Fairness means saying yes to students — not just to budgets

By Jackson Darr     4/15/25 10:18pm

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. 

Every year, the Blanket Tax Committee faces tough questions: How should we prioritize funding and ensure every student dollar goes toward something meaningful?

Two recent decisions, our policy to prohibit travel-related expenses and the adjusted allocation for the Rice Women’s Resource Center (RWRC), have sparked discussion across campus. Both have led to frustration and raised fair questions. But both were made for the same reason: to create a funding system that is equitable, transparent and built to serve all students.

---

---

Why Travel Didn’t Make the Cut

Travel can be valuable. However, Blanket Tax funds must go toward initiatives that clearly and directly benefit the entire Rice undergraduate community.

Put simply: Everyone pays into the Blanket Tax. Not everyone gets to board the plane.

Redirecting funds to campus-based programs supports initiatives that are open, inclusive and impactful. This decision reflects our commitment to fairness, not favoritism.

RWRC and Responsible Growth

This same commitment to consistency shaped our decision to allocate $6,000 to RWRC for the 2025–2026 fiscal year rather than the $14,000 requested. This decision is not a reflection of RWRC’s mission, which we deeply support. It is a reflection of our process and the need for clear communication, demonstrated need and fiscal accountability.

We know RWRC puts students first. Their work around wellness, equity and advocacy is proof of that. However, putting students first also means ensuring every dollar is spent effectively, and resources are distributed fairly.

RWRC received a significant increase last year, from $4,500 to $7,000. This year, they asked to double that budget. However, as of early April, they had spent only 62.67% of their current funds, a trend we observed over multiple years. Growth is exciting, but a larger budget requires a consistent track record of complete execution.

That’s why we plan to expand the Initiative Fund, a tool that allows any organization, Blanket Tax or not, to access funding for innovative programs or unanticipated opportunities. This fund lets groups like RWRC dream big without compromising standards, a way to say “yes” to new ideas and protect fairness.

Equity Is More Than Equal Numbers—It’s Equal Standards

Critics have asked why we didn’t ask more questions in our meeting to review RWRC’s budget submission or approve the most compelling travel cases. The answer is simple: fairness isn’t selective. We apply the same standards to every group, no matter their history, mission or size.

Our process relies heavily on written proposals, not because we don’t care but because fairness requires equal treatment. Many groups anticipated potential concerns and proactively addressed them; we encourage all organizations to do the same in the future.

What’s at Stake If the Budget Doesn’t Pass

Some groups have encouraged a “no” vote on the budget. But here’s the reality: if the budget fails, funding for every Blanket Tax organization will not be allocated until late October. That includes student services, major events and programs students rely on. 

Worse, non–Blanket Tax organizations, which already rely heavily on limited funding sources like SAPP, would lose access to the Initiative Fund until at least late November. In a year when only 48% of requested SAPP funding was awarded, and over 80 events were denied or underfunded, this delay would further stall student-led programming, disproportionately impacting newer and under-resourced groups. Voting down the budget doesn’t just affect one group, it delays opportunities, undermines equity and holds back student-driven progress across campus.

Looking Ahead

These decisions weren’t about saying “no” to progress or to a mission. They were about saying “yes” to a fair, consistent process that ensures student money is used in ways that are impactful, accountable and equitable.

We deeply respect the passion and advocacy shown by student leaders across campus. Your feedback reminded us of what matters: building a funding system that puts students first today and for years to come. 

---