Letter to the editor: Saying yes to students means listening to them — not just assuming

By Andrew Kim     4/19/25 6:18pm

Editor’s Note: This is a letter to the editor that has been submitted by a member of the Rice community. The views expressed in this opinion are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Thresher or its editorial board. Letters to the editor are fact-checked to the best of our ability and edited for grammar and spelling by Thresher editors.

Last week, Student Association Treasurer Jackson Darr defended this year’s dramatic Blanket Tax funding cuts as a commitment to equity, transparency and service to all students. The Blanket Tax Committee must scrutinize whether it’s truly upholding those values.

Equity demands context

---

---

The BTC asserts that approving only $6,000 of the $14,000 requested by the Rice Women’s Resource Center reflects consistent standards between BTOs. This sounds equitable, but it overlooks important context.

At their founding, RWRC had an over $15,000 budget (in 2025 dollars), with aspirations to double it. However, decades of constrained funding extinguished many of their student-serving initiatives.

That changed in 2023, when the student body voted RWRC into BTO status to ensure that funding would not interfere with rebuilding their campus-wide presence. As noted in a report co-written by Darr during his time as a New Student Representative, RWRC has “struggled with a stagnant budget since the 1990s,” but a roughly 73 percent increase “allowed them to expand vital initiatives like self-defense workshops, zine-making, and menstrual product distribution.”

This year, RWRC requested funding to maintain that momentum. In their meeting, the BTC asked clarifying questions about new line items like office supplies and retreat accessibility, which RWRC substantively addressed.

Two days later, the BTC didn’t just reject the increase — they slashed RWRC’s 2024-2025 funding by $1,000.

Nearly all BTOs faced cuts this year, but largely for prohibited expenses like travel. RWRC, by contrast, was cut for “historical underspending.” Had the BTC asked RWRC about this, they would have learned that last year’s dip stemmed from anomalous leadership, and that effectively all of this year’s funds will be spent by semester’s end. Meanwhile, U-Court spent under 12 percent of their budget at the time of review and received a smaller cut than RWRC.

Equity is not equality — it considers context to level the playing field. RWRC, a new BTO revitalizing rather than sustaining operations, shouldn’t be judged by the same standards as long-established ones. Even if they were, the BTC punished RWRC disproportionately.

Transparency is accountability

In response to criticism that RWRC wasn’t given the chance to contextualize past spending, Darr wrote that other BTOs “anticipated potential concerns and proactively addressed them.” This misrepresents whose responsibility it is to raise questions.

The BTC’s constitutional mandate is to ensure the Blanket Tax serves students. BTOs can and should justify their requests, but they aren’t mind-readers who can address questions that were never asked.

BTOs in expansion are especially disadvantaged when expected to justify both current expenses and new initiatives in a 15-minute meeting. A transparent process requires the BTC to voice their own uncertainties and give BTOs the chance to respond.

After backlash at Senate, the SA Executive Team sent targeted emails to cultural club leaders warning that RWRC’s advocacy endangered their funding. This framing pits Rice’s affinity groups against each other and undermines trust in SA’s commitment to fairly representing all students. Transparency demands self-reflection when harm is done, even unintentionally.

To serve all students, you must listen to them

I sincerely respect the BTC’s goals to improve a flawed system and expand clubs’ access to funding. Their core proposal is to augment the Initiative Fund, in part by removing new programming from BTO budgets and requiring rolling applications from the Initiative Fund instead. However, this change creates uncertainty for both BTOs and the SA.

The Initiative Fund has a poor track record of campus benefit. The BTC now seeks to double the fund, promising stronger marketing and a reformed BTC. Yet, the BTC’s own Response to the RWRC FY26 Budget Appeal states that budgeting must be based on “documented capacity,” not “aspirational projections.” If equity is the standard, the BTC should reconcile this contradiction by reevaluating RWRC’s appeals. Relegating them to the Initiative Fund demeans students’ vote to grant them BTO status.

Last Monday’s Senate saw strong turnout from students protesting RWRC’s budget cut. In a system where the BTC must make quick decisions with limited information, the best thing they can do is listen when students tell them what matters.

RWRC recently lifted their campaign to vote “no” on the budget, not from agreement, but because they empathize closely with organizations with jeopardized funding. In turn, at an open meeting on Wednesday, April 23 at 1 p.m. in the SA Conference Room, the BTC will consider a one-time budget increase for RWRC (and other BTOs). The BTC has an opportunity to demonstrate goodwill by rectifying RWRC’s perennial obstacles to growth and showing students that their advocacy is heard.

---