Finally! Now I can sleep at night. Can the university also create a space where I can denounce my privilege?

(04-10-2017 09:43 AM)BSWBRice Wrote:  I'm an old white man and the term "master" doesn't bother me, so how could it bother anyone else?

The university as a whole seems to be touting that it's spending a lot of time, energy and money on evaluating how to change names, logos, and fonts or use different words in brochures. Joe had a grand new vision that was met with a whimper. The Jones School moved to Rice Business Wisdom which nobody really gets. The colleges did this Magister thing which to anyone other than those on campus at this very moment seems strikingly irrelevant. Walt shared some insight into some feasibility study on the football program which creates a ton of questions. Now we have a "Big Announcement" about the athletics logos.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to actually be doing anything that leads to a material change in improving broken processes. Those closer to the program have been sharing how much better everything is these days...but count me as one that seems to be missing it.

(04-10-2017 11:22 AM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:43 AM)BSWBRice Wrote:  I'm an old white man and the term "master" doesn't bother me, so how could it bother anyone else?

The university as a whole seems to be touting that it's spending a lot of time, energy and money on evaluating how to change names, logos, and fonts or use different words in brochures. Joe had a grand new vision that was met with a whimper. The Jones School moved to Rice Business Wisdom which nobody really gets. The colleges did this Magister thing which to anyone other than those on campus at this very moment seems strikingly irrelevant. Walt shared some insight into some feasibility study on the football program which creates a ton of questions. Now we have a "Big Announcement" about the athletics logos.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to actually be doing anything that leads to a material change in improving broken processes. Those closer to the program have been sharing how much better everything is these days...but count me as one that seems to be missing it.

You seem to be connecting a lot of dots together that may not be connected.

I think the magister decision is one that is in line with the general high rankings for diversity/class interaction and student wellness/happiness. It does show that we, as a university, are willing to be proactive in certain areas of societal life where we find value in change. This change certainly does nothing to exclude anyone, and I have actually talked to a few peers from my time at Rice who did find the Masters title strange. (By the way, I am using "we" as a term for Rice as a whole)

This wouldn't have been a change I personally would have lobbied for, but when I heard from my peers who felt positively about the change, I understood their point of view and could accept that the change would at least be a positive for them, and neutral for me.

While there are bigger fish to fry, you don't ignore the small ones as well.

(04-10-2017 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:22 AM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:43 AM)BSWBRice Wrote:  I'm an old white man and the term "master" doesn't bother me, so how could it bother anyone else?

The university as a whole seems to be touting that it's spending a lot of time, energy and money on evaluating how to change names, logos, and fonts or use different words in brochures. Joe had a grand new vision that was met with a whimper. The Jones School moved to Rice Business Wisdom which nobody really gets. The colleges did this Magister thing which to anyone other than those on campus at this very moment seems strikingly irrelevant. Walt shared some insight into some feasibility study on the football program which creates a ton of questions. Now we have a "Big Announcement" about the athletics logos.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to actually be doing anything that leads to a material change in improving broken processes. Those closer to the program have been sharing how much better everything is these days...but count me as one that seems to be missing it.

You seem to be connecting a lot of dots together that may not be connected.

I think the magister decision is one that is in line with the general high rankings for diversity/class interaction and student wellness/happiness. It does show that we, as a university, are willing to be proactive in certain areas of societal life where we find value in change. This change certainly does nothing to exclude anyone, and I have actually talked to a few peers from my time at Rice who did find the Masters title strange. (By the way, I am using "we" as a term for Rice as a whole)

This wouldn't have been a change I personally would have lobbied for, but when I heard from my peers who felt positively about the change, I understood their point of view and could accept that the change would at least be a positive for them, and neutral for me.

While there are bigger fish to fry, you don't ignore the small ones as well.

I'm sure most of these dots aren't connected. They are all separate independent dots that in an odd way further demonstrate my point.

Personally, I have no feeling on the magister decision. Nor do most of my peers care if the name is Master, Magister or if the family that lives in the building the next to the college doesn't even have a name. If there is value in demonstrating care about small details, great, go for it.

However, while all of this extensive research is being done throughout campus to address the small details that improve the quality of life, our attendance at everything is dwindling to pathetic lows, our conference revenue is crashing, we lost a basketball coach (sorry basketball team) we liked, but didn't overhaul a football program that needs overhauling (while some sort of viability study is taking place), the baseball program is crumbling...add to that there is graffiti all over campus, fundraising numbers are static at best, and we're thrilled at moving up to a 3 way tie for 14th from a previous year's stand alone at 17th in one of the dozen different rankings that matter.

