Administration should listen to student voices
Amid a flurry of RSVPs, the Student Association claimed on their Facebook event for the CUC protest that the Faculty Senate will “likely approve” the widely contested credit hour limit proposal. While how the Faculty Senate intends to vote has not been confirmed, the fierce student opposition to the CUC’s proposal makes it perfectly clear that if the administration cares at all about our voices, they will vote “no.”
700 students (and counting) have expressed either interest or commitment to the SA’s sit-in protest event on Facebook, and 87 percent of respondents in an SA survey have opposed the proposal. If the Faculty Senate votes to approve the credit hour limits, it will be one of the most blatant confirmations of everything that many Rice students may have already suspected: The administration does not care about our voices.
The SA’s response to the proposal has been an example of good leadership. Not only did the SA gather students’ responses through surveys, but they also gave a thorough presentation during a Senate meeting outlining student concerns as well as other alternatives to solve the issue at hand. That the Faculty Senate has moved to vote so quickly feels likes deception, and that other possible alternatives were ignored.
What is the point of conducting surveys across residential colleges to gauge student opinion if student opinion holds no weight? Why do we act as though the Student Senate has any form of oversight? Why does the SA bother to provide suggestions for alternatives when ultimately, these options are ignored in favor of the original, highly unpopular proposal?
A vote by the Faculty Senate to approve this proposal is a slap in the face to the many students who have voiced their legitimate concerns, and will shatter any remaining illusion that Rice students have a say in their education.
More from The Rice Thresher
“[Calls] to remove Rice’s statue are problematic and should be rejected. They present a false view that we should not commemorate a historical figure who has made valuable contributions to society because this person had moral flaws,“ writes Jacob Saldinger (Sid Richardson ‘16).
“When we talk about a “return” to campus, we must be clear that it is not in any sense a return... The classroom to which about half the faculty has agreed to return will not be the classroom we left in March,“ writes English professor Helena Michie.
Earlier this month, an amalgamation of NBA players announced that they would be replacing the names on the back of their jerseys for the rest of this upcoming season with NBA-approved social justice-related phrases such as “equality” and “freedom.” These types of phrases should be foundational principles upon which we stand, but the NBA’s decision to let players put these phrases on the back of their jerseys leaves one asking: What about human rights violations in China? Will NBA players be allowed to put “I stand with the Uighurs” or “Free Hong Kong” on the back of their jerseys? The Chinese Communist party has carried out human rights abuses targeting many different minority groups in Xinjiang and has forced groups like the Uighurs, Kazakhs and others into internment camps, where they are perpetually surveilled while given little to no rights.