(02-26-2015 10:43 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Unless the press follows up and starts asking questions about why other similar activities on campus don't seem to warrant similar decisions/actions.

Exactly! Let's see if the Hanszen Mardi Gras party in 2016 includes the stripper contest .... that involves mostly female STUDENTS .... where a stripper pole is provided by the College .... in the setting of alcohol .... is judged by partygoers .... and money is awarded for top performances ... all the while taking place in a public space!

I wonder what Dean Hutchinson, Don Ostdiek and the SJP office think of this event on campus?

Quote:Activities like this occur. They have clubs where they occur, and even those clubs (SOB's by ordinance) are regulated. I don't think it does Rice or any institution any good to publically encourage activity like this on their premises.

Rice doesn't need to publicly encourage anything. They need to respect the ability for someone to LEGALLY partake in activities in the comfort of their home. Say an anti-alcohol person sees pictures of a person drinking, gets offended; why is this situation different? Is it because it involved some variety of sex? Is it because we have now decided certain things that are LEGAL are so taboo we need to morally police them?

College is not a workplace. I am paid to do a certain job at work and maintain a certain degree of "professionalism" including but not limited to my choice of language, dress code etc.

Does anyone have any information regarding the person(s) making the complaint against the student recently elected President of McMurtry College? Are they affiliated with the student which lost the election? Could this be a form of retaliation against the student which won the election? Do they have an axe to grind with the College or elsewhere on campus?

Given what we know as reported in the Rice Thresher, it appears this incident has exploded out of proportion to other "long-standing campus traditions" at Rice (i.e., Baker 13 where students run through campus naked; Night of Decadence where students are packed into a public space scantily clad in the presence of a large amount of alcohol; Hanszen Mardi Gras Party where a stripping contest is held supported by College funds; etc.). So, I wonder if there is something behind it which has yet to come to light?

Or, to pose the question differently, what makes these "long-standing campus traditions" acceptable (and continually supported by the University), yet the hiring of a stripper with private funds to perform in a private setting behind closed doors in the presence of people voluntarily participating is deemed so egregious?

Buhler?

(02-26-2015 11:24 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Activities like this occur. They have clubs where they occur, and even those clubs (SOB's by ordinance) are regulated. I don't think it does Rice or any institution any good to publically encourage activity like this on their premises.

Rice doesn't need to publicly encourage anything. They need to respect the ability for someone to LEGALLY partake in activities in the comfort of their home. Say an anti-alcohol person sees pictures of a person drinking, gets offended; why is this situation different? Is it because it involved some variety of sex? Is it because we have now decided certain things that are LEGAL are so taboo we need to morally police them?

College is not a workplace. I am paid to do a certain job at work and maintain a certain degree of "professionalism" including but not limited to my choice of language, dress code etc.

I'm afraid that's the road we are on...

(02-26-2015 11:54 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 11:24 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Activities like this occur. They have clubs where they occur, and even those clubs (SOB's by ordinance) are regulated. I don't think it does Rice or any institution any good to publically encourage activity like this on their premises.

Rice doesn't need to publicly encourage anything. They need to respect the ability for someone to LEGALLY partake in activities in the comfort of their home. Say an anti-alcohol person sees pictures of a person drinking, gets offended; why is this situation different? Is it because it involved some variety of sex? Is it because we have now decided certain things that are LEGAL are so taboo we need to morally police them?

College is not a workplace. I am paid to do a certain job at work and maintain a certain degree of "professionalism" including but not limited to my choice of language, dress code etc.

I'm afraid that's the road we are on...

Unfortunately I agree. We now live in a world where a public complaint that draws attention requires action, regardless of the merit of the complaint. As long as you can find other like-minded folks in the public sphere to sympathize with your complaint, drastic action will be taken.