Again, maybe changing names, logos, font-types, and brochures are supposed to show we are way better off now than any time in the past however long...but count me (and my peers) as beyond frustrated with all of this.

Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

It's just as bad everywhere else.

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

Oxford has had Masters since the 1300s. This change is stupid and weak.

(04-10-2017 12:25 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:22 AM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:43 AM)BSWBRice Wrote:  I'm an old white man and the term "master" doesn't bother me, so how could it bother anyone else?

The university as a whole seems to be touting that it's spending a lot of time, energy and money on evaluating how to change names, logos, and fonts or use different words in brochures. Joe had a grand new vision that was met with a whimper. The Jones School moved to Rice Business Wisdom which nobody really gets. The colleges did this Magister thing which to anyone other than those on campus at this very moment seems strikingly irrelevant. Walt shared some insight into some feasibility study on the football program which creates a ton of questions. Now we have a "Big Announcement" about the athletics logos.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to actually be doing anything that leads to a material change in improving broken processes. Those closer to the program have been sharing how much better everything is these days...but count me as one that seems to be missing it.

You seem to be connecting a lot of dots together that may not be connected.

I think the magister decision is one that is in line with the general high rankings for diversity/class interaction and student wellness/happiness. It does show that we, as a university, are willing to be proactive in certain areas of societal life where we find value in change. This change certainly does nothing to exclude anyone, and I have actually talked to a few peers from my time at Rice who did find the Masters title strange. (By the way, I am using "we" as a term for Rice as a whole)

This wouldn't have been a change I personally would have lobbied for, but when I heard from my peers who felt positively about the change, I understood their point of view and could accept that the change would at least be a positive for them, and neutral for me.

While there are bigger fish to fry, you don't ignore the small ones as well.

I'm sure most of these dots aren't connected. They are all separate independent dots that in an odd way further demonstrate my point.

Personally, I have no feeling on the magister decision. Nor do most of my peers care if the name is Master, Magister or if the family that lives in the building the next to the college doesn't even have a name. If there is value in demonstrating care about small details, great, go for it.

However, while all of this extensive research is being done throughout campus to address the small details that improve the quality of life, our attendance at everything is dwindling to pathetic lows, our conference revenue is crashing, we lost a basketball coach (sorry basketball team) we liked, but didn't overhaul a football program that needs overhauling (while some sort of viability study is taking place), the baseball program is crumbling...add to that there is graffiti all over campus, fundraising numbers are static at best, and we're thrilled at moving up to a 3 way tie for 14th from a previous year's stand alone at 17th in one of the dozen different rankings that matter.

Again, maybe changing names, logos, font-types, and brochures are supposed to show we are way better off now than any time in the past however long...but count me (and my peers) as beyond frustrated with all of this.

Yeah - you're definitely conflating two things.

I don't know how much Dean Hutchinson and JK interact. They seem to be responsible for two very different aspects of Rice.

(04-10-2017 01:23 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

Oxford has had Masters since the 1300s. This change is stupid and weak.

http://president.yale.edu/speeches-writi...ster-title

Slightly less stupid than Yale who already changed it.

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

It's unfortunate that the changing of a name is so offensive to your sensibilities.

I just wonder why it matters if the name of the College Master was changed to Magister? They will still fill the same function as we have come to expect them to fill. The residential colleges will still be a familial place for students to learn and grow.

Many seem to be spending a lot of time complaining about a very superficial change that is, in no way, shape or form, negative.

(04-10-2017 01:33 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:23 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

Oxford has had Masters since the 1300s. This change is stupid and weak.

http://president.yale.edu/speeches-writi...ster-title

Slightly less stupid than Yale who already changed it.

What is "stupid" about this? I understand you may disagree with it, but if you read the letter, I don't find the argument stupid. This is an issue where there are valid criticisms from both side. Some may be stupid, but neither side is composed of completely idiotic points. Not every debate has an obvious right/wrong or smart/stupid side to it.

For example, I found the comments below indicated how much effort/thought went into Yale's decision:

Quote:Some members of our community argued that discarding the term “master” would interject into an ancient collegiate tradition a racial narrative that has never been associated with its use in the academy. Others maintained that regardless of its history of use in the academy, the title—especially when applied to an authority figure—carries a painful and unwelcome connotation that can be difficult or impossible for some students and residential college staff to ignore...

