Editorial: SA president must represent all student opinions
The resolution supporting the Lifetime Enrichment Achievement Program failed to pass the Student Association Senate on Monday. However, SA President Justin Onwenu will present the results of both the SA and student body votes to the Committee of Undergraduate Curriculum. If the CUC approves, the resolution will be voted on by the Faculty Senate.
We are skeptical of Onwenu’s decision to bring the proposal to the CUC after the Senate’s vote; while a simple majority of the Senate, which represents the student body, supported moving forward with LEAP by a narrow margin, the vote fell well below the constitutionally mandated two-thirds threshold. Although most students marked themselves in favor of LEAP in the Survey of all Students, Onwenu cannot discount the qualitative feedback that senators and presidents have received nor the Senate vote. Given that almost every other piece of Senate legislation introduced in the last four years has passed, the LEAP resolution’s failure should certainly raise alarms.
Onwenu may be right that a vocal minority is holding back the LEAP proposal. Nevertheless, he should ensure that his presentation of the proposal to the CUC is nuanced and representative of the diverse opinions expressed through this process, both for and against. Onwenu should not present the 13-12 vote on the proposal as a consensus that the student body has already decided to favor. By doing so, Onwenu would risk completely disregarding significant concerns among the student body, not to mention ignoring the deliberative process which the Senate is intended to establish. Instead, Onwenu should emphasize the resolution does not have the legislative support of the student government.
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.