I read a story in the NY Times about this phenomenon. The article talked about a number of these type of incidents. One that really stuck with me was the story about an engineer at a tech conference who murmured a stupid off color joke about "dongles" to his friend sitting next to him. This joke was overheard by a woman sitting nearby, who then took a picture of him and posted to her Twitter about how he was telling inappropriate jokes next to her. He was kicked out of the conference and fired from his job 2 days later due to the publicity. Later he shared his story publicly on a tech forum and the backlash from his story led to personal threats against her and her also losing her job.

I feel like in our discussion, we have also turned against the complainer slightly as well and while I vehemently disagree with what the University did and even the act of complaining, I think we still need to be civil to all parties involved. I feel like that is often what is missing in these incidents. If people would take this approach, then perhaps the President-elect could have just issued a mea culpa instead of having to resign and his friends getting fined.

(02-26-2015 11:24 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Activities like this occur. They have clubs where they occur, and even those clubs (SOB's by ordinance) are regulated. I don't think it does Rice or any institution any good to publically encourage activity like this on their premises.

Rice doesn't need to publicly encourage anything. They need to respect the ability for someone to LEGALLY partake in activities in the comfort of their home. Say an anti-alcohol person sees pictures of a person drinking, gets offended; why is this situation different? Is it because it involved some variety of sex? Is it because we have now decided certain things that are LEGAL are so taboo we need to morally police them?

College is not a workplace. I am paid to do a certain job at work and maintain a certain degree of "professionalism" including but not limited to my choice of language, dress code etc.

That is where you are dead wrong. Rice IS a work place for a wide variety of people, from professors, to food service workers to grad students. What is done public ally matters. And circulating video and photos counts. We are unaware of how the material was 'presented' to those who were offended.

As a supervisor in a corporate workplace, I have responsibility for maintaining a non-hostile environment in a variety of areas. If there is a complaint from a reasonable person, you are taught to take action. This can include actions by outside vendors and visitors from all the training I have received.

As I said the responses seem overly severe from a first time offense. Generally counseling and sensitivity training would probably be what I'd expect. But none of us have full knowledge of the circumstances.

This may not be the case here, but often when someone stands up for themselves in this kind of situation, they ask the person to stop the behavior. That can lead to people turning on the person who stood up for them self (bullying) which THEN leads to a formal complaint.

We don't know. But judging from the responses here, it's not a stretch to suppose the person who complained may have voiced objections and got mistreated in an immature manner.

It may be the final judgments were too harsh, but no responsible party can ignore a complaint like this. At a minimum it has to be taken seriously and investigated.

SOBs don't have windows for a reason. And again, who thinks videotaping this was acceptable in any way? Did they ask for the participant's permission? Horrible, horrible judgment in making a video and then sharing it.

(02-26-2015 12:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Horrible, horrible judgment in making a video and then sharing it.

Exactly.

(02-26-2015 12:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 11:24 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Activities like this occur. They have clubs where they occur, and even those clubs (SOB's by ordinance) are regulated. I don't think it does Rice or any institution any good to publically encourage activity like this on their premises.

Rice doesn't need to publicly encourage anything. They need to respect the ability for someone to LEGALLY partake in activities in the comfort of their home. Say an anti-alcohol person sees pictures of a person drinking, gets offended; why is this situation different? Is it because it involved some variety of sex? Is it because we have now decided certain things that are LEGAL are so taboo we need to morally police them?

College is not a workplace. I am paid to do a certain job at work and maintain a certain degree of "professionalism" including but not limited to my choice of language, dress code etc.

That is where you are dead wrong. Rice IS a work place for a wide variety of people, from professors, to food service workers to grad students. What is done public ally matters. And circulating video and photos counts. We are unaware of how the material was 'presented' to those who were offended.

As a supervisor in a corporate workplace, I have responsibility for maintaining a non-hostile environment in a variety of areas. If there is a complaint from a reasonable person, you are taught to take action. This can include actions by outside vendors and visitors from all the training I have received.

Unless the participants and the college president-elect were the ones who made someone watch, I fail to see how this is their issue.

