Contingency Committee progress on Honor Council case shows potential
Following their inaction in addressing Honor Council’s blanket tax status, the Student Association Blanket Tax Contingency Committee sent a request for documents and a written statement about the organization’s blanket tax on Oct. 5. The Contingency Committee has also made public their planned meeting dates and times (see p.1).
The Thresher commends the SA for finally taking action on Honor Council’s case. The SA now has the opportunity to set precedent for the future handling of similar procedures.
In addition, hopefully the committee’s activity will encourage a broader discussion on the issues surrounding the blanket tax process in general. The system, as it exists now, is broken and does not encourage accountability and responsibility within blanket tax organizations.
The questions the SA has posed to Honor Council directly and succinctly address its financial issues — the amount of money spent at its annual changeover dinner, its consistent practice of rolling over more than 50 percent of its blanket tax revenue and the effect a cut in its blanket tax would have on the organization. Hopefully Honor Council’s responses will shed light on the confusing aspects of its case.
The Thresher also commends the Honor Council for cooperating with the SA throughout the review process. Honor Council has shown that they are willing to address their financial indiscretions moving forward — further cooperation can only improve the outcome for all parties involved.
In the future, the SA should strive to achieve the same level of transparency has now implemented for the Contingency Committee’s meetings and projected timeline.
Making SA information more public, especially when the information must be made public for official purposes, allows the student body to hold the SA more accountable to its promises and procedures, including those involving student money.
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
Two years ago, a group of Thresher staffers went to Washington D.C. to attend the College Media Association’s annual convention, during which student journalists shared concerns that their communities didn’t take them seriously. Administrators would patronize them and ignore emails, and coverage often went unread.
For those of you who are seniors, you’ll remember a campus controversy that broke out in April 2019 when The Hoot announced its decision to stop serving Chick-fil-A amid criticism of its donations to three organizations — the Salvation Army, the Paul Anderson Youth Home and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes — that have taken anti-LGBTQ+ stances. When the policy took effect the following fall, I spoke out against the decision in this paper, arguing the secondary boycott was nothing more than token enforcement of an unworkable standard. I still believe that we shouldn’t take into account political considerations when we eat. But The Hoot didn’t budge, and the controversy quickly faded away. I have close friends on both sides of the issue, so I didn’t push the matter any further.
We’re nearing the end of another semester in the COVID-19 pandemic, filled with policy changes requiring flexibility from administration, faculty and students alike. We appreciate the administration’s responsiveness to the evolving pandemic, but the continuous changes are not without consequences. This semester has been hard on many students’ mental health due to insufficient academic accommodations on top of pandemic-related stress. While we understand the necessity in being flexible with COVID policies due to the ever-changing nature of the pandemic, administration and professors should recognize the impact this has on students and their mental health, and be proactive in accounting for this.