The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 56, No. 27, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 10, 1969 Page: 2 of 8
eight pages : ill. ; page 21 x 14 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:
• 0
threshing-it-out .w
Profs want curriculum
To the Editor:
In the interest of developing
a sense of community, a group
of faculty members has been
meeting regularly since the end
of February to discuss prob-
lems of mutual concern. Early
in our conversations we deter-
mined that reform of the cur-
riculum was perhaps the most
urgent subject confronting our
University.
No doubt the creation last se-
mester of the Committee on the
Undergraduate Experience was
a hopeful step toward change,
but since the convocation of
December, public discussion of
new directions has practically
ceased. We therefore offer a
few proposals which we hope
not only have intrinsic merit
but may initiate that dialogue
on the curriculum so badly
needed at Rice.
The root failure of the pres-
ent curriculum is that it has
been shaped by a misguided pa-
ternalism. Committed to its own
conception of the model student,
the University has sought to
produce well-rounded specialists
—students acquainted with a
variety of disciplines and spe-
reforms, elimination of majors
editorial
7he fieetttcut
Acting president Vandiver's overthrow of the decision of the
Committee on Examinations and Standing to readmit Charlie
Freeman poses before the Rice community some basic and critical
questions that will have to be answered soon, one way or another.
What is the real, working relationship to be between students
and faculty and their committees on the one hand, and the ad-
ministration and the Board of Trustees on the other? It is ap-
parent from Vandiver's recent action that he does not value the
idea of committee responsibility and independence—or the idea
of due process—very highly. The Examinations and Standing com-
mittee, we must assume, will be allowed to decide its business
relatively unfettered by outside influences—unless a case is too
important, or has too many political ovei-tones, or would make the
Board of Trustees too uneasy to be handled by mere faculty mem-
bers. By his action, Vandiver has set a style of administration
which, to paraphrase an administration official, "does not augur
well for the University." Three weeks ago we said, "If the Ex-
aminations and Standing Committee is to be anything more than
a ratifying body for the irregular, autocratic decisions arrived at
elsewhere, it should be left free to decide the case without the
machinations and pressures to which it is now subject. Such a
decision resulted in Freeman's admission once; it should again."
Because the committee was never "left free," it was a de-
monstration of courage and adherence to principle for it once
again to okay Freeman. We have seen how much their decision
was respected.
How deep is the University's commitment to increased minority
admissions? It is evident that many faculty and most students
are fir?nly committed to accepting Rice's^ responsibility to the
disadvantaged; it is more and more evident that much of the ad-
ministration is not, despite the flood of platitudes to the contrary.
While one segment of the University community is working very
hard to demonsti'ate Rice's interest in minority applicants, and
to insure them equal chances for success here., a black applicant
is refused by administrative fiat. Vandiver is fooling himself if he
feels his action will not adversely affect the work the Grob com-
mittee and others have done. The situation is tragically over-
simple if viewed from outside the hedge: Rice says it wants more
black students. Charlie Freeman is black. Rice doesn't want Charlie
Freeman. Rice must be lying.
There are good reasons for reservations about readmitting
Freeman, as the abstensions in the committee vote Tuesday
testify. There are even more compelling reasons, however, to -de-
plore. the tactics and reasoning used by Vandiver in choosing
to deny Freeman admission. drb
DENNIS BAHLER
" Editor
fhrftfthtir ^ sylvia batcha
■ ' Business Manager
Jack Murray Associate Editor Richard Sawyer Graphics Editor
Ted Scruggs Advertising Manager David Nornian Sports Editor
Mike Walker....Ass't Business" Managd.* Ralph B'urdick Fine Arts Editor
Staff: Karolyn Kendrick, Laura Kaplan, Kathleen Williamson, Lee Horstman,
Elaine Jensen, Chip Wolfe, Robert Long, Paul Monroe, Gay Prewitt, Scott
Thomas, Mary Ann Manning, Michael Les Benedict, Jeff Bishop, Barry Bell,
Jeff Myers, Phil Snyder.
