To the editor:
The last edition of the Thresher included a salute to the University Police for their work in keeping campus safe. It's clear that our Rice University Police have a job to do, and that most of them generally perform it well. However, one recent experience with the campus police stands out against the generally positive experience we've had with them at Rice.
At about midnight on Oct. 13, we three friends were playing a Nintendo game in one of our rooms when we were interrupted by the sudden appearance of four girls, who proceeded to run into the bathroom. Of the four, we knew only one, and she informed us, giggling, that they'd "done something bad," and were hiding.
It wasn't until the next day that we learned that they had stolen a police cart and were being chased by police officers.
Assuming a good-natured prank but annoyed at the uninvited appearance, when we heard a knock at our door a minute later, we simply called out "come in, they're in the bathroom."
The police officer outside the door responded not by entering, knocking again or identifying himself as an officer. Instead, he waited five minutes before entering and accused us of hiding the girls and conspiring with them.
We cooperated immediately, giving him our ID cards and telling him the name of the one girl we did know, insisting that we had nothing more to do with it. The police officer told us that he "didn't buy it," that he'd "been in law enforcement for five years," and that he wasn't "interested in playing games with us. It's called 'obstruction of justice'," he told us. The three of us were reported, and the officer threatened to arrest us if we didn't produce his suspects.
Eventually, he found the girls hiding in the opposite side of the suite, where they confirmed our story. The girls came out with the officer, and each of the girls apologized to us. The officer didn't so much as glance at us.
We realize that the campus police officers are acting for justice and that they're doing a good job protecting students, but we'd like to think that a little more civility and respect and less heavy-handed bullying toward clueless innocents wouldn't stop them from keeping us safe.
Jonathan Ichikawa
Dave Stablein
Will Rice sophomores
Mardi Gras party offends students
To the editor:
There's something wrong with Hanszen College's annual Mardi Gras Party, and, no, it's not the fact that Mardi Gras is being celebrated in October.
According to the tradition of this annual event, Rice students competed in a strip contest in the Hanszen Commons this past Saturday; however, this year the rules of the contest were pushed to the limits. Several acts were gratuitously sexual, which led many people to leave. The fact that this event has reached pornographic levels leads to us to argue that the party, at least in its current form, should be reevaluated.
We understand that stripping in itself is sexual, but there is a difference between when it is fun and when it is sexually explicit. As a college-sponsored event, it is highly questionable for a party which should be welcoming to all Rice students to end up being extremely alienating, uncomfortable and even harassing to many individuals.
We are also deeply disturbed by the fact that the college funds (to which members of Hanszen are required to contribute at the start of each year) go into this party and that from the college funds a $100 prize money is awarded to the winning strippers. It is unfair that the college funds of those who oppose the event are used to fund something that estranges many individuals. Also disturbing is the fact that the entire strip show was taped without the permission of all the participants.
We ask that Hanszen College reevaluate the party to make it so that individuals do not feel uncomfortable due to sexually explicit material; instead, we hope that the Mardi Gras party and more specifically the stripping will create a more welcoming environment.
Sarah Cloots
Uchenna Agbim
Hanszen sophomores
A vote for Nader helps Green Party's future
To the editor:
After reading both Garret Merriam's column ("Third parties provide abstention alternative," Oct. 6) and Wojtek Dorabialski's letter ("Apathy cannot explain low turnout rates," Oct. 13), I would like to share an interesting fact that a friend of mine brought to my attention that has changed how I'm approaching the upcoming election.
We all know that George W. Bush is going to reap all of Texas' lovely electoral votes. Traditionally, Texas has voted Republican. That isn't about to change in this coming election.
So to all of you Al Gore voters registered in Texas, you're right! Your vote for Gore is wasted. Besides, if you are anything like me, you were only voting for Gore because you absolutely refuse to help Bush get to office.
In fact, no one seems especially thrilled with either major party candidate, especially after the never-ending catch phrases and case studies that we've listened to in the past three debates. What you might have forgotten about are the third party candidates. You may not really want any of them in the White House, but, realistically, they aren't going to end up in the White House this election anyway. However, this does not mean you should avoid the voting booth on that fateful Tuesday. Instead, realize you have a great opportunity: the opportunity to vote for choice and fairness.
Did you know that the Republican and Democratic candidates received $67.6 million of federal funding for this election, while the Reform Party received $12.5 million? It gets better. The only reason the Reform Party received any money at all is because in the last election, the Reform Party candidate received more than 5 percent of the popular vote.
