A Response to “SA to vote on resolution rejecting speaker disinvitations.”
“SA to vote on resolution supporting student values and freedom of expression” perhaps would have been a more apt headline for the article the Thresher ran on Tuesday summarizing the findings of the Student Association’s Academic Freedom Working Group. The actual title of the piece — “SA to vote on resolution rejecting speaker disinvitations” — conveyed neither the scope of our resolution nor the spirit of its content.
Over the past three semesters, the Academic Freedom Working Group has pursued a single mission: to determine the values of Rice students regarding matters of free expression and to encourage the university itself to promote those values, whether in the form of an SA resolution, as will appear before the Senate this week, or in the form of statements or policies from Rice faculty and administrators.
Gathering data from the Survey of All Students and a voluntary Google survey, we spent hours analyzing the responses and drafting a resolution that accurately represented our findings. The process was painstaking and involved little creativity. With the exception of our suggestion that Rice take measures to protect and support the mental health of students, we recommended nothing in the resolution (or letter to the faculty) that was not amply supported by the data we accrued.
In fact, whereas Tuesday’s article claimed our report tagged mental health as a “low priority” among students, our data actually showed mental health to be just one important factor among many — and a factor to be given due consideration — when inviting speakers to campus. Both our letter and report signify as much, calling for the university to support the mental well-being of students through campus resources, emphasizing the empowerment of students to advocate for themselves, and reiterating Rice’s right to officially disagree with, if not to censor, speakers or speech that contravene its values.
Furthermore, we wish to clarify the statement in last week’s article asserting that the recommendations of our letter “prohibited forms of speech [that] would include direct attempts to incite violence, threaten or defame.” In reality, prohibited forms of speech not only “would include” but already do include the listed actions, because they are already proscribed as non-protected speech under the First Amendment — not because our letter merely recommends their prohibition.
Ultimately, if the spirit of the Academic Freedom Working Group was unclear from Tuesday’s article, we hope to illuminate it now. Throughout the course of a year and a half, the members of this working group have strived to garner as wide a dataset as possible so that we could, with confidence and clarity, understand the values of Rice students regarding freedom of expression and champion those values to the governmental and administrative arms of the university. We’re mediaries, not masterminds, and we trust that our resolution reflects this role.
By the Academic Freedom Working Group members:
Reagan Kapp (Duncan College Senior)
Mahdi Fariss (McMurtry College Junior)
Albert Nabiullin (McMurtry Senator, Senior)
James Altschul (Hanszen College Junior)
Juliette Turner (Duncan Senator, Sophomore)
Maurice Frediere (SA Parliamentarian, Duncan College Junior)
Taara Clarke (Brown College Junior)
More from The Rice Thresher
ChatGPT is far from the villain it’s made out to be.
Last week’s issue of the Thresher included a letter to the editor that discussed the use of ChatGPT by Rice students. Felicity talks about how the reason we came to Rice was “to grow as a student and individual,” and I believe that in this regard, they are absolutely correct. Where she errs is when she implies throughout the article that this growth and intellectual stimulation are completely incompatible with the use of ChatGPT as an online tool. She is most certainly not the only one who holds that view. Many professors at Rice and across the world are currently grappling with how to handle the rise of A.I. I firmly believe that ChatGPT does have a place in academia and that the vast majority of Rice students are using ChatGPT in a positive manner that actually contributes to their educational pursuits.
Letter to the Editor: When you talk about AI, remember what we’re in school for
Yes, this article was written by a real person. The most recent issue of the Thresher included an opinion piece about the use of the artificial intelligence technology ChatGPT in academic contexts. The article, which was generated by the program itself as a display of its writing capabilities, highlighted ChatGPT’s efficiency and usefulness for “students at Rice University who are short on time and need to quickly finish an assignment.” As Rice and many universities grapple with AI’s place in their classrooms and plagiarism policies, I want to contribute a perspective that I found absent in the original article: efficiency is not the point of higher education.
Rice needs more streamlined democracy and less Ed. Board tabloidism
Last week, I quit my role as Student Association director of elections because I need to take more time for music and academia this semester, but there are two additional reasons I left the position relevant to campus politics that I want to share.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.