I would like to know what prompted the Student Assembly's decision to support the locking of all residence hall doors this fall. This was a terrible decision and I would like to know what the intent behind it was.
According to the May 27 issue of The Dartmouth, many members of the Assembly acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of students are against this plan, yet voted for it anyway. This represents a disgusting sense of apathy for the feelings of the students. The Student Assembly was created by Dartmouth College undergraduates, according to its web page, "to improve the quality of life at the College, to responsibly represent the student body, to provide a responsible student voice" I would say that the Assembly has radically deviated from its stated purpose with its decision on this matter.
There are several reasons I am personally against the locking of all residence halls. One is the sense of openness that it creates around campus. I simply like the fact that I can walk to my friends' dorms and just walk right up to their rooms. I know that all students will have keys under the new plan, but that just isn't the same. What about during the spring and summer, when doors are propped open? The openness of the Dartmouth campus was one of the primary factors influencing my decision to attend. If I had wanted to live under lock-down, I would have chosen Columbia or Yale.
Another reason I think this idea is just plain stupid is that there will be no way for students to get food delivery. If hall doors are locked, students will have to wait by the doors of their dorms for the delivery person. That kind of defeats the purpose of getting food delivered; you might as well go out to eat.
I have neither read nor heard of any breaches of security that would warrant such drastic measures. Yes, I'm aware that someone defiled the restroom of Streeter, but who's going to say that that wasn't a resident of Streeter, or another College student? What if it was a guest of a College student? What if it was a prospective '02? There are too many possibilities for anyone to assume that locking dorm doors would have prevented the Streeter incidents. If the Streeter incidents are not the impetus behind this brilliant idea, I would like to know what is. Simply increasing security for security's sake is not only stupid, but a waste of money, and an infringement on students' right to feel free to go wherever they want. Once again, I know that students will all get their own keys, but, like I said, that just isn't the same. I don't know anyone who doesn't feel "secure" enough already, especially with a full-time Safety & Security department patrolling campus at all hours. How much more secure will the campus be made with locks on all the doors? How much more secure does it need to be? How much more secure do we want it to be? Personally, I like it just the way it is, as does every person I spoke with.
One more thing about this plan bothers me. In The Dartmouth's article, Director of Residential Operations Woody Eckels called the plan a "'$12,000 experiment'" to "test the waters for a more expensive electronic card access system." What part of this plan requires $12,000? The doors already have locks, right? And why, if the College so stupidly decided to adopt this lockdown policy, would we need keycards? What is wrong with old-fashioned keys?
I strongly urge the Student Assembly, Mr. Eckels, and Dean Pelton to reconsider their positions on this matter and listen to the overwhelming voices of the students of Dartmouth College. We don't want to live under lock-and-key. Please, don't take away the sense of openness and community that makes Dartmouth such a special, wonderful place.
