Opinion
The Student Assembly's recent decision to support the "two-key" policy proposed by Director of Residential Operations Woody Eckels is laudable, but the Assembly's failure to solicit student input until after the vote is cause for concern.
Despite the initial inconveniences of the two-key measure, students should not jump to the conclusion that the policy will do more harm than good.
Although Dartmouth is renowned for its openness and safety, the College is one of few nationwide that does not require either identification cards or keys for dorm entry.
Unfortunately, as last term's vandalism in Streeter residence hall indicates, the isolation of Hanover cannot shield Dartmouth students from crime.
The possibility of even one rape, assault or other such transgression justifies locking dorm doors -- better safe now than sorry later.
All Dartmouth students, including those who live off campus, will have access to every residence hall, and phones will be installed for non-student visitors and food deliveries -- a system much safer and more efficient than the one currently in place during big weekends.
At the Assembly meeting on Tuesday night, many representatives expressed their belief that students disagree with the measure, but the Assembly voted in favor of locking all campus dormitory doors anyway.
By voting to support the proposal, Assembly members acted in the best interests of students.
However, the Assembly could have handled the issue more effectively by soliciting student input and educating students about the benefits of the measure prior to the vote.
Two months have passed since the door-locking policy was first discussed following last term's vandalism incidents, yet most students are only now becoming aware of the policy and its implications.
After its informal vote to support the "two-key" system at the end of last term, the Assembly could have used the past two months to publicize the issue and gain support for the measure.
