Editorial: LPAP expansion not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question
This Monday, Student Association President Justin Onwenu announced that the Lifetime Physical Activity Program expansion proposal would be included in the Survey for All Students. The proposal would would allow students to fulfill the LPAP requirement through classes outside of physical fitness including financial literacy, civic engagement and leadership. Onwenu’s announcement was met with concern from some SA members that there had not been enough exploration of other proposals.
Putting the LPAP expansion on the Survey of All Students reduces students’ feedback on the proposal to a simple “yes” or “no” vote. Though the traditional SA process of forming a working group to gather ideas and then formulate a proposal is not necessarily the most efficient, it is a tried and true way to explore a wider range of opportunities than Onwenu’s current decision to choose one idea and allow the student body to vote either yes or no. If the proposal truly aims to serve greater student interests, limiting student feedback is not the way to achieve that. Rather, the SA should continue to invite ideas from the rest of the student body by gathering feedback from college governments and then present a proposal for voting — if one at all.
While we applaud the SA’s initiative in looking to create and expand classes that focus on students’ lifetime enrichment, these classes do not necessarily have to come in the context of changing the LPAP requirement. The SA should continue to pursue the creation of these classes and treat changing the LPAP requirement as a separate project, which will require massive student buy-in. Moving forward, the SA needs to focus on collecting both qualitative and quantitative feedback on the LPAP requirement rather than pushing a singular proposal by attempting to fabricate a student mandate for change.
More from The Rice Thresher
The words “free speech” will likely elicit groans from Thresher readers. Over the last three years, there have been three articles in the Opinion section bemoaning the need for a “classically liberal” political discourse at Rice. Unfortunately, between their self-righteousness and needless wordiness, they read more like whiny lectures than conversation starters. However, despite their condescension, their existence does suggest something unsettling about not just our campus politics, but politics at large. As the electorates of democracies around the world have become more sharply divided, the way we speak to each other, not just across the aisle but to our similarly minded partisans, has become more accusatory, exclusionary and violent. Put simply: we do not want to talk to each other, and understandably so. It is exhausting, and, more than that, we just don’t seem to know how to.
For the first time since 2019, Rice is not allowing undergraduate students to remain in their on-campus housing during winter break. While this is a disappointing development, we understand why this decision needed to be made. Like students, staff need a break after a long semester. Further, keeping students on campus by providing housing over break was originally implemented to address pandemic travel restrictions, which are mostly gone. However, the need for winter housing is not gone. This decision still leaves some international students — or any other on-campus student looking to remain in Houston — scrambling for housing.
For the past year, I have served as an at-large representative on the Rice Honor Council. I have sat through dozens of cases, read hundreds of pages of evidence and spent countless hours working to improve the transparency and fairness of the Honor System. While there are a myriad of issues with the Honor System, as there are with any institutional system, there is one in particular that needs to be addressed with expediency. The Honor Council is currently not an effective deliberative body due to the general lack of engagement from some of its members, which include elected representatives.