Three terms, one Residential Safety report and five town meetings later, little has changed in the minds of the Student Assembly members who cast their votes last spring in favor locking exterior residence hall doors.
While their decisions sparked heated debate on campus and vocal opposition to both locked doors and to what many perceived to be an Assembly disregard for student opinion, many of the Assembly members told The Dartmouth last night they would vote for the proposal again, despite the continued student resistance.
Assembly President Josh Green '00 said he would not change his vote, cast after last spring's election but before assuming the presidency, and "would always vote" his conscience even if it was not in line with the majority of student thought.
"I think Student Assembly members should feel capable of voting their conscience," Green said.
However, he said he sees a distinction between his vote made in the capacity of an Assembly representative and his new role as president.
"My job is to pass along student opinion as president of the student assembly," Green said. "Administrators aren't interested in my personal opinion."
Green said he does not feel the vote ever should occurred last spring as it put the Assembly into a position it could not fill.
"My vote was believing that students who feel unsafe deserve to feel safe but I think the administration was looking for what student thought was."
While he said he continues to personally favor locking dormitory doors and would vote in favor again if the opportunity arose after his term as president had concluded he said he would "certainly do a better job than I did last spring of understanding student opinion."
Assembly Vice-President Case Dorkey '99 said he "definitely feels the same way" he did last year and would vote for the locked door proposal again, but like Green said he feels it is important the administration weigh overall student opinion in their decision.
"The trick is balancing what the administrators feel is good for the campus and the importance of what students have to say and feel they have a stake in the community," Dorkey said. "I personally have no problem with a system of more locks ... but I think a strong student response means something."
Many Assembly members who voted in favor of locking doors last spring echoed the dual sentiments of protecting the minority of students who currently feel unsafe and voting one's conscience regardless of student thought.
Assembly member Scott Jacobs '99 said he would once again vote to endorse locking the doors, even though he feels there are positive aspects of an unlocked campus.
"Personally I would say don't lock the doors, but as an SA member I would vote to lock the doors again," Jacobs said. "My personal feeling is that we need to protect those people that feel unsafe, but I like the community at Dartmouth where we don't feel the need to lock the doors."
"If we prevent one rape from happening I don't care how many inconveniences people talk about," Jacobs said.
Dave Altman '99 also voted in favor of locking the doors and said he would do so again. "The way I see it is that it's a simple added measure for our protection ... We've demonstrated we're not capable to locking our own doors. Why not lock an external door?"
Altman said the negative student sentiment on the issue should not affect the College's decision.
"Even if the campus consensus is against it, I would urge Dean [Dan] Nelson to go for it because it's a safety issue," Altman said, adding he feels many of the arguments against the plan, including inconvenience and losing an open feeling at the College, are not significant.
He said "it really says something about" Dartmouth students if they oppose locks because it will be an inconvenience.
Another supporter last spring, Serenity Olsen '01, said she too would vote for locking the doors again.
"I'd love it if I didn't feel locks were necessary ... but I know several people do not feel safe as the situation currently stands," Olsen said saying "even if they're not the vocal ones at town meetings it's important to consider them."
"It's an issue of what your priorities are -- whether the convenience of the majority is more important than the feeling of safety for the minority," Assembly member Greg Chittim '01, who also voted in favor of locks, said.
However, Chittim said he would not vote for the locking plan again but would instead abstain from voting if the Assembly were to vote again on the matter because of this "dilemma."
