The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 57, No. 24, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 16, 1970 Page: 2 of 6
six 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:
editorial
4Unity' prompted Senate decision
rftt often Cettei to:
"TftaCeotm £ovett
Dear Mr. Lovett:
The necessity for change is self-evident. Within a few
decades Man will have the choice of whether to suffocate or to
die of starvation or to end it all in one simple bomb. Unless we
change. Now.
Mr. Lovett, the system that is now in control of the power
is not changing- these problems at a rate which will enable Man
to live on this earth in the near future.
Mr. Lovett, the system that we now live in has developed
problems. In just a few years, thse problems will not be those
of India, or those of Los Angeles, or those of Hiroshima . . .
They will belong to all of us.
Mr. Lovett. the world must be prepared to make, and if
no; to make, to accept the changes that will be made for the
betterment of mankind.
Man has learned to change everything around himself, except
himself. In the framework of nature, when something fails to
change with the environment, or to change that environment it
ceases to exist. Without changes, fundamental changes, in the
basic institutions of Man, he and his culture will cease to exist.
Power and authority must assume the responsibility of institut-
ing necessary change. No longer can those who hold this power and
authority continue to isolate themselves from the people whom
their decisions affect. No longer can these people make de-
risions from their narrow point of view, without considering
their decisions from a broader spectrum. No longer can those
who hold power and authority be allowed to abuse their power
:.iui authority.
Mr. Lovett, when one man can overrule the wishes of students,
IV.i-uity. and administration, without communicating with them,
without being appraised of the situation, he is guilty of abuse of
power.
• hange. Mr. Lovett, whether on a national or on a university
level, must come when the existing power structure consistently
structural weaknesses; problems which are caused by the failure
of one party to recognize the rights of the other party. .
Change can come violently. Or change can come when
rational people sit down and discuss the problem and work out
compromise. One is never too young to change. Or to discuss
< hange.
JOHN MAULDIN
The followiiijr editorial first appeared in the mimeographed Thresher
i;•!(i;st<- No. 2. printed as a special service to keep students and faculty informed
dnrirK the crisis of last week.)
The fiat promulgated to Rice University last Thursday by
H. Malcolm Lovett is a shocking usurpation of the rights of we
who are the university. While we trust that Mr. Lovett exercises
his power with honest conviction of his responsibility as he sees it,
we profoundly doubt both the quality of his judgment and the
clarity of his vision into the total situation as it exists here.
The denial of free speech is always lamentable, regardless
of who denies it, for whatever reason. When any community
relinquishes a fundamental principle such as freedom of speech
before the threat of violence, the result is not to avoid, but to
i nstitutionalize anarchy.
But even more disturbing is the unprecedented intercession
by the Trustees (or Lovett speaking as the Trustees ) in the
internal traditionally administrative affairs of the university. This
ultimatum which effectively comes directly from the Trustees to
the Student Association creates a precedent which mocks due
process and surely imperils the "order" it is intended to preserve.
Yet perhaps the most deplorable aspect of the statement is
the attitude toward the university implied among other ways by
ominously repeated possessives ("our campus" four times, etc.).
Implicit in these words is the arrogant assertion that Rice is really
after all a corporation, and we not customers but submissive
employees.
MIKE SMITH
|| .TACK MURRAY
_,lQ§jr JOHN MAULDIN Editor-in-Chief
4 It WgActintr Editor MIKE WALKER
1V 11 ffc?89■ ■ ^9■ Business Manager
Charles Szalkowski .... Exec. Assoc. Ed. Mike Smith Assoc. Ed.
Laura Kaplan Managing Ed. Howard Simms Assoc. Ed.
Mike Ross Calendar Editor Talley Guill Ad. Manager
Ford Hall Sports Editor Doug Williams .... Circulation Manager
Rick Grider . Asst. Business Mgr.
