The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2005/03/18/letters_to_the_editor

March 18, 2005 > Opinion > Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Leebron’s lacrosse decision pro-student

To the editor: In light of recent events that have thrown parts of this campus into turmoil, we might all take a step back and consider all that has transpired.

The student protest of the recent lacrosse team suspensions is based on the idea that President David Leebron does not care about students. To the contrary, Leebron has selectively censured those whose actions resulted in Rice students being admitted to the hospital.

Lives were endangered at the lacrosse party. Leebron’s response is completely appropriate. What if a student had died? We should not wait until a bonfire collapses to address the safety concerns that this incident brings to our attention.

The protesters detailed their beliefs in an unsigned letter asserting that we as students are mature enough to make our own decisions about the direction of our university. The lacrosse party demonstrated that some students are not capable of making such decisions. Leebron is punishing those students to protect, not destroy, the general right of students to decide the direction in which to take this university.

As students, we enjoy unparalleled levels of freedoms, rights and opportunities by attending Rice — a university that provides those freedoms, protects those rights and affords those opportunities. Students who abuse those liberties demonstrate to the administration that we are unworthy of the faith they have in us to know what is right and the trust they place in us to do what is right. It is through our actions and words that we can protect and improve these liberties.

Evan Ross, Lovett president-elect David Kemp Peter Scully Lovett sophomores

Sports headline

misrepresented game##

To the editor: While I enjoy reading reports of Rice athletic teams achieving victory, I thought the headline describing the Rice vs. Fresno State University men’s basketball game (‘Owls bulldoze Fresno State,’ Feb. 25) was a little overzealous. I am not convinced that in an 8-point victory, Rice in any way ‘bulldozed’ Fresno State, especially given that Nevada beat Rice by 15 points in the same weekend.

I thought that such a description was a little disrespectful to both teams in a game that was clearly hotly contested and in which Rice managed to secure a tough victory.

Miles Scotcher Ph.D. ‘05 Postdoctoral research assistant Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology Former Graduate Student Association president

Add Backpage to Thresher Web site

To the editor: Thank you for bringing http://www.ricethresher.org up to date by posting the paper online. Many an alumnus will be reading it again. It would be nice if you could get the Backpage up there too. Just my two cents.

Josh Katz Wiess ‘01

Abstinence a valid personal choice

To the editor: Why do I choose to abstain from sex (‘Abstinence education promotes risky sex,’ Mar. 4)? Because I believe that the Christian faith unequivocally calls for complete sexual abstinence outside of marriage.

A common misunderstanding is that meeting that goal consists of repressing our sexual desires. This is not the case. Generally, when someone feels a desire, it is coupled with a contradicting desire. For example, I’m hungry and I want to eat. That would require me to get up and get something, but I want to stay in my chair. Thus, I don’t eat. That doesn’t mean that I’m repressing my hunger; it means that I wait until the desire to eat grows stronger, the desire to sit grows weaker, or I get up for another reason.

Abstinence works the same way. I desire to have sex. I desire to remain a virgin. The desire to remain a virgin is stronger, so I don’t have sex. This doesn’t mean that I’m repressing my sexual desire, it means that it’s weaker than another desire, my desire to uphold my faith. Any time two desires are present, one must be chosen. If I were to choose to have sex, then I would be going against a stronger desire, and that would be repression.

Not everyone sees things this way. Christians were never intended to look down on other people who do not agree with them. If someone is not a Christian, it only makes sense that they would not adhere to the same standards. They do not have the same motivations.

Laura Rabalais Will Rice freshman

End of article

Back to top