Again, you are drinking at a party and someone takes a picture. This is put on facebook. This offends an anti-alcohol person. Whose fault is it? Because this situation is very similar from what it sounds like. Except that we associate more taboo to certain subjects for whatever reason.

Given that we have this judgment raining down from society, I agree that taking a video/picture isn't a good idea. Doesn't make it wrong.

(02-26-2015 12:26 PM)owl95 Wrote:  ... I think we still need to be civil to all parties involved. I feel like that is often what is missing in these incidents. If people would take this approach ...

Yes, if people would resort to reason rather than outrage, the world would be a better place.

One thing that encourages reason is simply talking. Often a simple "Hey, I wish you hadn't done that" leads to a simple "You've got a point -- I'm sorry" and that's the end of it. Granted, it doesn't always work, but it's a good way to start.

And I mean "talking" literally: talking face-to-face or even by phone is much more conducive to reason than is the electronic realm, which seems to encourage the opposite. Unfortunately, and especially in universities, I time and again hear people pride themselves on the fact that they go out of their way to NOT talk with other people by phone or in person.

A year or so ago, I was on a panel discussion with several faculty members, and I mentioned that one thing I like about my job is that I interact with lots of people (clients, experts, opponents) by phone or in person. The faculty members not only acted like it was a foreign concept; some of them actually sneered at the idea.

(02-26-2015 02:16 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 12:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 11:24 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Activities like this occur. They have clubs where they occur, and even those clubs (SOB's by ordinance) are regulated. I don't think it does Rice or any institution any good to publically encourage activity like this on their premises.

Rice doesn't need to publicly encourage anything. They need to respect the ability for someone to LEGALLY partake in activities in the comfort of their home. Say an anti-alcohol person sees pictures of a person drinking, gets offended; why is this situation different? Is it because it involved some variety of sex? Is it because we have now decided certain things that are LEGAL are so taboo we need to morally police them?

College is not a workplace. I am paid to do a certain job at work and maintain a certain degree of "professionalism" including but not limited to my choice of language, dress code etc.

That is where you are dead wrong. Rice IS a work place for a wide variety of people, from professors, to food service workers to grad students. What is done public ally matters. And circulating video and photos counts. We are unaware of how the material was 'presented' to those who were offended.

As a supervisor in a corporate workplace, I have responsibility for maintaining a non-hostile environment in a variety of areas. If there is a complaint from a reasonable person, you are taught to take action. This can include actions by outside vendors and visitors from all the training I have received.

Unless the participants and the college president-elect were the ones who made someone watch, I fail to see how this is their issue.

Again, you are drinking at a party and someone takes a picture. This is put on facebook. This offends an anti-alcohol person. Whose fault is it? Because this situation is very similar from what it sounds like. Except that we associate more taboo to certain subjects for whatever reason.

Given that we have this judgment raining down from society, I agree that taking a video/picture isn't a good idea. Doesn't make it wrong.

I generally agree with your first point, but would point out that whomever took videos qualifies as a participant in my book.

Point 2: sexual harassment is defined as an issue, not sure there is any real legal equivalency for alcohol. Nothing actionable that I am aware of.

Last point gets to the public vs private issue again. Would someone take the video with the intent of keeping it completely private? If so, I would wonder why? It obviously didn't stay private, so it's not relevant here.

With regard to the video, does the President (and the stripper for that matter) have a right to privacy in this matter? Would I have a right to post videos of you on-line without your knowledge or permission?

Even if I did, to paraphrase you above, "it wouldn't make it the right thing to do."

(02-25-2015 07:43 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:40 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 01:03 AM)RiceFight Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 12:43 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 09:44 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  http://m.ricethresher.org/news/strippers...l?mode=jqm I guess there is no such thing as a private space on campus. Interesting read and I feel sorry for the kid who had to give up his year as president.

Based on this article, not sure why you're complaining about Hutch. The president stepped down voluntarily, and there's no indication of Hutchinson doing anything.

The article explicitly says:

"According to the individual, his resignation came with the knowledge that consequences from SJP would have resulted in him having to step down anyway."