The council deliberated at length, informed by a multitude of discussions with students, staff, faculty, and fellows, as well as by reflections submitted to an online site open to all members of each residential college community. The council also monitored similar discussions at other colleges and universities, although its members were determined to arrive at their recommendations bearing in mind Yale’s distinctive traditions and culture.

The council found that making a recommendation to change the title was far from simple...

Nothing about the term itself is intrinsically tied to Yale’s history prior to 1930, or to the relationships that students of each generation have formed or will form with the individuals who lead their colleges. Moreover, a decision to stop using the term “master” does not compromise the study of larger historical issues. In short, the reasons to change the title of “master” proved more compelling than the reasons to keep it, and the current masters themselves no longer felt it appropriate to be addressed in that manner.

(04-10-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

It's unfortunate that the changing of a name is so offensive to your sensibilities.

I just wonder why it matters if the name of the College Master was changed to Magister? They will still fill the same function as we have come to expect them to fill. The residential colleges will still be a familial place for students to learn and grow.

Many seem to be spending a lot of time complaining about a very superficial change that is, in no way, shape or form, negative.

I'm old. I can be as curmudgeonly as I wish.

(04-10-2017 01:57 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

It's unfortunate that the changing of a name is so offensive to your sensibilities.

I just wonder why it matters if the name of the College Master was changed to Magister? They will still fill the same function as we have come to expect them to fill. The residential colleges will still be a familial place for students to learn and grow.

Many seem to be spending a lot of time complaining about a very superficial change that is, in no way, shape or form, negative.

I'm old. I can be as curmudgeonly as I wish.

To paraphrase, it is unfortunate that the keeping of a name that has existed for decades is so offensive to the sensibilities of your class mates.

why bother with superficial change if it is, as you say, superficial?

Either it is important or it is useless. I vote useless.

I am just disappointed that is important to anybody. The fact that it is important to some to the point of forcing change is what is disappointing.

so, what should we rename Lovett Hall? Clearly the name of man who presided over a segregated school cannot be allowed to remain. Bad connotations.

The connection I have with Rice today is growing ever more tenuous.

(04-10-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:57 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

It's unfortunate that the changing of a name is so offensive to your sensibilities.

I just wonder why it matters if the name of the College Master was changed to Magister? They will still fill the same function as we have come to expect them to fill. The residential colleges will still be a familial place for students to learn and grow.

Many seem to be spending a lot of time complaining about a very superficial change that is, in no way, shape or form, negative.

I'm old. I can be as curmudgeonly as I wish.

To paraphrase, it is unfortunate that the keeping of a name that has existed for decades is so offensive to the sensibilities of your class mates.

why bother with superficial change if it is, as you say, superficial?

Either it is important or it is useless. I vote useless.

I am just disappointed that is important to anybody. The fact that it is important to some to the point of forcing change is what is disappointing.

so, what should we rename Lovett Hall? Clearly the name of man who presided over a segregated school cannot be allowed to remain. Bad connotations.

The connection I have with Rice today is growing ever more tenuous.

Because what is superficial to me, may not be superficial to others.

The change in term doesn't affect the core role of the Masters, so I could care less if their title is changed to something more PC. Why should I get up in arms if some students decide they feel otherwise, and are motivated to do something about it?

But yeah, students change. Perspectives change. And they will keep changing, so you can likely expect to feel an even more tenuous relationship with Rice if you only judge Rice based on these public decisions.

The Magisters of Golf at Augusta.

(04-10-2017 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:57 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why were they called Masters in the first place? Tradition from the college system we emulated, or tradition from the Plantation South? If the latter, I am fine with the change. If the former, then I am not.


Sounds a bit picky to me, but if we are to remove all terms that remind anybody of an unpleasant history, I suggest we continue with King and Queen, and Chancellor, and all those other words that bring back images of yesteryear. and let's do away with with class titles, like senior and junior, as they may unfairly stigmatize some underclassmen. OOPs, I mean underclaspersons. At least half the buildings on campus need to be renamed.

I am feeling less and less connected with the school that has been at the center of my world for the last 55 years. I have a grandson coming of University age. I will not be recommending Rice for his pre-med studies.

It's unfortunate that the changing of a name is so offensive to your sensibilities.

I just wonder why it matters if the name of the College Master was changed to Magister? They will still fill the same function as we have come to expect them to fill. The residential colleges will still be a familial place for students to learn and grow.

Many seem to be spending a lot of time complaining about a very superficial change that is, in no way, shape or form, negative.

I'm old. I can be as curmudgeonly as I wish.

