Send Comments to the Editors

U.S. Mail:
The Rice Thresher
6100 Main Street (MS-524)
Houston, TX 77005-1892

I've thought a lot about last week's issue. Rather than focusing on the factual mistakes or the claim that it is devoid of editorial commentary (when in fact it contains nothing but an editorial and ads), I would like to point out how it incorrectly formulates the fundamental issue.

The editorial conveys a fear that the university administration is going to censor the Thresher 's editorial content. I believe nearly all students, faculty, staff and alumni agree that the Thresher should keep the community informed of every instance when the administration acts to prohibit the paper's editorial autonomy. The editorial does not give concrete information about such action by the administration.

Indeed, the editorial seems to base its fears solely on the circumstances and outcome of Allison Fine's hearing. The two flaws behind this connection are as follows. First, there is a distinction between the actions of a student and those of the administration. Fine asked for the hearing as a member of the community; the administration had nothing to do with creating the suit. Second, the outcome did not seek to limit the editorial content of the Thresher in any way.

The editorial's argument, I assume, is that if Allison Fine can win a suit against Marty Beard and Vivek Rao for publishing the Trasher, then it would be possible for someone to win a similar suit against the Thresher , essentially resulting in a "chilling effect" on editorial content.

Indeed, the editorial claims that "Bass ... [applied] sexual harassment policy, without precedent, to a student publication." The decision, though, applied sexual harassment policy to two people, Marty Beard and Vivek Rao, not to a student publication.

According to its Website, "The ACLU believes that hate speech stops being just speech and becomes conduct when it targets a particular individual, and when it forms a pattern of behavior that interferes with a student's ability to exercise his or her right to participate fully in the life of the university. The ACLU isn't opposed to regulations that penalize acts of violence, harassment or intimidation ... "

Allison Fine believed herself to be the target of sexual harassment by Marty Beard and Vivek Rao. This is the issue that was argued, and Marty and Vivek were found to have gone beyond speech and engaged in harassing conduct.

Is the Thresher staff saying that the Code of Student Conduct is inappropriate because it seeks to prevent sexual harassment and, in doing so, could potentially censor publications because it holds people responsible for their speech in some situations? If so, the staff is fighting a battle against the ACLU and the laws of this country which draw a distinction between free speech and sexual harassment.

The next time your staff decides to waste so many trees, perhaps you will spend all the time not spent writing news and put it into a well-written, well-researched editorial. It is the least you could do when making such bold claims.

Glenn M. Levy

Hanszen '96

Assistant Director of

Leadership Rice

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the September 19, 1997 issue.