That seems pretty much a "resign on your own or we'll do it for you" type of situation.

Correct. And Hutch and Ostdiek might pursue further action against everyone involved according to people with more details than me.

Not sure why you're putting this on Hutch. Now the SJP isn't something I'm familiar with (we had U Court back in my day), but I don't think Hutch runs it. Doing a little digging, it seems that Lisa Zollner is the director of SJP, and makes the rulings?

And even if you meant SJP and not Hutch as the target of your displeasure, this assumes that the kid's reading of the situation was correct.

You are naive if you think Dean Hutch doesn't have final say in all this. He is in the convenient position of saying it wasn't his call, or he didn't arrive at this punishment, but he absolutely did. All decisions of the SJP bear his final stamp. I'm so sick of all of his garbage. He lacks personality, imagination, and FUN. He is an elitist of the highest order, and he is not RICE. How much longer must we tolerate this windbag until he is gone?

(02-26-2015 04:21 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:43 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:40 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 01:03 AM)RiceFight Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 12:43 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Based on this article, not sure why you're complaining about Hutch. The president stepped down voluntarily, and there's no indication of Hutchinson doing anything.

The article explicitly says:

"According to the individual, his resignation came with the knowledge that consequences from SJP would have resulted in him having to step down anyway."

That seems pretty much a "resign on your own or we'll do it for you" type of situation.

Correct. And Hutch and Ostdiek might pursue further action against everyone involved according to people with more details than me.

Not sure why you're putting this on Hutch. Now the SJP isn't something I'm familiar with (we had U Court back in my day), but I don't think Hutch runs it. Doing a little digging, it seems that Lisa Zollner is the director of SJP, and makes the rulings?

And even if you meant SJP and not Hutch as the target of your displeasure, this assumes that the kid's reading of the situation was correct.

You are naive if you think Dean Hutch doesn't have final say in all this. He is in the convenient position of saying it wasn't his call, or he didn't arrive at this punishment, but he absolutely did. All decisions of the SJP bear his final stamp. I'm so sick of all of his garbage. He lacks personality, imagination, and FUN. He is an elitist of the highest order, and he is not RICE. How much longer must we tolerate this windbag until he is gone?

Sorry, you may disagree with his decisions as Dean, but I'm guessing you were not around when he was a Master (twice IIRC) and chemistry professor, because the bolded statement is flat out wrong. The man was a great professor, I know most, if not all the Brown student's liked him as master, and he was everything Rice valued most while in those positions. His chemistry class was one of the best, most engaging classes I took while at Rice, and he truly cared about students.

Just because he may make decisions you disagree with doesn't mean you should insult him personally.

(02-26-2015 04:21 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  You are naive if you think Dean Hutch doesn't have final say in all this. He is in the convenient position of saying it wasn't his call, or he didn't arrive at this punishment, but he absolutely did. All decisions of the SJP bear his final stamp. I'm so sick of all of his garbage. He lacks personality, imagination, and FUN. He is an elitist of the highest order, and he is not RICE. How much longer must we tolerate this windbag until he is gone?

Who you are describing isn't the Hutch I know.

Given the information we have, I think this decision is ridiculous. Still, you can disagree with someone without coming up with odd adjectives to describe them.

(02-26-2015 05:00 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 04:21 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  You are naive if you think Dean Hutch doesn't have final say in all this. He is in the convenient position of saying it wasn't his call, or he didn't arrive at this punishment, but he absolutely did. All decisions of the SJP bear his final stamp. I'm so sick of all of his garbage. He lacks personality, imagination, and FUN. He is an elitist of the highest order, and he is not RICE. How much longer must we tolerate this windbag until he is gone?

... you can disagree with someone without coming up with odd adjectives to describe them.

I don't have any personal knowledge of the events or players in question, but I will quibble (in a Rice-ist way) that I don't see any "odd adjectives" in tramile12's rant (with the possible exceptions of "final" and "highest").