To paraphrase, it is unfortunate that the keeping of a name that has existed for decades is so offensive to the sensibilities of your class mates.

why bother with superficial change if it is, as you say, superficial?

Either it is important or it is useless. I vote useless.

I am just disappointed that is important to anybody. The fact that it is important to some to the point of forcing change is what is disappointing.

so, what should we rename Lovett Hall? Clearly the name of man who presided over a segregated school cannot be allowed to remain. Bad connotations.

The connection I have with Rice today is growing ever more tenuous.

Because what is superficial to me, may not be superficial to others.

The change in term doesn't affect the core role of the Masters, so I could care less if their title is changed to something more PC. Why should I get up in arms if some students decide they feel otherwise, and are motivated to do something about it?

But yeah, students change. Perspectives change. And they will keep changing, so you can likely expect to feel an even more tenuous relationship with Rice if you only judge Rice based on these public decisions.

Support can change as well.

I'm with OO. Rice is becoming less of the university I attended, loved and supported for 50+ years. Maybe it's the me to let the snowflakes that get offended by a term used in a context unrelated to their offense provide the support going forward.

Good luck with that.

(04-10-2017 03:19 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:57 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's unfortunate that the changing of a name is so offensive to your sensibilities.

I just wonder why it matters if the name of the College Master was changed to Magister? They will still fill the same function as we have come to expect them to fill. The residential colleges will still be a familial place for students to learn and grow.

Many seem to be spending a lot of time complaining about a very superficial change that is, in no way, shape or form, negative.

I'm old. I can be as curmudgeonly as I wish.

To paraphrase, it is unfortunate that the keeping of a name that has existed for decades is so offensive to the sensibilities of your class mates.

why bother with superficial change if it is, as you say, superficial?

Either it is important or it is useless. I vote useless.

I am just disappointed that is important to anybody. The fact that it is important to some to the point of forcing change is what is disappointing.

so, what should we rename Lovett Hall? Clearly the name of man who presided over a segregated school cannot be allowed to remain. Bad connotations.

The connection I have with Rice today is growing ever more tenuous.

Because what is superficial to me, may not be superficial to others.

The change in term doesn't affect the core role of the Masters, so I could care less if their title is changed to something more PC. Why should I get up in arms if some students decide they feel otherwise, and are motivated to do something about it?

But yeah, students change. Perspectives change. And they will keep changing, so you can likely expect to feel an even more tenuous relationship with Rice if you only judge Rice based on these public decisions.

Support can change as well.

I'm with OO. Rice is becoming less of the university I attended, loved and supported for 50+ years. Maybe it's the me to let the snowflakes that get offended by a term used in a context unrelated to their offense provide the support going forward.

Good luck with that.

Of course support can. But I just wonder if you've actually interacted with these "snowflakes" or you're just reacting to a news story and parroting a line popular in today's discussion of college students?

Outside of still providing a world class education, Rice still allows its students to be responsible adults and drink on campus (and manage two bars on campus), explore the business world through multiple student run initiatives, self-govern at the residential college level, and on and on.

So what has changed in the past 50 years that makes you think Rice has changed significantly? A title of about 22 people on campus should be a drop in the bucket.

More concerning was the un-solicited sale of KTRU. More concerning is the increase in tuition cost, which I think has altered the general student body from even when I arrived. The facilities arms race and if that is keeping funds from educational departments, etc. Those are things that concern me about Rice's direction and make me wonder if Rice will still be the same institution I went to in 50 years.

(04-10-2017 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:19 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 01:57 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I'm old. I can be as curmudgeonly as I wish.

To paraphrase, it is unfortunate that the keeping of a name that has existed for decades is so offensive to the sensibilities of your class mates.

why bother with superficial change if it is, as you say, superficial?

Either it is important or it is useless. I vote useless.

I am just disappointed that is important to anybody. The fact that it is important to some to the point of forcing change is what is disappointing.

so, what should we rename Lovett Hall? Clearly the name of man who presided over a segregated school cannot be allowed to remain. Bad connotations.

The connection I have with Rice today is growing ever more tenuous.

Because what is superficial to me, may not be superficial to others.

The change in term doesn't affect the core role of the Masters, so I could care less if their title is changed to something more PC. Why should I get up in arms if some students decide they feel otherwise, and are motivated to do something about it?

But yeah, students change. Perspectives change. And they will keep changing, so you can likely expect to feel an even more tenuous relationship with Rice if you only judge Rice based on these public decisions.

Support can change as well.

