Lack of institutional memory affects future of university

By Sean McBeath     10/30/08 7:00pm

For most of us, Rice exists for four years. We matriculate; we grow up a little; maybe learn something; and move on. Occasionally, we are reminded of the evolution of the school by incoming freshmen: They know almost nothing of what happened before they arrived. The stories of legend from your freshman year never pass to them. There is no oral tradition here. Those legends die when you graduate.And so, when we experience a great shift, we see it as just that: one change among the years we spend here. We're content to watch as "progress" is forced upon us, not because we necessarily agree with the motives or purposes we see in it, but because we see Rice four years at a time. And how much can change in four years?

Failing to maintain student institutional memory at Rice creates a vacuum of knowledge, and consequently, the administration can create change on a larger scale than we are often aware. At present, this change is manifesting itself in the consolidation of college and club funds into the BANNER system, under the auspices of the Controller's Office.

At a glance, this seems like a relatively minor change. After all, everything we've heard on the topic from Vice President for Finance Kathy Collins and Dean of Undergraduates Robin Forman indicates that there will be no difference in the way the colleges function. Obviously, "no change" is an outlandish expectation for a shift of this scale, but they appear to be making an honest effort to reduce the effects of the transition on the students and their operations.

---

---

What we as students must concern ourselves with is the big picture: not what is being done today, but what led to this point and what might follow.

Five years ago - just outside the range of our institutional memory - college funds were entirely independent of the administration. At present, college dues are billed through the Cashier's Office, lumped in among the myriad other charges which no longer appear on our statements (such as the health fee, athletic events, Information Technology, shuttles and student activities fees).

The previous system - before the current system was implemented in the 2004-'05 academic year - required the colleges to directly collect dues from incoming students. Back then, college coordinators mailed incoming students information about the college system and requested the appropriate amount for their college dues. Under this system, the administration had no control or oversight over the collection of these funds.

In the spring of 2004, the administration decided to undertake the collection and distribution of the college dues. There were a number of laudable reasons for the administration to absorb this duty: Financial aid could now cover the costs of the dues (which it could not when they were not officially billed by the university), and it created equity in the amounts collected by the different colleges.

But the good intentions behind the reorganization of college dues and how they were collected created serious problems which affect the students and the administration today, but in profoundly different manners.

Once the administration assumed the task of collecting and disbursing college dues, they also became responsible for them. Namely, they must now be able to account for these funds for tax purposes. Immediately following the 2004 changeover, colleges functioned with equal freedom as before. They still receive comparable budgets, which they still oversee through independent bank accounts.

One serious complication is the one we are experiencing now: With the administration in direct control of the funds, colleges left themselves wide open to the possibility of the sweeping change that is taking place under the direction of the vice president for finance.

With this history in mind, it is important that we do not allow the administration to assume our compliance in this migration. And we should consider ourselves remiss in not challenging them when we have the opportunity - for instance, at the Oct. 6 forum hosted by the Student Association, when Forman stood in front of 150 students and claimed that the administration has "the right" to distribute these funds as they please. He went on to imply that they aren't required to give anything to the college system.

While Forman may be correct in stating that the administration has the ability to withhold the college budgets, the truth is that the Cashier's Office is acting as an intermediary in this regard. They collect the college dues for the convenience of the students. For a claim of this scale to go undisputed is disheartening. (And I admit, I am disappointed that I did not question him myself at the time.)

If the administration is now claiming rights to funds which they could not have touched five years ago, we must ask what rights they will claim five years from now. In light of the fact that both Collins and Forman refused any sort of request to put a definition of student financial rights in writing - the only lasting form of memory available to us - is troubling.

And if we, as a student body, are not willing to come together to fight this, we will find out exactly how much Rice can change in four years: when we come back in 2013 and see what change is being heaped on students then.

Sean McBeath is a Martel College junior and Calendar editor.

---