Administration takes Thresher editorial out of context
In an email sent to the student body to clarify concerns surrounding the credit hour cap proposal recently passed by the Faculty Senate, Provost Marie Lynn Miranda and President David Leebron referenced the Thresher when describing past student input. They wrote, "The Thresher endorsed the proposal in a March 22 editorial, even before additional student input was incorporated."
The Thresher would like to clarify its stance on the proposal. The original editorial was titled “Careful Consideration Required Before Credit Limit.” While it is true that the editorial did support the ideas behind the proposal, we emphasized that student opinion must be taken into consideration before passing a proposal that would directly impact undergraduates. Provost Miranda and President Leebron’s email took our editorial out of context by foregoing any of the caution we called for when we wrote that “These proposed changes have admirable intentions, but those alone are not reason enough to institute them.”
Furthermore, this original editorial was actually published in our February 24 issue, well before any student input had been gathered. (The March 22 time stamp on the online version is a mistake on our part, and we do not fault Provost Miranda or President Leebron on this point). Once it became evident that the vast majority of the SA survey respondents opposed this proposal and that many students intended to protest at the Faculty Senate meeting, the Thresher wrote its latest editorial regarding the CUC proposal on April 19 in which we stated, in no uncertain terms, that “a vote by the Faculty Senate to approve this proposal is a slap in the face to the many students who have voiced their legitimate concerns.”
Provost Miranda and President Leebron conveniently decided to gloss over our latest editorial, which made abundantly clear the Thresher’s opposition to passing this proposal, whatever its possible merits, in light of students’ concerns. If the administration truly cares about students’ voices, then they shouldn’t cherry-pick the ones they deem convenient and misrepresent them to fit their own agenda.
More from The Rice Thresher
Proposed constitutional changes — or power grab?
Four months ago, the Student Association formed a special committee to review its constitution. Two days ago, members of the committee presented their findings, suggesting four major changes to functionally, they say, streamline the SA’s efficiency — granting them “ultimate authority” over Blanket Tax Organizations like student media and Rice Program Council, and eliminating BTO perspectives from the committee that disburses some $300,000 every year.
Students should prioritize American patriotism
A threat to American values has grown rapidly in recent years: the anti-war movement’s shift to an anti-military stance, calling for divesting from, and in effect dismantling, the defense industrial base. The hyperbolic language found here should alarm Rice students because the U.S. military needs those same companies to develop critical technologies in the functioning of U.S. defense.
Consider ethics while designing AI major
From a little-known concept among researchers to generating summaries with every Google search, artificial intelligence’s accessibility has skyrocketed over the past decade. However, its innovation comes at a cost. Training ChatGPT-3 was estimated to generate 552 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, more than the emissions of 559 flights from London to New York. Artificial intelligence can also steal from artists and reproduce racist biases from its data sets.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.