The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 59, No. 9, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 4, 1971 Page: 1 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:
Religious Studies Department
disputes "inadequate" rating
by BRIAN BUCHANAN
Rice University's graduate
religion program was listed as
"inadequate" in a recently re-
leased study prepared by the
Rev. Dr. Claude Welch, dean of
Berkeley's Graduate Theologi-
cal Union. In the report, re-
leased through the American
Council of Learned Societies,
Rice was listed among the one-
third of American graduate re-
ligion departments which should
be closed.
Dr. Niels Christian Nielsen,
Jr., Chairman of the Depart-
ment of Religious Studies, takes
exception to the conclusions pre-
sented by Welch in the study.
He feels that the quality of
graduate religious work at Rice
is excellent, on a par with na-
tionally known schools. In re-
sponse to the criticism of Rice's
"tiny" religion department fac-
ulty, Nielson said "we were only
attacked for quantity, not qual-
ity." While admitting a smaller
faculty than he would like to
have, Nielson believes that the
three part time and four full
time personnel in the depart-
ment are sufficient for the
eleven graduate students cur-
rently in the program.
According to the Time article
on the report, religion is the
"fastest growing graduate field
of study at secular universities,"
with 335 doctorates being
awarded last year.
The rising national interest in
religion would seem to be re-
flected at Rice, where 286 un-
dergraduates, nearly 10% of
the student body, are taking-
courses in religion.
Nielson also stressed that the
report was solely "the work of
one man," and that while it had
been released through the
ACLS, it has received no offi-
cial accreditation by the or-
ganization.
One point in support of Niel-
son's assertions is the addition
of Dr. James Sellers to the Rice
faculty last year. Sellers, a na-
tionally known figure in the eth-
ics of religion, left his former
position as Dean of Vanderbilt
University to join the Rice
faculty.
Other than the small size of
the faculty, Welch's only criti-
the
thresher
volume 59, number 9
cism of Rice was its inadequate
library. Rice currently has
holdings in religion of about
24,000 volumes. Ron Durham,
a graduate student on leave
from his post as religion writer
of the Houston I'ost, agrees
that the library is understocked,
but feels that it will be in good
condition within five years.
thursday, november 4, 1971
Nielson also brought out the
point that very few graduate
programs that have been in op-
eration for four years have built
up an extensive library, and
noted that with recent cutbacks
in funds, acquisition of new ma-
terials is especially difficult.
Durham stated that he did
not fee! that the bad publicity
given to the Rice program in
Time would be detrimental to
the graduate students who
hoped to obtain a degree in re-
ligious studies here. With the
expansion of the faculty next
year, hopefully to six instruc-
tors, the quality of the program
should be even better than it
is now.
Cites "deception1
Hanszen Cabinet withdraws support for RUF campaign
■i r
Mr. Gaylord Johnson, Jr.
C-10 Bank of the Southwest Building
Houston, Texas 77002
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This is to inform you that the Hanszen
College Cabinet, as of Monday, Novem-
ber 1, 1971, has resolved by a vote of
16-0 not only to refuse support, but to
actively oppose the Rice University Fund
Student Telefund. The reasons are out-
lined briefly in the following paragraphs.
Our primary opposition arises in res-
ponse to the administration's priorities
as evidenced in the distribution of funds
in the budget for the current fiscal year.
Top priority should be given to student
financial aid, the Fondren Library, the
Rice Computer Center, antd individual
academic departments, for these are the
areas in which learning is most directly
encouraged. To support the RUF under
present circumstances would imply our
support for the current administration
policies.
The situation would be more tolerable
if students were given an opportunity
to advise on and to influence operation
of the RUF and formulation of the Uni-
versity budget. We have not been given
such an opportunity, and we have re-
ceived lat best vague promises of future
representation, if we cooperate now. We
disagree fundamentally with such a posi-
tion since we consider it inherently re-
asonable for students to be represented
directly during the development of Uni-
versity financial policy rather than
ex post facto.
Incidentally, we commend those alumni
and administration officials who are ad-
vocating student representation, in the
financial decisions of the University, and
we hope that their efforts succeed. We
are not very confident of their effective-
ness, however, since we have reason to
question the credibility of the state-
ments of the University and the RUF
administration.
For instance, a recent letter soliciting
money from alumni includes the follow-
ing statement: "If we maintain our
cherished policy of opening Rice's door
to any qualified student regardless of his
ability to pay tuition, we must help pro-
vide the unrestricted money to pay the
tuition for him." (October 22, 171)
Since we know of at least two Hanszen
members who are unable to attend Rice
University this semester solely because
of financial difficulties, we must ques-
tion the awareness of the person who
made this remark.
Another letter to the alumni states:
"Partly because the University refuses
to let costs determine in any way which
students will be able to attend, Rice en-
tered the current fiscal year with a
budget deficit of $1,832,000" (October
29, 1971). While we do not dispute the
fact that the University's financial com-
mitments to individual students con-
tributes to the budget deficit, we must
object to this statement on two counts.
