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
Comments like “What’s with the suit? What’s the occasion? Who’s getting married?” surrounded me as I strolled into my college commons one day last fall. It caught me off guard; why am I the only one dressed up on career fair day? My bioengineering friend quickly answered my question. “Why should I bother going to the career fair?” he said. “There’s no bioengineering companies there.” He’s absolutely right. But the problem extends beyond just bioengineering.
In the 18th Century, Immanuel Kant (often considered the central figure in modern philosophy) used the phrase Spaere aude in a 1784 essay titled “Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment.” Translated from Latin, it means “dare to know,” or in some cases, “dare to be wise.” Kant argued our inability to think for ourselves was due to fear, not due to a lack of intellect. In the opening paragraph of his essay, Kant states “Have the courage to use your own reason—that is the motto of enlightenment.”
The Oscars may be so white, but Houston art isn’t — as long as you’re looking in the right places. It is all too true that arts organizations still fall short of creating accessible spaces with equitable representation of artists. For instance, white men still make up the majority of artists represented in prominent museums across the United States. Even with increased attention to elevating the work of women artists and an uptick in women-only art shows and exhibitions focused on the work of underrepresented artists, only 11% of permanent acquisitions by major American art museums from 2008 to 2019 were by women; of that 11%, only 3.3.% were by Black women artists.