Editorial: Open doors should be encouraged, not fined
Housing and Dining has fined students at Will Rice College $200 per room for disabling the door closing mechanisms, which has sparked fears of a crackdown on door propping and “carding” (preventing automatic locking) at other colleges.
Door propping is like underage drinking: The university technically doesn’t allow it, there might be some associated risks, and yet a large portion of students do it anyway. Given this situation and the widespread nature of door propping, sudden enforcement of large fines seems both unfair and likely to spark further backlash from the student body. Enforcement is also arbitrary — whether a student is in her room when H&D checks the door can determine whether she owes the university $200. The use of fines introduces inequity in punishment: The financial resources available to students vary and lower-income students are more heavily affected.
While there are logical reasons for the existence of door rules — reduction of theft, prevention of intruders into students’ rooms — students should be given the freedom to make this tradeoff between risk and convenience. If a pair of roommates decide to card their door and jeopardize their belongings, that should be their choice. As college students who should be learning to “adult,” these are the kind of decisions we should be allowed to make.
It’s true that there are circumstances where a student’s choice to prop a door might affect others, in which the university’s hands are tied — in particular, fire safety rules fall into this category. Aside from those situations, however, H&D should drop its paternalistic attitude toward door propping and carding and legitimize the already well-established practice.
Editor-in-chief Juan Saldaña recused himself from the writing of this editorial.
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.