The assertion that we refuse to let costs
determine a student's attendance is deli-
berately misleading and, in fact, in con-
tradiction of our publicly-stated policy.
Second, the statement in "context implies
that students assistance costs were the
primary cause of the University's fin-
ancial plight. We suggest that our de-
A Reply
The Hanszen and Baker Cabinets seem to have completely missed the
point oi student participation in the RUF fund drive this year. Though they
raise valid questions to which the fund drive people must address themselves,
these students feel that by not participating they will solve the problem. The
very opposite may be the case. By helping with the drive, we will unquestion-
ably gain a broader and more attentive audience for our views.
A word about their criticisms would be in order. To what degree must
one be in opposition to Rice's policies to justify withholding support from a
drive to add to the general fund of the university? Surely every one of tin-
thousands of alumni who are giving money to Rice has objections to some
aspect of our financial priorities. They support the drive feeling that, in gen-
eral, Rice is doing a good job.
The alumni are our main source of outside financial support, yet they
do not have official voice in how money is spent here. Their influence is the
same as is available to any group, inside or out, and it is directly related to
the.financial resources they make available to Rice. If the Telefund is suc-
cessful this year, we will have contributed, and for the first time in the his-
tory of this school, the administration will be considering our views for sub-
stantial reasons other than their own good will. They will be reminded of our
positive leverage as they ask for our support each year.
The operation of the fund drive itself has also been criticized. Rice is just
beginning an annual type of campaign and there is little experience to go on in
developing a program of yearly giving here. Many mistakes have been made
and we can expect more. The statements cited in the Hanszen letter are indeed
misleading, and more careful proofreading will hopefully prevent this kind of
error. If a student had been working on the project, they probably would have
been corrected before mailing.
The pledge cards mentioned are not deceptive. They do not purport to ask
for restricted funds, but provide an opportunity for the giver to show an area
that he is interested in supporting. According to Dr. Hackerman, if someone
wants to give money to add to the tuition grant funds that have been ap-
propriated, his request will be honored. Rice has a deficit. The purpose of the
annual fund drive is to raise the unrestricted money that we need to balance
the budget next year.
As for student voice in the RUF, Charles Moser, director of development,
has formulated a plan for placing students as voting members on the RUF
Council. He was enthusiastic about the idea, at its first suggestion. His de-
partment is not insensitive or eager to exploit student energies. They, with
the alumni leaders, are working overtime every week to help solve Rice's
financial problems. They have asked for student advice as well as help and
haVe already modified projects in response to student suggestions.
Roger Smith's closing points are well made, but I suggest that our
criticisms of this school are not so far reaching that we should deny our help.
Moreover, by opposing the fund drive, we will only show our concerned dis-
approval. If we wish to make changes and give new direction to Rice Uni-
versity, we must adopt a stance of support. Participation in the fund drive
this year will lend more weight to our ideas than they have right now.
Leighton Read
SA External Affairs V P
ficit could have been as appropriate iv
attributed to general economic condi-
tions, reductions in federal assistance, or
to a large athletic department deficit.
Our opposition to the RUF stems not
only from printed deceptions such as
these. The leaders of RUF toil alumni
and students that funds raised in r,ht
drive may be restricted to a particular
use, e.g. financial aid. They do not sa\
that funds so restricted are only re-
placement funds; previously budgeted
monies may be withdrawn from a parti-
cular area as funds designated to it ai<
received. Thus, restricted funds may not
necessarily increase the budget for a spe-
cific category. The RUF pledge card
avoids this fact by allowing contributors
to state: "1 prefer that my gift be used
in science-engineering" or "Rice may
use my gift for scholarships." We can-
not support a fund drive which utilize.-
techniques of this nature.
In (dosing, we must make three other
important points. We are not, by this
action, attacking persons, but rather
programs and policies. Nor is our opposi-
tion based on a selfish desire for student
power; we are concerned only with the
direction of Rice Unviersity, and thus
feel that the inclusion of student- in
University policy making would mean
a more complete and healthier decision
-making process with a consequent re
ordering of university priorities.
We fully recognize that a private, uni-
versity must raise funds through solicit-
ing its alumni, and that the Rice Uni-
versity Fund drive serves a commendable
purpose. We feel, however, that one must
use candor, discretion, and integrity in
this endeavor, and such has not been
exhibited.
Roger Smith
President Hanszen College
Rob Quartel
Barry White
on behalf of the
Hanszen College Cabinet
To the editor:
The Baker College cabinet fully en-
dorses the letter of Hanszen College re-
garding tlhe Rice University Fund Tele-
thon. Furthermore, the Baker cabinet
feels that priority should also be given
to minority admissions.
Rick Jones, President
Bob Ogorzaly, Cultural VP
Jim Sylvester, Secretary
on behalf of the
Baker College Cabinet
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.
Freed, DeBow. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 59, No. 9, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 4, 1971, newspaper, November 4, 1971; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245116/m1/1/: accessed April 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.