Fine Arts: Gordon Braden, Russ Lyman, Georgia Lyman, Chuck Lavazzi,
Karen Benedict.
Graphics: Tim Leong, Ken Strauss, Bob Stellingwerf, Marvin Rasmussen,
Mark Battista, Jackie Wright, Paul Hester.
Business Staff: Jim Rollins, Laurie Kurtz.
The Rice Thresher, official student newspaper at Rice University, is published
weekly on Thursday except during holidays and examination periods by students
of Rice University, Houston, Texas 77001. 'Phone JA 8-4141, Ext. 221, 645.
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.
The Thresher is a member of the United States Student Press Association and
subscribes to College' Press Service and the Chicago Literary Review.
0
the rice thresher, april 10,1969—page 2
daily competent in one.
To mold students according
to this ideal, the University has
established a system of division-
al and departmental require-
ments, but in so doing has de-
feated its own educational pur-
pose. The system of require-
ments ignores individual needs
and tastes, fills classrooms with
reluctant warm bodies, and
makes the university into an
obstacle course.
The near unanimous condem-
nation of the freshman year at
Rice is the best evidence that
forcing students to take courses
for their own good is pedagog-
ically abusrd. We feel that the
time has come to make a radical
departure from the existing
system, a departure based on a
different conception of our stu-
dents.
From the moment a student
begins his college career he
should be regarded as an adult.
He should, in short, be endowed
with the freedom to determine
the course of his own education,
and the exercise of this free-
dom should be an integral part
of his total educational experi-
ence. We are under no illusions
about freedom, about the risks
that it entails and the abuses
it invites. We simply affirm
that anything- less than free-
dom insults our students and
retards their maturation, and
that the failures of the present
restrictive curriculum justify a
new departure.
Supported by this rationale,
we offer a series of concrete
proposals.
% We suggest first of all an
end of divisional requirements.
No longer, for instance, would
a chemical engineer hostile to
history be forced into a fresh-
man history couT'se, and in f^ct
could, if he wished, graduate
untouched by the humanities.
We believe it unlikely that in a
stimulating university atmos-
phere very many students would
specialize to that degree, and
we anticipate that on their way
through the Universify, students
will become motivated by their
own curiosity to explore the
new and the different. Those
who do not so choose will be
solely responsible for the harm-
ful consequences, if any, to
their education.
0 Second, Ave propose the
discontinuance of majors. By
requiring majors, the University
forces undergraduates to spe-
lialize whether they wish to or
not. Furthermore, specialization
within the framework of exist-
ing departments seems unfor-
tunately arbitrary at a time
when the university should be
encouraging interdisciplinary in-
quiry.
Under the present system,
. period specialties, for example,
or literary studies in two or
more languages, must now be
skewed to fulfill requirements
for a major in one of the de-
partments concerned. But such
specialties are at least as legi-
timate as "English" or "French"
or "History," which comprise
several vbarely comparable dis-
ciplines grouped together for
reasons now having little force.
Collapsing boundaries between
old departments make interdis-
ciplinary programs no less feas-
ible in the sciences.
Without m ajor s, students
could elect all of their courses.
The pedagogical principle that
interest is the real basis of
learning is straightforward, and
no amount of tinkering with the
number of electives or collateral
p'rograms can propertly ac-
commodate the existing system
to this principle. The simple
solution to the* problem of ma-
jors is to abolish them entirely.
Departments should, of
course, recommend suitable pro-
grams for students who wish
to prepare for specific careers
or who will need accreditation
by professional societies. De-
partments also should set pre-
requisites for advanced courses
which require specific pi*epara-
tion. The final decision on a
student's program, however,
would be his own.
% Third, we propose that the
University provide students with
more and better, opportunities
for independent study in their
junior and senior years. Inde-
pendent study would .permit
students to undertake research
in depth outside* the present
confining three unit course sys-
tem. It would also permit stu-
dents to assume more respon-
sibility for their own education.
Currently we are investigating
independent study programs at
other universities and hope
soon to be able to make spe-
cific recommendations suitable
for Rice.
