Thinking toward a more transparent Rice University

10/6/15 6:30pm

Rice University Police Department has been subject to open records requests for more than a month now.

Put another way, that means anybody can request information about RUPD’s law enforcement activities. It’s the result of a Texas Legislature bill that extends the Texas Public Information Act to all private university police forces in the state.

This has been exciting for multiple reasons. For one, students have been able to view RUPD incident records and gain clarity on their cases. Most importantly, though, students can now hold RUPD accountable for their policing practices. RUPD can no longer hide behind Rice’s status as a private university when their actions affect the immediate community, as they did when they came under scrutiny for their treatment of a bike thief last year.

---

---

RUPD’s new transparency is a step in the right direction for a more publicly accountable Rice, but the university can do more. After all, Texas state legislation forced the university’s hand on this.

I want to ask you, now, to imagine a world where Rice University — all of it — is subject to open records requests. This is not a practical call to action, but a thought experiment. Texas public universities have been subject to open records requests since the Texas Public Information Act was passed in 1973, so why not imagine a private university that must answer to more people than its board of trustees?

Transparency can reveal much about an institution’s pathology. In 2010, open records requests made to the University of Houston revealed how Rice and the University of Houston collaborated to keep secret the sale of the KTRU’s license, broadcast frequency and tower for as long as possible. Because the University of Houston is a public university, it had to comply with requests for all e-mail correspondence with Rice about the sale. In this case, the public’s right to know revealed exactly how far Rice will go to keep information from the public. We, as students, must resist administrative secrecy when their decisions so directly affect us.

Transparency can be empowering. Students already have a right to request their education records through the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and while you can only request to see your own records, individual examples can still reveal broader trends. When the Fountain Hopper, a student-run Stanford website and newsletter, publicized that students had the right to view their admissions files, many were able to learn specifics about how the admissions process operates and what traits universities value. (Hint: Many of these “traits,” such as legacy status and donation histories, disproportionately favor privileged applicants.)

How did the Rice Office of Admission respond to Fountain Hopper-inspired FERPA requests? With an aggressive shrug. According to the Office of Admissions, Rice throws away almost all material used during the review process. Imagine: In an age where it is so easy to securely store large quantities of information digitally, Rice throws out valuable data it could use. More importantly, Rice throws out information students have a right to request. Many would argue otherwise, but I believe the college admissions files are fundamentally “education records.”

I want to reiterate that a completely transparent Rice isn’t an imperative, but a provocation. Even if Rice may not need to answer to a public, it must answer to students and other community members. A more transparent Rice would not discard student records. A more transparent Rice would not issue decisions about Orientation Week without better informing and involving the student body throughout the process. And a more transparent Rice would definitely not protect its police amid allegations of excessive force.

Miles Kruppa is a senior and the Thresher Senior Editor.

---