Lee Hoistman, Chip Matthews, .leff Myers, David Williams, Karolyn ICendrick,
I'.iuct- Topletz. John Hays, Hill Lukes, Bruce Hamm, Bob Parks, John Benzon,
1'i-lcr Robie, Katie De Somma, Austin Bay, Kathy Gi-een.
The Rice Thresher, official student newspaper at Rice University, i3 published
weekly on Thursday except during holidays and examination periods by students
c{ Rice University, Houston, Texas 7701. 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 thai United Student Press Association and
gubBcribes to College Press Service.
the rice thresher, april 16, 1970—page 2
To the Editor:
Because there is widespread
misunderstanding as to what
occured in the Student Senate
meeting of April 10, I thought
I would try to discuss it and
to explain the reasoning that
led to the decision to withdraw
the invitation to Abbie Hoff-
ma nand Leonard Weinglass.
Our basic consideration was
the fact that Abbie Hoffman
would not come to Rice on
April 12. This was his decision.
We were in contact with his
booking agency and had learned
that he would do nothing that
would lead to a revocation of
his bail. We also knew that
the campus would be closed
Sunday and any attempt on
his part to cross the campus
boundaries would lead to some
sort of legal action against
him which would jeapordize
his freedom. It is quite evident
that Hoffman recognized this
as he waited to visit the cam-
pus until restrictions were re-
moved.
The question remains then
why did we withdraw our invi-
tation? Why did we not persist
in our course of inviting him
and force a confrontation with
the Board of Trustees ? But
the main consideration facing
us here was which was the
best step for us to take and
attain more power for the aca-
demic community. It is quite
evident we had no power to
compete with the Board in such
affairs. But could we get power
through a confrontation Sun-
day, especially if it had turned
to a violent one? We felt the
answer to that question was
no, especially since the possi-
bility existed that we would
lose the support of a large num-
ber of students and faculty.
We could, however, take
great steps in attaining a voice
in University affairs through
the united efforts of all seg-
ments of the academic com-
munity. We could not afford to
sacrifice that unity. These
events can now serve as a
rallying .point, a symbol of the
many things that are wrong
with this University. By ac-
ceding to the Board's power
now we can use this to show
where the power should be.
Suppose for a moment that
the invitation had been extended
and Hoffman had appeared
without an incident. Would
this have rectified the prob-
lem—the possibility of misuse
of power by the Board? We
won the Masterson affair but
lost unity after the incident
because of it. Hopefully,, we
now can keep our unity and
proceed to that point where we
have real power.
I might add that this is my
basic reasoning behind my de-
cision to withdraw the invita-
tion to Hoffman. I don't try
to speak for individual mem-
bers of the Senate, besides my-
self on this issue. But I do
hope that something does come
out of this crisis and I believe
it will.
TOM GREENE
SA Internal
Affairs V-P
Williams clarifies Sunday action
The people in the Abbie Hoff-
man Free Speech Center did
not leave the building because
of threats of expulsion which
were expressed by Rice's Dean
of Students, Dr. Wierum. Some-
time before 7 pm Sunday a
glass door on the second floor
was broken. Shortly after that
Mr H. Malcolm Lovett visited
the building and surveyed the
wreckage. The people who were
occupying the building decided
that it was very probable that
the previous condition of mutual
acceptance of the presence of
both campus security and occu-
pying (?) students would prob-
ably be ended before Monday,
either by Mr Lovett or his
henchmen, the administration
(through Dean Wierum).
A decision was agreed upon.
This decision was that the
occupying (?) students would
ask the campus security people
to leave, thereby completing
their occupation, and facing the
assumed threat of university
disciplinary action.
Later, at about 10 pm, Dean
Wierum announced that if the
students did not leave the build-
ing in 30 minutes, they would
face suspension, ust after that
a crowd of about 500 persons,
a few of whom carried clubs,
appeared outside. I was watch-
in gfrom the inside, and I can
only relate second-hand infor-
mation about the outside.
