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
Before you attend a counseling session at the Rice counseling center, you will be told that “the RCC maintains strict standards regarding privacy.” You will find statements from the university that your mental health record will not be shared with anyone outside of extreme situations of imminent harm, and only then that your information will be shared with only the necessary officials. This sounds great, except that these assurances bear no teeth whatsoever — no enforcement agency ensures that Rice follows its public confidentiality promises, and there are no penalties for Rice if they break them. The Wellbeing and Counseling Centers should more directly communicate the limits of their confidentiality policies when compared to unaffiliated counseling centers, and students in sensitive situations should take the necessary precautions to protect their information.
This week marks the last issue of the Thresher for the year, and for the seniors like myself, our last issue ever. I have been a part of the Thresher since freshman year. And it would not be an exaggeration to say it has defined my Rice experience. As someone pursuing a career in journalism after graduation, there has been no better place to learn than at this paper.
In January, the Rice Board of Trustees announced plans to move the Founder’s memorial to another area of the academic quad as part of a whole redesign, adding additional context of his “entanglement” with slavery. This comes despite continual calls from the student body to not have the enslaver displayed in the quad regardless of the context provided. It would be just for these calls to action and the majority of the Task Force Committee who voted to not keep it there that the Board of Trustees decide to not keep the memorial prominently displayed in the quad at all.