9 Fourth, we propose that
in the freshman and sophomore
years, students receive only
pass-fail grades. Freed early
from the tyranny of grades,
students could r„e-orient their
values, develop better forms of
motivation, and learn to meas-
ure their educational progress
by intellectual criteria. Pass-
fail would also lessen the pres-
sures that discourage students
from experimenting in their
selection of courses. When stu-
dents want to know their re-
lative standing, they may con-
sult their instructors, and pre-
sumably receive evaluations
more informative than mere
numbers.
The University's proper con-
cern, as reflected in current re-
quirements for graduation, is
that the student complete his
courses satisfactorily; pass-fail
answers to that concern. Be-
cause businesses and graduate
schools depend on grades in
their recruitment procedures,
we favor retention of grades
for juniors and seniors. We are,
however, considering ways to
make the existing grade sys-
tem more rational.
^ Finally, we believe that
the success of our proposals
would in large measure be de-
pendent on an overhaul of our
system for advising students.
Students must be fully informed
of the alternatives open to them
in the University and made
aware of the possible implica-
tions of their choices. A good
advisory mechanism could go
far toward mitigating the dan-
gers inherent in a regime of
freedom and would especially
protect freshman from aban-
donment to confusion. But in
the end it will be the individual
student, not his advisor, who
will make the crucial decision.
Our proposals obviously do
not constitute a complete re-
form. We offer them because
they convey our conviction that
when reform does come, it
should be in the direction of
freedom.
We hope that our ideas may
at least inspire debate and dis-
cussion, and of course in the
end, we hope -they prevail. In
the meantime we call on the
Committee on the Undergradu-
ate Experience to find ways and
means to involve the entire \ini-
versity in its important task.
ROBERT COX
CHANDLER DAVIDSON
EDWARD DOUGHTIE
NEIL HAVENS
JOHN INGHAM
STEPHEN
KARAK^HIAN
T. D. KELLY
ALLEN MATUSOW
DOUGLAS MILBURN
DAVID* MINTER
HEINZ PUPPE
GALE STOKES
Cheerleaders and the Communist conspiracy
To the Editor:
It has been brought to my at-
tention that a serious fault ex-
ists in the very structure of
course, to prevent student un-
rest. If students are kept hos-
■ tile -toward students from other
schools,, they are less likely to
Rice, which might jeopardize ..join together on issues which
the future of our (and I use the
word advisedly) University.
The dangerous truth is that the
cheerleaders are elected by the
student body.
Cheerleaders, as you probab-
ly know, appear at football
games-: their main job, in fact,
is public relations with the local
community upon which the
school depends solely for funds. w
What if the student body chose
someone \yith a beard, or a
liberal, or a student from out
of state? What businessman is
going to give to a school With
people like that to represent it ?
Their second function is, of
threaten the community, like in-
tegration, an end to the war,
or freedom of speech. Football
is the opium of the masses . , .
or something like that.
Finally, each cheerleader cho-
sen in the new, safer and more
efficient way should be paid a
salary according to-his perform-
ance. It is a well-known fact
that a fixed salary destroys ini-
tiative; and with no salary at
all they would inevitably stop
cheerleading altogether and
spend every game sitting in the
stands and demand that we tui-
tion-paying citizens* bring them
a minimum weekly quota of
popcorn and hotdogs.
With all that idle time, they
would undoubtedly marry (or.
whatever those people* do) and
have lots of kids that we would
have to provide with popcorn
and hotdogs. Well, you can see
what a dangerous and poten-
tially Communist situation we
are in.
The man who explained ali
this to me is in his forties and
and walks very straight in a
dark suit and tie with CM on
it and wears his hair real short
and makes, his living making
machines that build freeways.
I am sure he knew what he was
talking about because he had
lots of money.
KAY POPE
>s> Graduate Student
"f ■* —
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.
Bahler, Dennis. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 56, No. 27, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 10, 1969, newspaper, April 10, 1969; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245056/m1/2/: accessed May 5, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.