SA should not discourage fiery rhetoric
At the most recent Student Association meeting, SA President Ravi Sheth and other SA members expressed concerns over what they considered to be the aggressive wording of the legislation opposing the CUC drop limit proposal (see p. 1). Another point of contention raised in the meeting was whether such a formal mode of expressing disapproval was constructive or appropriate. The Thresher believes that, by critiquing the language of the proposal, SA members distract from the function of the legislation, which is to act as a permanent record of student response to administrative actions.
Focusing on the rhetoric instead of the content of legislation diminishes serious discussion of issues important to students. Student-led efforts to respond to administrative actions should be supported and intelligently discussed instead of dismissed for their tones. Students should feel secure in voicing their opinions, no matter how rhetorically strong and oppositional, within outlets designed for the purpose, such as the SA.
More generally, the student body should feel secure knowing that opposition to the administration is an important aspect of a healthy campus dialogue. The administration should not discourage students from voicing their opinions, but should instead listen closely to what the entire student body believes, not just the SA president.
In the past few years, The Rice Student Association has not once voted against a proposal introduced by the administration or faculty. Rather, the SA’s preferred mode of action seems to be to introduce legislation in support of proposals, which is subsequently either accepted (in the case of a “yes” vote) or tabled indefinitely (in lieu of a definitive “no”). On a campus where collaboration with the administration is encouraged and vocal disagreement dismissed for its rhetoric, students must reclaim the spaces designed specifically for the vocalization of their concerns.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the Thresher editorial staff. All other opinion pieces represent solely the opinion of the piece’s author.
More from The Rice Thresher
Whether you hate or love our content, there's a way to get involved, whether through writing, photography, videography, or design. Yes, I'm biased about how great the Thresher is — did I say I supported unbiased journalism? — but this is just one claim you can't fact check
Remember that we are fellow students seeking to deliver truth to the community with the best intentions in mind. I am deeply appreciative of every student, staff member, faculty and administrator that has shared their stories, data and viewpoints with me. Without the Rice community’s buy-in, the important work we do would not be possible.
As a Students Turning Rice Into a Violence-Free Environment liaison, the organization and its mission are incredibly important to me. I originally joined because, as a survivor myself, I wanted to be a part of facilitating safe spaces on campus through educating my peers and acting as a resource to provide support. STRIVE cares a lot about the student body and puts an extreme number of hours into raising awareness and making themselves accessible, as we have seen with the recent survivor panels, college-specific events throughout the year and their response to an anonymous 2019 Thresher opinion. However, we need to readjust how STRIVE is not only viewed and utilized by the student body but also how it is run. The place the organization holds now oversteps into the lives of liaisons and other students and goes beyond what they set out to do with their mission statement.