This moment may be unprecedented — Rice falling short is not

By Tyler Kinzy     4/26/25 5:14pm

Editor’s Note: This is a guest opinion 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. All guest opinions are fact-checked to the best of our ability and edited for clarity and conciseness by Thresher editors.

In many ways, the current landscape of American higher education is unprecedented. Sweeping cuts to federal research funding, overt government efforts to control academic departments and censor campus protests and arbitrary arrests and visa revocations have rightly been criticized as ushering in the latest iteration of fascism.

Academic institutions, particularly the most prestigious private universities, are often cast as the ultimate backstop against threats to civil society, which is precisely why Columbia was so strongly condemned for caving to the Trump administration’s demands. 

---

---

That said, we don’t need to look far to see that what universities are presently doing is anything but unprecedented. Rice’s own history makes clear the university’s long-standing relationship to pressing social and political change: obstructionist at best, active antagonist at worst.

Below are what I identify as three core pillars of how Rice has responded to “inflection point” moments like this one, which I believe are instructive for how we ought to understand these institutions.

#1: Feign helplessness, typically under the guise of “bureaucratic challenges”

Rice administration has cited “the bounds of the law” and “[external] economic headwinds” as reasons for limited support on matters such as international student safety and research funding. The university would love to do more, it purports, but there is simply nothing else that can be done due to factors beyond Rice’s control.

This claim is patently false. A recent Thresher editorial mentioned clear actions related to providing legal assistance and protecting private spaces that the university could implement to better support international students. Rice’s April 22 message announcing “even more” help merely offers to pay for initial consultations if outside immigration lawyers are needed, while requiring a ticket for the upcoming commencement ceremony is the extent of spatial safety measures.

On the financial side, Rice has been dubbed one of the most “Trump-proof” universities in terms of its institutional capabilities and relative lack of federal reliance. Rice’s endowment exceeds dozens of countries’ entire GDP; notably, about half of this funding is not restricted by specific usage requirements. As former Vassar College president and economist Catharine Hill wrote to The Harvard Crimson, “In times of crisis some of the normal rules/practices around endowment spending can/should be relaxed. If you do not use reserves for this type of situation, what are reserves for?”

Hiding behind dubious bureaucratic hurdles to avoid bolder action is hardly new. During its desegregation process in the early 1960s, Rice leadership fiddled around with a lawsuit requesting court permission to change the university charter before admitting Black students. Even Rice’s then-president Kenneth Pitzer acknowledged this was unnecessary: the charter already granted authority over admissions decisions, and the original text, designating only Houstonians as beneficiaries, had been sidestepped many times prior. Only in this moment of potential social progress did contrived technicalities become a cause for hesitancy.

#2: Use institutional tools to water down the fight for change

What responses Rice has mustered are far from an institutional challenge to the realities of this moment. Outright authoritarian immigration policies have essentially been met with a travel advisory and emails referring community members with questions or concerns to various offices, the usual note about the Wellbeing and Counseling Center tacked onto the end. 

Likewise, Rice pats itself on the back for hopping aboard a lawsuit against federal funding cuts, contributing a “lengthy, detailed, and sworn” declaration that would easily fit on a single page of the Thresher.

Rice’s track record in the face of injustice over the years is similarly devoid of meaningful subversion. A “Special Presidential Commission” convened after the university refused to allow anti-Vietnam War activist Abbie Hoffman to speak on campus. Records indicate the group never held a single meeting, let alone fostered any tangible changes. 

Years later, as the divestment movement during South African apartheid gained momentum, Rice instead adopted the Sullivan Principles, a set of guidelines so feeble the South African government expressed support for the largely symbolic alternative to genuine economic pressure. Opportunities for the university to make a more substantial impact are, through institutional structures, often whittled down to inconsequential tinkering.

#3: All the while, aid and abet the systems attacking social and political freedom

The April 11 statement regarding international students described the barrage of detentions and visa revocations as “unsettling for all of us.” At the same time, Rice has taken part in bolstering the immigration policing apparatus that carries out these heinous activities.

Rice was evidently not unsettled when partnering in government-sponsored imaging and compressive sensing research that has “direct application…for military, law enforcement, and border security uses.” Rice is also a university partner of the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education Center, a research consortium affiliated with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Universities champion an idealistic self-portrayal that, to quote Rice administration, prioritizes “supporting our students, advancing discovery, [and] making an impact in our community and on the world.” 

That would be ideal: higher education institutions could and should be bulwarks that leverage their place in society to act independently from and counter the ideas and tools of fascism. If history is any indication, such an approach from universities like Rice would be the truly unprecedented part.

---