The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 73, No. 14, Ed. 1 Friday, November 8, 1985 Page: 2 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 20 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:
REPAIRING THE HEDGES/BY AL DERBES
On the coherent minor
President Rupp has put forward a proposal for a mandatory
minor in a field of study opposite to one's major for all students.
For instance, humanities majors would have science minors
while S/E's would have academ minors (generally the social
sciences would be considered with the humanities). Examples of
the type of combination desired would be an anthropology
major with a natural science minor or a mechanical engineering
major with a minor concentrating on, say, the history of
technology.
Reasons for his proposal include the university's need to
create more well-rounded students and to integrate its science
and engineering programs with its humanities and social science
departments. This proposal will require changes in the present
distribution requirements and a strengthened advising system in
order to work.
Originally. Rice emphasized the S/E majors to the exclusion
of others. An attitude existed — and to some extent still remains
----- that the other departments exist for S/ E's to take distribution
or to fall back upon if they need to drop their S/E major. This
attitude has lessened as Rice has become more of a university.
Unfortunately, as the academic departments became larger
and more numerous, the liberal ideas of learning which grew in
the sixties took root at Rice. Students demanded more freedom
in their course scheduling. As a result of added choices in
scheduling, however, students also decided whether they had
enough background to take particular courses.
The fields of science more obviously require prerequisites than
do other studies. Scientific knowledge generally accrues through
deductive analysis, in which a hypothesis is checked against
previously gained knowledge. The social sciences however,
presently require an inductive approach that is likely to result in
less bias by exposing the human mind to as much knowledge as
possible.
However, the present liberal system leaves the arrangement of
this exposure to the student himself, resulting in teaching that
aims for the least common denominator of student knowledge.
Because departments in the liberal arts are largely considered
as sources of distribution for S/ E's, the S/ E student sees nothing
wrong with taking a course in social psychology, for example,
without ever having read Jung as a prerequisite. Indeed, the
prerequisite introductory course is often only a light summary of
the results of many different areas of research. Contrarily,
although 1 (a history major) might personally be interested in the
study of genetics, the course is taught on the assumption that
everyone has taken introductory chemistry.
Distribution is considered as diversion for S/E's, while a
drudgery for academs. The latter are assumed incapable of
taking their distribution with S/E's. As freshmen, they are
advised to take segregated courses (for example, Calculus 111
versus Calculus 101) so as not to hurt their GPA's, which are
assumed to be the academ's only fesource.
This assumption shows that President Rupp's proposal to
integrate at Rice the two areas of science and the humanities will
first require changing attitudes about the value of academic
knowledge. Also, advising for freshmen needs to change. To
continue the psychology example, to have a critical
understanding of psychological studies, students should have
background in statistical methods before taking upper-level
courses. Otherwise, upper-level courses merely teach more
summaries without adding much analysis.
As any social scientist needs to understand statistical
methods, in the humanities there are some works such as those of
Aristotle and Freud that a professor should be able to assume his
students have read. Fortunately, the Great Books of the West
Humanities courses are answering this need. These sorts of
courses should, though, become a prerequisite for upper-level
courses in the humanities departments. Similarly, each major
should require the taking of a general introductory (a 101)
course.
Before President Rupp's proposal to integrate the sciences and
humanities or social sciences can work, the level of the latter needs
to be brought up to the level of the former. For this to happen,
the attitude at Rice about the humanities/social sciences needs
to change: the prerequisites for academic courses need to be
strengthened and the advising of freshmen who are interested in
the liberal arts needs to be approached more knowledgeably.
While an English professor acting as an advisor for an S/E
knows the student needs to take the Big Three, an engineering
professor does not necessarily know the background courses
which an undecided academ will eventually find necessary and
useful. Often, the first semester of an academ is seen as a time to
explore. On the other hand, the S/E is given a coherent
framework about nature in his freshman year. In order for his
proposal to be successful, President Rupp needs to concentrate
on creating the changes among the academic departments and
the advising system which the present structure has not brought
about.
—AI Derbes
The Rice Thresher, November 8, 1985, page 2
or-am
miycm
Oaivac^^eu
PRUNING THE HEDGES/bv Jack L. Schriver
Evaluating US policy on South Africa
In the words of Thomas Paine,
"When justice and reason are
wanting, the sacred cause of truth
applauds our anger, and dignifies
it with the name of virtue."
So it is today with the case of
South Africa. But. if a discussion
of the South Africa question is to
illuminate the subject rather than
merely generate heat, the level of
discourse cannot be allowed to
devolve to the kind of intemperate
bombast which has appeared in
these pages in recent weeks. The
nest of issues that fall under the
general heading of "South Africa"
is complex, and it deserves to be
taken seriously and reflected upon
calmly.