The people outside wanted to
come into the building. They
were prevented from doing this
by physical force exerted by
campus security, Tom McGari-
ty's student security, Dean
Wierum and a number of fac-
ulty members. At this point the
people became confused as to
what the issues were, and what
action they should take.
These are some of the ques-
tions which came up:
The people outside were
political radicals. Did we agree
with them?
Did we agree with violence?
Were our actions related only
to Rice and on-campus issues,
or did our occupation involve
larger issues in the Houston
community and entire world, as
represented by the people out-
side?
Did we want to escalate the
"occupation" to include destruc-
tion of property or obstruction
of normal activities in the
building ?
Could we send a statement
to the crowd outside, and what
would its contents be?
The people inside the build-
ing felt that they should be
acting with the people outside,
not against them or divided
from them. To bring the crowd
in would involve physical vio-
lence with security people, and
probably destruction of prop-
erty. Therefore they decided to
join the people outside, and to
hold a rally at Willy's statue.
DAVID B. WILLIAMS
Kolenda claims students also guilty
Two segments of the Rice
community have been chastized
for the handling of the Hoff-
man-Weinglass case: the facul-
ty, especially some of its repre-
sentatives, for delay, hesitation,
inconsistency, and the trustees,
for ultimately taking'the mat-
ter in their own hands.
Only the students appear to
have escaped unscathed. Un-
fairly so, I believe. As far as
I can understand the facts of
the case, the whole mess is to
be laid at least partly at the
feet of the students, especially
those who initially sponsored
the event. The event, as origin-
ally planned, was far from be-
ing a straightforward academic
session—with an address, dis-
cussion, debate, etc.
Originally it was to be closer
to a political rally or a "hap-
pening"—open to anyone in
town, with admission charged,
collections taken, and a rock
concert to follow. The present
political situation being what
it is, it could be expected that
every radical from within a
100-mile radius of Houston
would be on hand to take part.
While it need not be denied
that expression of opinions
would be a port of this "hap-
pening," there was a good
possibility that it would be sub-
merged by activities of other
sorts, which, given the large
mass of outsiders, the sponsors
could not possibly control. It
is fears of this sort that led
Dean Wierum, members of the
Welfare Committee and other
faculty people involved, to look
more carefully into the pro-
posed conditions of the event ^
and to demand certain basic
changes in the program. And it
took several agonizing days to
get the students to change the
program radically enough to
make it fall into an acceptable
category.
In other words, it took a lot
of whittling down to make it
a free speech issue; it was
far from it at the beginning.
Meanwhile, the publicity be-
gan to take its toll, arousing
all sorts of concerns in various
quarters (undoubtedly among
the trustees as well), justified
and unjustified, and stimulating
threats of violence. In the light
of this increasingly tense atmo-
sphere it was difficult for the
faculty officials to separate
defensible from indefensible
proposals. Nevertheless, once it
was done, once it was possible
to defend the student's pro-
posal, they did it, with cour-
age, and in some instances, at
personal sacrifice.
It is grossly unfair of stu-
dents to jeer at the faculty's
mistakes. If there was a
fumble, it is because the ball
handed by the students to the
faculty was at least slippery,
if not downright greasy. In-
stead of maligning those who
had the misfortune of having
to run with it, the students
should at least have the good
grace of taking a part of the
blame for fumbles.
And this points to a practi-
cal lesson. In proposing future
public events those charged
with this task ought to exer-
cise sufficient discretion and
tact to discuss with those whose
decision will be necessary all
the relevant details of the pro-
posed events before bursting
out gloriusly with public an-
nouncements. Had the condi-
tions of the Hoffman-Weinglass
affair been explored in a pre-
liminary way with the Dean of
Students or other committees,
all this terrible mess affecting
adversely all segments of the
University, including students,
would not have happened.
K. KOLENDA
Philo. Dept.
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.
Murray, Jack. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 57, No. 24, Ed. 1 Thursday, April 16, 1970, newspaper, April 16, 1970; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245081/m1/2/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.