In other words, the Green Party has no public financing this year because four years ago the candidate didn't receive more than five percent of the vote. Welcome to democracy.
Our current system doesn't provide us with much choice; the differences between candidates often seem too slight to mention. It is only through the presence of a strong third party candidate that the system will be challenged to change and we will truly have an opportunity to hear diverse and seldom expressed opinions. But, true to the times, this can't happen without money. Public financing is key to running a successful campaign.
So, help us all out. Get out there. Take your otherwise useless vote for Gore, and vote for Ralph Nader. Help to ensure we have more choices four years from now.
Sarah Ricord
Hanszen senior
Nader diverges from mainstream politics
To the editor:
I disagree with several of the points made by James Dallal in his column about Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy ("A vote for Nader is a needless sacrifice," Oct. 6). First of all, Dallal is wrong in his assertion that "Nader's only real policy disagreement with Al Gore is on the issue of free trade." Yes, Nader is against a system of corporate-managed trade and putting short-term corporate profits ahead of all other values. But Nader also supports cutting our massive budget for the military in favor of strong education and health care programs.
Also, Nader is against the death penalty, against continuing the drug war, in favor of raising the minimum wage to a living wage and in favor of serious regulations to protect our environment. These are only a few of the key differences.
Dallal's criticism that Nader refuses to compromise his values in order to gain more support only considers half of the picture. The Green Party is an issue-based organization and, unlike the Democrats or Republicans, does not pander to power or money. Where Gore and George W. Bush try to get your vote with a fancy TV ad or a media-friendly personality, Nader offers popular issues and reform that would actually help people.
Both conservatives and liberals want a movement toward a clean environment, towards ending corporate welfare and toward revitalizing our democratic process by kicking the corporations out of Washington. These are majoritarian values. Perhaps Nader's failure to get more support has more to do with the fact that he is committed to only grass roots fund-raising (he refuses any contributions over $1,000) and that the corporate media refuses to cover him. Where Nader is campaigning he is receiving more popular enthusiasm than either Bush or Gore. In rallies across the country he has gotten audiences of over 10,000 people to pay $10 a ticket to attend. Bush and Gore can barely get a couple hundred people to come for free.
As for Dallal's concern with getting down to the business of electing a president, what could be more pointless than voting for Bush or Gore? Bush is going to win the state of Texas. Gore has completely given up on Texas and is not even waging a serious campaign. Therefore, because of our Electoral College system, you really do not have a voice in the matter. Here in Texas, any vote can only work as a show of support. To this end, a vote for Nader is a vote for serious campaign finance reform, responsible trade and encouraging an expanded political debate.
Simon Fink
Lovett junior
Learn about Nader's platform before voting
To the editor:
James Dallal's column ("A vote for Nader is a needless sacrifice," Oct. 6) argues that voting for Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader in the upcoming election is a fruitless endeavor. In Texas this year, we have an interesting situation. Al Gore's campaign has already admitted defeat in this Republican-dominated state. A governor has never not won his own state in a presidential race. And because of our convenient Electoral College system, the winner takes all of the state's Electoral College votes. In short, Bush will carry Texas and so a vote for Gore is really a wasted vote here (and in many other places). It will not send a message except that you are satisfied with the status quo.
Dallal also states a huge mistruth, that Nader has "done a rather poor job of showing real differences between himself and Gore." In fact, Gore's campaign is intent on imitating Nader's rhetoric as closely as possible (when it's politically convenient to do so, of course).
But greens are not fooled; they know that Nader sincerely believes in the ideals of justice, environmentalism, democracy, etc. - as evidenced by his extensive public service record. Gore - as evidenced by his relatively pathetic public service record - only pays lip service to these ideals (yes, even environmentalism) to garner votes.
I don't think Dallal has actually listened to what Nader has to say. If you missed when Nader was in town last Thursday night, I strongly urge everyone (voters and non-voters) to check out www.votenader.org to hear Nader's views in his own words. Nader is the only candidate talking about the fundamental changes that can save our country from oligarchic corporate rule - real campaign finance reform, opening up the public airwaves to the public, reducing the public tax burden by reducing corporate welfare and pork-barrel spending, etc. Educate yourself, and I'll see you at the polls!
Jason Hardy
Will Rice senior
Primary contact for Greens 'n' Rice
- back -