I'm with OO. Rice is becoming less of the university I attended, loved and supported for 50+ years. Maybe it's the me to let the snowflakes that get offended by a term used in a context unrelated to their offense provide the support going forward.

Good luck with that.

Of course support can. But I just wonder if you've actually interacted with these "snowflakes" or you're just reacting to a news story and parroting a line popular in today's discussion of college students?

Outside of still providing a world class education, Rice still allows its students to be responsible adults and drink on campus (and manage two bars on campus), explore the business world through multiple student run initiatives, self-govern at the residential college level, and on and on.

So what has changed in the past 50 years that makes you think Rice has changed significantly? A title of about 22 people on campus should be a drop in the bucket.

More concerning was the un-solicited sale of KTRU. More concerning is the increase in tuition cost, which I think has altered the general student body from even when I arrived. The facilities arms race and if that is keeping funds from educational departments, etc. Those are things that concern me about Rice's direction and make me wonder if Rice will still be the same institution I went to in 50 years.

Pretty sure the drinking thing has changed pretty substantially. As well as jacks, Beer Bike, O-week, etc.

(04-10-2017 03:39 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 03:19 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 02:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To paraphrase, it is unfortunate that the keeping of a name that has existed for decades is so offensive to the sensibilities of your class mates.

why bother with superficial change if it is, as you say, superficial?

Either it is important or it is useless. I vote useless.

I am just disappointed that is important to anybody. The fact that it is important to some to the point of forcing change is what is disappointing.

so, what should we rename Lovett Hall? Clearly the name of man who presided over a segregated school cannot be allowed to remain. Bad connotations.

The connection I have with Rice today is growing ever more tenuous.

Because what is superficial to me, may not be superficial to others.

The change in term doesn't affect the core role of the Masters, so I could care less if their title is changed to something more PC. Why should I get up in arms if some students decide they feel otherwise, and are motivated to do something about it?

But yeah, students change. Perspectives change. And they will keep changing, so you can likely expect to feel an even more tenuous relationship with Rice if you only judge Rice based on these public decisions.

Support can change as well.

I'm with OO. Rice is becoming less of the university I attended, loved and supported for 50+ years. Maybe it's the me to let the snowflakes that get offended by a term used in a context unrelated to their offense provide the support going forward.

Good luck with that.

Of course support can. But I just wonder if you've actually interacted with these "snowflakes" or you're just reacting to a news story and parroting a line popular in today's discussion of college students?

Outside of still providing a world class education, Rice still allows its students to be responsible adults and drink on campus (and manage two bars on campus), explore the business world through multiple student run initiatives, self-govern at the residential college level, and on and on.

So what has changed in the past 50 years that makes you think Rice has changed significantly? A title of about 22 people on campus should be a drop in the bucket.

More concerning was the un-solicited sale of KTRU. More concerning is the increase in tuition cost, which I think has altered the general student body from even when I arrived. The facilities arms race and if that is keeping funds from educational departments, etc. Those are things that concern me about Rice's direction and make me wonder if Rice will still be the same institution I went to in 50 years.

Pretty sure the drinking thing has changed pretty substantially. As well as jacks, Beer Bike, O-week, etc.

I was thinking about the drinking policy last night because I saw a Thresher article about it. In it they said emergency calls due to alcohol have dropped off a cliff with the hard liquor ban.

And the things like jacks, Beer Bike, etc are going to change no matter what - regardless of Rice, and some of the changes are immaterial to the bigger picture. I mean, sure, you can't throw dead fish in the ceiling of Lovett's commons, or launch giant water balloons across campus, without officially getting in trouble, but is that really a bad thing?

To me, that is much more a society "issue" than a Rice one.

The term "snowflake" is thrown around a lot these days, and of course it's intended to be derogatory. But I do think it's one of those terms that really depends on one's perspective. I see how students who don't like the term "Master" and complain about it, to the point of organizing and effecting change, can be deemed "snowflakes." That is to say, they should be tough enough to just shut up and get over what we think should be, at most, a slight annoyance to them. But can it alternatively (or also) be said that those who react disproportionately to the change--to the point of severing ties with Rice, or emotionally writing the school off--due to what is, at the end of the day, a pretty small change are also "snowflakes"? If we want Group A to get over the little things they don't like, is it not fair to expect Group B to get over the little things they don't like as well?

P.S. I say this as someone who would rather the "Master" title remain due to tradition, as well as the general belief that the ugly institution of slavery does not completely "own" the word "master." Same thing with the word "rebel." So if I were king of the world, yes, I'd keep the old title.