(02-26-2015 05:19 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  I don't have any personal knowledge of the events or players in question, but I will quibble (in a Rice-ist way) that I don't see any "odd adjectives" in tramile12's rant (with the possible exceptions of "final" and "highest").

Not long ago I used the word "ingenuous" (which started a little sidebar) on the Quad, and the phrases "rootless relativism" and "beery companionship" in other forums. How you like them adjectives?

(02-26-2015 05:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 05:19 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  I don't have any personal knowledge of the events or players in question, but I will quibble (in a Rice-ist way) that I don't see any "odd adjectives" in tramile12's rant (with the possible exceptions of "final" and "highest").

Not long ago I used the word "ingenuous" (which started a little sidebar) on the Quad, and the phrases "rootless relativism" and "beery companionship" in other forums. How you like them adjectives?

Love 'em! But I wouldn't think of ingenuous, rootless or beery in describing you. :-)

I am shocked that there is nudity going on, just like Renault being shocked there was gambling going on in the movie Casablanca. It reminds me of 1974 when the streaking craze was going on. One streaker ran across the field during the 1974 Rice-UH football game and got by with by hiding some spare clothes with the Rice bench. The same male walked around naked for most of a Rice-Texas baseball game in 1975 and nobody seemed to be worried about it. Maybe people worry too much these days about things we used to not worry about.

BTW, the stripper was not forced to do it and the money is probably better than she could get for some alternative job such as fast food etc.

(02-26-2015 11:36 AM)CrabCake Wrote:  Does anyone have any information regarding the person(s) making the complaint against the student recently elected President of McMurtry College? Are they affiliated with the student which lost the election? Could this be a form of retaliation against the student which won the election? Do they have an axe to grind with the College or elsewhere on campus?

Given what we know as reported in the Rice Thresher, it appears this incident has exploded out of proportion to other "long-standing campus traditions" at Rice (i.e., Baker 13 where students run through campus naked; Night of Decadence where students are packed into a public space scantily clad in the presence of a large amount of alcohol; Hanszen Mardi Gras Party where a stripping contest is held supported by College funds; etc.). So, I wonder if there is something behind it which has yet to come to light?

Or, to pose the question differently, what makes these "long-standing campus traditions" acceptable (and continually supported by the University), yet the hiring of a stripper with private funds to perform in a private setting behind closed doors in the presence of people voluntarily participating is deemed so egregious?

Buhler?

(02-26-2015 07:16 PM)75src Wrote:  I am shocked that there is nudity going on, just like Renault being shocked there was gambling going on in the movie Casablanca. It reminds me of 1974 when the streaking craze was going on. One streaker ran across the field during the 1974 Rice-UH football game and got by with by hiding some spare clothes with the Rice bench. The same male walked around naked for most of a Rice-Texas baseball game in 1975 and nobody seemed to be worried about it. Maybe people worry too much these days about things we used to not worry about.

BTW, the stripper was not forced to do it and the money is probably better than she could get for some alternative job such as fast food etc.

(02-26-2015 11:36 AM)CrabCake Wrote:  Does anyone have any information regarding the person(s) making the complaint against the student recently elected President of McMurtry College? Are they affiliated with the student which lost the election? Could this be a form of retaliation against the student which won the election? Do they have an axe to grind with the College or elsewhere on campus?

Given what we know as reported in the Rice Thresher, it appears this incident has exploded out of proportion to other "long-standing campus traditions" at Rice (i.e., Baker 13 where students run through campus naked; Night of Decadence where students are packed into a public space scantily clad in the presence of a large amount of alcohol; Hanszen Mardi Gras Party where a stripping contest is held supported by College funds; etc.). So, I wonder if there is something behind it which has yet to come to light?

Or, to pose the question differently, what makes these "long-standing campus traditions" acceptable (and continually supported by the University), yet the hiring of a stripper with private funds to perform in a private setting behind closed doors in the presence of people voluntarily participating is deemed so egregious?

Buhler?

