Administration takes Thresher editorial out of context
In an email sent to the student body to clarify concerns surrounding the credit hour cap proposal recently passed by the Faculty Senate, Provost Marie Lynn Miranda and President David Leebron referenced the Thresher when describing past student input. They wrote, "The Thresher endorsed the proposal in a March 22 editorial, even before additional student input was incorporated."
The Thresher would like to clarify its stance on the proposal. The original editorial was titled “Careful Consideration Required Before Credit Limit.” While it is true that the editorial did support the ideas behind the proposal, we emphasized that student opinion must be taken into consideration before passing a proposal that would directly impact undergraduates. Provost Miranda and President Leebron’s email took our editorial out of context by foregoing any of the caution we called for when we wrote that “These proposed changes have admirable intentions, but those alone are not reason enough to institute them.”
Furthermore, this original editorial was actually published in our February 24 issue, well before any student input had been gathered. (The March 22 time stamp on the online version is a mistake on our part, and we do not fault Provost Miranda or President Leebron on this point). Once it became evident that the vast majority of the SA survey respondents opposed this proposal and that many students intended to protest at the Faculty Senate meeting, the Thresher wrote its latest editorial regarding the CUC proposal on April 19 in which we stated, in no uncertain terms, that “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.”
Provost Miranda and President Leebron conveniently decided to gloss over our latest editorial, which made abundantly clear the Thresher’s opposition to passing this proposal, whatever its possible merits, in light of students’ concerns. If the administration truly cares about students’ voices, then they shouldn’t cherry-pick the ones they deem convenient and misrepresent them to fit their own agenda.
More from The Rice Thresher
On May 25, Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd. Chauvin, a Minnesota police officer, pressed his knee against Floyd’s neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the ground. Floyd did not merely “die in police custody” as the Washington Post and other publications continue to insist on phrasing it. As Floyd pleaded that he couldn’t breathe, a police officer killed him. Active voice.
In the midst of a global pandemic, Betsy DeVos, the United States Secretary of Education, announced new Title IX regulations that govern how schools handle allegations of sexual assault and harrassment. Under the guise of restoring due process, the changes harm and undermine survivors by enhancing protections for those accused of misconduct.
The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have given rise to a new phrase that has been thrown around by media outlets and social media users across the country: “We are all in this together.” Don’t get me wrong — I am not denying the fact that every person in this country has been impacted by the virus in some capacity, and I am certainly not denying the rise in local expressions of solidarity. Over the past couple months, we’ve seen students and volunteers across the country donate their time and resources to help their neighbors. Young people have come together on social media platforms to address issues surrounding mental health and online learning, creating a sense of community while also practicing social distancing. I am not denying the presence of solidarity. What I would like to discuss, however, is the fallacy of solidarity in a racialized society.