Over the past few weeks, my fellow residents and I have been billed for damages amounting to almost $2,000. These damages include wrecked ceiling tiles, feces and vomit on the bathroom floor, and messes in the kitchen. Our stoic custodian has seen worse times, though. Two years ago, someone deliberately removed all the signs along the hallways and smashed an entire corridor of ceiling tiles. Thousands of dollars worth of damages were assumed by the floor's residents.
Pointing fingers at non-residents seems like a kneejerk reaction. But it's also an accurate one: According to the Community Directors I spoke to, non-residents are responsible for the majority of damages that occur in public lounges. Student organizations in particular stain carpets or leave kitchens dirtied. Next in line are intoxicated kids who stumble in at night, vomiting or urinating in common areas or the bathroom floors. Thankfully, most student groups have graciously assumed responsibility for their actions and have agreed to pay for them. Unfortunately, the latter group -- of inebriated kids -- has not been so forthcoming. Not only do they make us residents pay for their indiscretions, but they are also a real threat to our safety. At the very least, they are an annoyance, especially to Opinion columnists at 2:07 a.m.
So why hasn't the Office of Residential Life restricted access to dorms only to residents, who are much less likely to mess up their own homes? Because they believe that we are one big Dartmouth family, and in a family, no one is supposed to be locked out. Indeed, we used to be a big Hanover family, too -- card readers that limited access to residence halls to Dartmouth students were installed only eight years ago. Clearly, outsiders pose enough of a risk to justify locking our doors. In the same vein, our Dartmouth brothers and sisters can also play the pesky younger sibling under the influence of alcohol. Thus, just as outsiders are restricted from our residences because of the hazards they may pose, students should likewise be restricted from others' residences whenever they are most likely to be intoxicated.
Moreover, we are made to pay for damages that occur in spaces that are beyond our control. We can't police our hallways or install video surveillance, and yet we are ultimately held accountable for all the damages that occur in them.
It is a dreadful policy of expedience that makes scapegoats out of residents. We should not have to pay for someone else's mistakes. And if we are made to do so, then we should have full control over our common areas. Only then is full accountability logical and justifiable. But since this is impossible, there is an alternative solution.
Dartmouth should get its act together and do what so many other similar colleges have done for so long -- restrict access to residential buildings for designated periods. Under this plan, card readers will recognize only the residents' access cards when alcohol-related problems are most likely to occur, between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m., for example. Non-residents can enter as long as residents escort them in with their access cards. At all other times, the universal access policy applies.
The only objection, then, is that restricted access is antithetical to our Dartmouth community. Yet, how often do residents invite their non-resident friends into their dorms after 1 a.m.? This policy is not an outright restriction; it is merely an impediment. You can still allow your friends in with your access card. Thus, social interactions are hardly disrupted, and the policy is antithetical to forging a Dartmouth community only in principle and not in practice.
Such a restriction may actually strengthen the Dartmouth community. The less likely we are to encounter drunken revelers messing up our dorms, the less likely we are to feel animosity towards partygoers in general. Put another way, the negative externalities of alcohol intoxication are kept out of sight and out of mind -- and out of our pockets, too. Restricted access during restricted times is no restriction on the community at all.