Thanks for the reply, but that doesn't really answer the question. Yes, I do realize that there is nudity on campus as I gave a few examples where such occurs. And, yes, I do realize the stripper was not forced into her activities regardless of the amount of money (which isn't the crux of the debate).

My argument is I don't think rules/regulations are being uniformly applied across campus despite similar situations (i.e., hostile environments) occurring.

(02-26-2015 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 04:21 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:43 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:40 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 01:03 AM)RiceFight Wrote:  The article explicitly says:

"According to the individual, his resignation came with the knowledge that consequences from SJP would have resulted in him having to step down anyway."

That seems pretty much a "resign on your own or we'll do it for you" type of situation.

Correct. And Hutch and Ostdiek might pursue further action against everyone involved according to people with more details than me.

Not sure why you're putting this on Hutch. Now the SJP isn't something I'm familiar with (we had U Court back in my day), but I don't think Hutch runs it. Doing a little digging, it seems that Lisa Zollner is the director of SJP, and makes the rulings?

And even if you meant SJP and not Hutch as the target of your displeasure, this assumes that the kid's reading of the situation was correct.

You are naive if you think Dean Hutch doesn't have final say in all this. He is in the convenient position of saying it wasn't his call, or he didn't arrive at this punishment, but he absolutely did. All decisions of the SJP bear his final stamp. I'm so sick of all of his garbage. He lacks personality, imagination, and FUN. He is an elitist of the highest order, and he is not RICE. How much longer must we tolerate this windbag until he is gone?

Sorry, you may disagree with his decisions as Dean, but I'm guessing you were not around when he was a Master (twice IIRC) and chemistry professor, because the bolded statement is flat out wrong. The man was a great professor, I know most, if not all the Brown student's liked him as master, and he was everything Rice valued most while in those positions. His chemistry class was one of the best, most engaging classes I took while at Rice, and he truly cared about students.

Just because he may make decisions you disagree with doesn't mean you should insult him personally.

oh, god forbid I insult the man! That would be just, rude! And an insult would be that he is a Jackazzz, or a Douch.....and so on. I clearly did NOT say those things. I guess he should have stuck with chemistry then, because as a fair disciplinarian he is sorely lacking, as evidenced by decision after decision. Fair is not in his vocabulary.

I stand by my statement.

(02-27-2015 02:07 AM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 04:21 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:43 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:40 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Correct. And Hutch and Ostdiek might pursue further action against everyone involved according to people with more details than me.

Not sure why you're putting this on Hutch. Now the SJP isn't something I'm familiar with (we had U Court back in my day), but I don't think Hutch runs it. Doing a little digging, it seems that Lisa Zollner is the director of SJP, and makes the rulings?

And even if you meant SJP and not Hutch as the target of your displeasure, this assumes that the kid's reading of the situation was correct.

You are naive if you think Dean Hutch doesn't have final say in all this. He is in the convenient position of saying it wasn't his call, or he didn't arrive at this punishment, but he absolutely did. All decisions of the SJP bear his final stamp. I'm so sick of all of his garbage. He lacks personality, imagination, and FUN. He is an elitist of the highest order, and he is not RICE. How much longer must we tolerate this windbag until he is gone?

Sorry, you may disagree with his decisions as Dean, but I'm guessing you were not around when he was a Master (twice IIRC) and chemistry professor, because the bolded statement is flat out wrong. The man was a great professor, I know most, if not all the Brown student's liked him as master, and he was everything Rice valued most while in those positions. His chemistry class was one of the best, most engaging classes I took while at Rice, and he truly cared about students.

Just because he may make decisions you disagree with doesn't mean you should insult him personally.

oh, god forbid I insult the man! That would be just, rude! And an insult would be that he is a Jackazzz, or a Douch.....and so on. I clearly did NOT say those things. I guess he should have stuck with chemistry then, because as a fair disciplinarian he is sorely lacking, as evidenced by decision after decision. Fair is not in his vocabulary.

I stand by my statement.

Keep doubling down and you just might be hired by Fox News. Seriously, have you even met Dean Hutch?