The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2007/01/19/letters_to_the_editor

January 19, 2007 > Opinion > Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

By The Rice Thresher Editorial Staff | Thresher Editorial Staff

Graham flop shows D-1 fails for Rice

To the editor:

As Houston Chronicle writer John Lopez put it, “In one year’s time, despite seven wins and a bowl bid, Graham did more damage than good.” He fired most of the staff, who had served Rice for many years, he “sucked fans of some $5 million worth of financial commitments for stadium and facility upgrades” and made a mockery of “Rice values.” In the end, he left, as he no doubt always planned to, for the money.

I have been at Rice for over 35 years and sadly watched one farce succeed another in Rice’s history in “big-time college athletics.” Always promises, always broken, then more promises.

Rice now faces a major decision, one that will greatly affect its future — especially now, as we stand at the beginning of the largest fund drive in the school’s history. Will we continue to throw good money after bad, continue to sacrifice our dedication to academic excellence, to a vain pursuit of “bowl bids?” Will we continue to spend ever-increasing amounts of money on trying to buy winning teams — money that is urgently needed to maintain our position as a leader in education and research? Will the trustees honor their solemn commitment to decrease, not increase, the athletic deficit, or will they dishonor themselves by “forgetting” about it? Will we, as a community, have the guts to face the reality of a money-ridden Division I, decide what Rice is here for and put football and money sports as a whole in their proper place as a subordinate, ancillary activity?

Do we want more Grahams? If not, now is the time to make a long-delayed decision. The university does not, and never did, belong in a corrupt and anti-academic NCAA Division I.

I call on the president, board, students and faculty of Rice to stand up for its true values now.

Martin J. Wiener

Chair, Department of History

Sexist movie review slights Naomi Watts

To the editor:

In your recent review of The Painted Veil, by mentioning Walter, portrayed by Edward Norton, before Kitty, portrayed by Naomi Watts, and listing Norton before Watts throughout your entire review, you’re either slighting Watts or following your subconscious view that a male must be put before a female (“The Painted Veil’s admirable acting fails to save its slow story,” Jan. 12).

If you knew anything about the novel, you would know that W. Somerset Maugham’s story is about Kitty’s self-discovery story, not the story of a scientist and his stereotypical Hollywood wife, as depicted, in your review. And though Walter was enhanced in the movie, Norton and director John Curran agree that the story is still of a woman’s journey, and Naomi Watts is the first cast lead, as seen in the poster and opening credits of the film.

Richard Steandrick

Toronto, Canada

End of article

Back to top