Don’t let paid wristbands become the norm at publics
Three years ago, in the pre-COVID world, there were only three public parties that charged for admittance. NOD and Y2K needed the money to hire extra security, and Architectronica charged because it wasn’t funded by a college and depended on the money from ticket sales to cover event fees. Now, we fear more colleges will charge for entrance to publics, a poor practice we urge socials to avoid.
Three years later, as publics finally return in full force, seniors who had a taste of the old, free publics find themselves perplexed by the new changes while reminiscing about the lost institutional knowledge of pre-pandemic Rice. But tradition isn’t the only thing that the new “pay for wristband” system is harming. Though $5 and under price tags generally wouldn’t prohibit any student from attending, it has sparked a growing resale market with wristbands being sold for upwards of $20. This resale market especially affects freshmen, who already feel social pressure to fit into college culture and are likely to buy these resale tickets even at an unreasonable price. Further, paying without clear justification to attend a public defeats the purpose of a “public” party.
Despite all of this, buying and securing wristbands doesn’t even guarantee adittance. Tickets are typically oversold, as in the case of Martel College’s public last Saturday, which results in extended lines and destroys the original purpose of charging a fee: limiting capacity. Three years ago, capacity issues solved themselves. With security monitoring the crowd inside, everyone could show up and line up; when the line felt too long, people simply left. Not to mention that most students do not intend on staying at a public from beginning to end. But being required to pay for admission and the extensive process required to secure a wristband might alter that, decreasing the number of overall students who are able to attend at all.
With the university expanding its student population, the issue of limited attendance at popular student events will only become more prevalent. Conversations surrounding how to preserve the old Rice culture and to ensure the same college experience for future Rice students need to be a focus for the administration and individual residential colleges alike.
Editor’s Note: Thresher editorials are collectively written by the members of the Thresher’s editorial board. Current members include Morgan Gage, Ben Baker-Katz, Bonnie Zhao, Hajera Naveed, Nayeli Shad, Riya Misra, Michelle Gachellin, Daniel Schrager, Prayag Gordy and Brandon Chen.
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.