To begin with, questions about
ends, or policy goals, should be
seperated from disagreements over
strategies. At first glance, there
appears to be universal agreement
on the former: disputants on all
sides of the debate denounce the
policy of apartheid as morally
repugnant and aver that their
tactics are designed to pressure the
South African government to
dismantle this enshrinement of
racism in law and practice.
However, this apparent unanimity
vanishes upon what is to be
understood by "an end to
apartheid." The Reagan
administration believes that there
can be an end to apartheid without
genuine political equality for all of
South Africa's citizens. In
particular, the administration
contends that the formula "one
man, one vote" is merely arbitrary,
just one possibility among many.
Underlying this reluctance to
acknowledge "one man, one vote"
as a principle of fairness is, of
course, anxiety about black rule.
But can anyone really believe that
black leaders (genuine leaders
selected by the blacks themselves,
not hand-picked flunkies of the
white regime) will agree that the
political opinions of 75 percent of
South Africa's population should
count for less in determining their
country's future than the views of
the 15 percent represented by the
white leaders?
Why is black rule in South
Africa a prospect so to be feared?
In his recent column, Mr. Salituro
suggests several answers to this
question. First, he is concerned
over the possible emergence of
intertribal conflict following
transition to black rule. That there
will likely be friction among tribes
as they jockey for position in the
new political order cannot be
denied. Indeed, the early years of
our own Union were not without a
measure of strife among the States.
But the solution is surely not
maintenance of the status quo, for
the political reality of South Africa
" Whether Pretoria,
in its recalcitrance,
will act in time,
only time itself will
tell; however, we
would be remiss if
we did not do
whatever we could
to persuade South
African leaders of
the futility of
delay."
is resolute in its insistence upon the
right to chart its own course
despite the risk that its choices may
one day prove to have been unwise.
Also, Mr. Salituro takes issue
with the proposition that
apartheid is an act against
humanity. His argument is that,
when apartheid is put up against
the horrors of the Holocaust, it's
not so bad. While it must be
conceded that South Africa's
blacks are in general materially
better off than, for instance, those
who are starving in sub-Saharan
areas, this does not in the least
mitigate the impact of the spiritual
deprivation suffered in South
African's bantustans and
townships. When you require a
man to live in a labor camp far
from his family for most of the year
so he can support them; when you
make him a stranger from his own
land and compel him to break his
back to support your privileged
way of life; when you deny him his
inherent human dignity; when you
do these things to a man, you do
absolute evil.
Turning now to the question of
strategy, there are two questions to
consider: (1) Does investment in
South Africa tend on balance to
support apartheid or is it, as the
Reagan administration argues, a
positive force for change? And.
conversely, (2) Is disinvestment an
effective means of applying
pressure, or is it a tactic that is
counterproductive and will only
hurt the very people we are trying
to help?
The administration maintains
that investment in South Africa,
especially by firms which have
agreed not to practice discrimina-
tion in the workplace (i.e.,
signatories to the Sullivan
Principles), have contributed to
the welfare of blacks by starting
education programs and moving
blacks into management positions.
It cannot be denied that these
claims have merit; however, it is
also true that when the black
worker walks out of the office or
factory, he is still told where he
may live and travel, and he must
still be prepared to show his pass at
the whim of the authorities. The
U.S. firms can do little to alter
these aspects of South African life.
Moreover, as one of Hewlett-
Packard's employees noted in a
letter to the corporation's
magazine (quoted in the Houston
Post business pages 11/3/85):
"HP's taxes paid to the South
African government are used to
support a police force and military
establishment which literally
enforces poverty and suffering.
Furthermore, HP's ability to
operate successfully in the South
African business community is
dependent upon these security
forces doing their job well. HP
should get out."
But, what will be the result if
U.S. companies do get out? Won't
South Africa lose jobs, and won't
its economy be seriously damaged,
perhaps destabilizing the
government and precipitating
violent revolution? It is precisely
such a turn of events that the
disinvestment campaign seeks to
avoid, by bringing pressure upon
the business community which, it
is hoped, will be moved to exert its
influence on the Pretoria
government. The government
see PRUNING THE HEDGES, pa**4
f
i
I
a* * ■
f
•% Z > t
.1.
4
3
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.
Snyder, Scott. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 73, No. 14, Ed. 1 Friday, November 8, 1985, newspaper, November 8, 1985; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245619/m1/2/: accessed May 21, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.