LETTER: Smear campaign against SA focused on trivialities

---

by Bill Van Vooren

---

To the editor:

Skimming over George Hatoun's commentary "Recent activism sparked by elections" ( Thresher , Feb. 9), I was mildly amused until I reached the sentence reading, "The current Senate realizes that it faces the prospect of ending its session having accomplished little." At that point, I was completely amused.

It seems that Hatoun has tossed his hat into the race for Student Association president, and he decided to start his smear campaign early.

While Hatoun says in closing that "we should realize that these activities are carefully timed and neither spontaneous nor coincidental," I allege that this remark applies equally well to his own sentiments.

What the Thresher printed two weeks ago is nothing more than gratuitous political propaganda.

Hatoun seems to have written this commentary with the hopes that a few students who don't closely follow SA activities will read his article, take his word as gospel and assume that the current SA leadership isn't up to the task.

With firsthand knowledge of the situation, I can personally say that every opinion Hatoun presents concerning the motives of the SA's actions is complete garbage, and I am stunned that anyone could be self-serving enough to even attempt to pass this crap off as truth.

I guess it happens in journalism, but rarely have I seen a college-level opinion writer distort fact after fact in order to advance his own position, as Hatoun did in his column.

I would think that the news editor of an otherwise reputable student paper would know a little something about the dangers of taking facts out of context.

It is clear that Hatoun himself does not truly believe in his words because, rather than writing a fair fact-based appraisal of the Senate, he had to attempt a half-assed, off-the-cuff presentation of the SA's minor accomplishments and setbacks.

To me, humor is not a valid approach when you accuse a group of more than 20 individuals of not doing the jobs that they were elected to perform.

It is no better than completely irresponsible to make light of such serious contentions.

While I won't go through the motions of cataloging the SA's activities of the past year, I would be more than happy to give a simple example.

Near the end of the spring semester last year, the Pub burned to the ground.

With only a few weeks of class with which to operate and a good part of the administration foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to shut down that "lawsuit waiting to happen," the newly elected Senate began to gather input for the Pub's remodeling.

Then, several Senate members, most notably Maryana Iskander -- the current and incumbent president of this good-for-nothing organization -- attended session after session with the architects so that the Pub would be ready for the fall semester.

At a time when lack of student interest could have meant the end of a long-standing Rice tradition, the SA came up huge.

And I can think of a room full of slightly intoxicated undergraduates who benefit from the Senate's efforts week after week.

But Hatoun is right, the Senate couldn't swing new toilet paper.

It is just terrific that someone can accuse a group of people of political showmanship because they do their job while he himself is guilty of his own accusations.

I'm not sure, but I think the term is hypocritical.

In the future, I suggest that the Thresher keep an eye open for outrageous abuses of power among its agenda-driven, upwardly-mobile staff.

Bill Van Vooren

Baker '98

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the February 23, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.