I commend Lisa Falkenberg for bringing to light the measured way in which Rice University students debated the administration’s request for feedback on a new Texas law that allows concealed handguns on campus. She adequately portrays the role student association president Jazz Silva and other student groups played in a tempered and rational discussion on whether the university should opt out of the law and continue to ban guns at Rice. They do deserve recognition for their role that led to a decision at Rice on this controversial topic — a decision that keeps the campus gun-free.
But, in my opinion, she does not extend the praise far enough.
As a Rice employee familiar with the process, I am aware of the coordinated effort led by the university’s administration to engage not only students, but also faculty, staff, and other stakeholders in collectively reaching a decision about campus carry. This is an important distinction that is not meant to diminish the power of the student’s voice, but to provide an example of how a university can work together through an issue. Recent events have far too often portrayed the divide between students and university administrators as too great to be bridged.
This fall, student protests and administrative resignations at the University of Missouri and tension between students, faculty and administrators over Halloween costumes at Yale University have dominated the national news. The responses by universities were criticized as too cautious (at Missouri) or too extreme (at Yale) in their efforts to protect students from personal affronts. These incidents stem from a growing debate on the value of exposing students to diverse world views and opinions versus protecting their emotions.
The process established and carried out by Rice shows that, done the right way, the system works. Did all students, faculty, and staff agree that Rice should not allow guns on campus? No. Were other reasonable suggestions recommended (such as allowing individuals with licenses and verified training to carry concealed weapons)? Yes. In the feedback administrators requested, were there strong emotions and disagreements? Undoubtedly. But it was a civil debate because those involved understood that this is a serious issue that requires serious discourse, not finger pointing and politicizing.
The lesson other universities can learn from these methods is to proceed in a logical order. First, identify the problem: What is the issue we are facing, how big is the scope, and what are the predicted roadblocks? Next, communicate effectively: Rice explained the details and impact of the law, when it would take effect, how to give feedback, and the steps that would follow. The university then allowed an adequate period to gather feedback. They then evaluated the feedback and made an informed decision, inviting representatives from all stakeholder groups to be part of the process. Next the university prepared not only to communicate the decision, but also how to respond to reaction to the decision. Last, Rice announced the decision, backing it up with the clear and concise reasoning behind it.
Much of what has happened on campuses across the country this fall can be summarized by students asking the question, “What about my voice? Does it matter?” Following Rice’s example will ensure that every voice matters, no matter the issue.
Ryan Kirksey is the director of operations and finance at the Baker Institute. Follow him on Twitter @RyanKirksey.