OTHER IDEAS?
DflU
tmzm
BcKSN^GEKT-
®eeD TV/W* AnerianlSfcateuati -
SPANNING THE HEDGES/by David Dow
In his essay "A Choice for
Freedom," Herman Wouk
approaches the problem of
international peace with stark
realism. World harmony depends
upon relations between the United
States and Russia, the world's two
superpowers and often-times bitter
adversaries. Convinced of
America's penchant for peace,
Wouk worries about "malevolent
old men in the Kremlin" whom he
labels "arteriosclerotic heirs of
Stalin." His sanguine faith rests
with the younger Russians,
tomorrow's leaders, who Wouk
hopes will see the world less
backward ly than the present
Russian leadership.
Meanwhile, Wouk main-
tains, America must pay the
price for its freedom, and "it costs
more than money"; it takes a
revival of national service, in
which everybody — rich and poor,
black and white, student and
laborer — must participate. Wouk
believes that more than any other
factor, the lasting revulsion of
American youth to Vietnam
tempts the Soviet aggressors.
Wouk's plea, unlike the
exhortations we hear from the
reactionary right, is permeated by
a genuine yearning for peace. Lest
readers accuse him of harboring a
latent hawkish disposition, Wouk
quotes from the preface to his
excellent historical novel War and
Remembrance: "War is an old
habit of thought, an old frame of
mind, an old political technique,
that must now pass as human
sacrifice and human slavery have
passed...The beginning of the end
of War lies in its Remembrance."
Mellifluous as his message is,
Wouk ultimately issues what can
only be labelled a Call to Arms, a
step Wouk contends is necessary to
preserve our liberty. His thesis
turns on a simple premise: that a
firm show of resolve from
American youth — and the
American public in general — will
quiet the militaristic impulse which
festers in the "conquistadors of
Moscow."
The premise is erroneous.
Moreover, basing American policy
upon the assumption that Wouk
has uncovered the crucial factor in
Soviet expansionism will
exacerbate the very hostilities
Wouk hopes will eventually
subside and vanish.
First he decries the apathy of
American youth; then he links
Soviet aggression to a perception
of this lethargy; finally, in the same
essay, Wouk lauds the Polish
workers' uprising as a victory for
liberty. So why didn't the Soviet
Union crush the rebellion? That is
a highly complex question, but
by Wouk's reasoning, Russia
should have done something.
Whereas Moscow cannot act in the
Mid East because the Kremlin
hopes to remain friendly with both
belligerents, no such dilemma
enervated the Soviet Union during
the Polish crisis. Nevertheless,
powerful Russia did nothing.
Neither does Wouk's analysis
explain the Russian antics of the
Cold War era. When a reform
movement threatened to tear
Hungary from the Soviet sphere of
influence in 1956, Moscow crushed
the revisionists. Not only was
American military strength
overwhelmingly superior to
Russia's at the time, but a bitter
Vietnam experience had not yet
infuriated the American public.
Six year later, Kennedy and
Khrushchev went to the brink of a
nuclear war over the issue of Soviet
missiles in Cuba. Russia finally
backed down, but only after
initiating a bold plan of action
without regard for the American
willingness to fight. Even if
Khrushchev mistakenly believed
Kennedy to be weak, Soviet hawks
were clamoring so loudly for some
sort of victory that he probably
would have acted anyway.
What we need to determine,
therefore, is the basis "for the
vociferousness of the Kremlin's
hawks. Why were they so anxious
for a "victory" over the United
States? The answer to that, I would
argue, can be found in Russia's
perception of American
intentions. Ever since American
troops stationed in Russia during
World War I fired on a group of
Bolshevik revolutionaries,
Russian Communists have
regarded the United States with an
irrational but paranoid suspicion.
On close examination, it is clear
that the Soviet Union, like all other
countries, worries primarily about
its own security, and that
sometimes leads to an obsessive
wariness, including a profound
distrust of America.
By reviving national service and
beefing up our armed forces, the
United States fuels Russia's
inordinate fear of subversion.
Hence, instead of trying to
convince the Kremlin that the
mighty U.S. is ready and willing to
fight, perhaps we should take steps
to demonstrate the sincerity of our
desire for peace. As genuine as I
think Wouk's words are, the action
he advocates betrays them. We can
prove to the Soviet youth, in whom
the basis of Wouk's optimism lies,
that Americans truly want
peaceful coexistence, but our
words will^ be infinitely more
persuasive if in place of just talking
about disarmament and ending
war we do something.
TtRESHER
RICHARD DEES
Editor
DAVID ROSS
Business Manager
Anita Gonzalez News Editor
John VanderPut Managing Editor
Carole Valentine Advertising Manager
Steve Bailey Sports Editor
John Heaner Fine Arts Editor
Laura Rohwer Photography Editor
Kelvin Thompson Back Page Editor
David Bytler Senior Editor
Assistant Editors Bruce Davies, Ruth Hillhouse. David Keen
Contributing Editors David Dow, Karen Strecker
News Staff Bruce Davies, Allison Foil
Pam Pearson, Jeanne Cooper, Joan Hope, Matt Dore, Ellen Spraul,
Michael Tinkler, Michael Trachtenberg, Jay Grob, Sumit Nanda,
David Keen, CeCe Clossman, Jonathan Buck
Fine Arts Staff Chris Castaneda, Geoff Spradley,
Scott B. Soiis, Thom Glidden, Andy Hathcock, Deborah Knaff, Edward Joseph James Burke
Tom Birch, Barry Watkins, Steve Bailey, Jay Grob, Kay Abrahams, Norman Mailer,
Charles Rudolph, Gary Cole
Photography Staff Walter Underwood, Sharon Kile, Naomi Bullock,
Paul Williamson, Kevin Golden, Frank Worley, Mike Gladu
Bruce Davies, Carol Johnson, Rosanna Dill and Grungy™
Sports Staff Donald Buck holt, Jay Grob
Michele Gillespie, Duane Berry, Greg Holloway,Ken Klein,Dave Chilton, Sandy Snyder,
Kay Abrahams, Margaret Bennett
Harold Nelson, Randy Furlong
Production Staff.! Kathryn Mason, Mike Di$hart,
Hank Petri, Jeanne Cooper. Elif Selvili, Julie Robbins,
Pam Pearson, Ellen Spraul, Ann Betley, Vikki Kapplan
Lisa Yee, Ron Stutes, Steve McCall, David Miller,
Jeff Zweig
The Rice Thresher, the official student newspaper of Rice University since 1916, is published on
Thursdays 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 Rice Memorial
Center, P.O Box 1892, Houston, Texas 77001. Telephone (713) 527-4801 or 527-4802 Advertising
information available upon request. Mail subscriptions: S15.00 per year The opinions expressed herein
are not necessarily those of anyone except the writer. Obviously
©1980 The Rice Thresher. All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, October 23,1980, 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.
Dees, Richard. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 12, Ed. 1 Thursday, October 23, 1980, newspaper, October 23, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245452/m1/2/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.