Jon Pappas, writing in the February 2 issue of The Polytechnic, laid out an idealistic view of how open and community-connected the campus should be—free of security and cameras, with doors unlocked, and with the public invited to participate. It is a wonderful idea, and is what most of us hope the world would be like, but unfortunately, the reality is rather different.
Public Safety could provide hard statistics, and I don’t pretend to have all the facts, but I can say that a lot of security being applied to the campus is not the result of paranoia but is a long-overdue implementation of mostly deterrent measures, which were not taken in the past largely because of a lack of funds.
One significant change that has occurred in the last five years is that nearly every student has $3000 worth of technology in their bag every day. That’s $15 million dollars walking around the campus on a daily basis. Add to that dorm computers, stereos, cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players, LCD monitors, and video games, and we could be talking $25 million worth of small, easy-to-steal possessions. And that’s just the students. There are offices and labs of all kinds on campus. The campus has more readily-available gadgets than Crossgates Mall.
If you think the idea of unsavory people wandering the campus looking to steal things is being paranoid, think again. When numerous bicycles or laptops go missing in just a couple weeks’ time, it is likely that you have a group of outsiders targeting the campus. They are likely to look like fellow students, but are only using that to their advantage.
How many times have you let someone you didn’t recognize tailgate you into the dorm, because they looked like a student? How many room doors are open within that dorm, with things that could be swiped in five seconds? A lot.
A few years ago in the Folsom Library, I noticed a guy walk by me three times, just wandering around. I thought it was unusual, so I followed him. He had no book bag, no books, and was just sitting around watching people. He didn’t seem like a student. I notified the library administration who called Public Safety to investigate. Upon seeing them, the man departed abruptly and they pursued him all the way to the Approach. When searched, he was in possession of numerous electronic devices pilfered from students in the library—probably as they got up to go to the bathroom or look for a book. “I’m only going away for five minutes,” we think. We don’t want to think that there could be someone sitting there waiting for an opportunity to swoop in, with a 60-second opportunity. That would be paranoia, but in some cases is also true.
Mr. Pappas asks, “What terrible harm would there be if a non-student were to use the library?” None. In fact the library is supposed to be open to the public because it is a U.S. Government repository, and it is. The purpose of the night-time card requirement is not to keep out non-students, but to keep out people who have less than pure motives.
As for the Mueller Center, there are many times when it is so busy, the wait is long. We don’t need to add even more people—not members of the campus community—to increase this burden. And since they would be paying customers, they would be more likely to be there a lot, further compounding the problem.
Mr. Pappas asks, “Are a couple of stolen computers such a terrible price to pay...?” You have to ask who is paying for those computers. For personal property, one way or another, students or their families pay.
For Institute property, RPI is self-insured. This means that ultimately the things that are stolen or damaged will sooner or later come back to the students in the form of increased tuition.
Perhaps an alternative would be not to raise tuition, but simply to charge all students a fee each semester to cover losses from the previous semester. It could be called the “open community” fee, and could educate the community by making theft/damage far more personal to everyone.
Yes, there are more cameras appearing around campus. But in most cases there are not people actively watching them, much less “someone with a gun.” Many of these are passive measures, where footage is archived in case something happens or is reported later. In the Union, for example, there are numerous past incidents that have led to cameras being utilized—and most of the time it is people who are not part of RPI taking advantage of the Union’s openness. These cameras are a good deterrent. Even if no one may be watching, there is the idea that malicious actions will be recorded. In fact I will even propose that the more cameras we get, the more “anonymous” we can be again, because no one could possibly be watching them all.
It is sad that security must be such a concern in our daily lives, but this is nothing new. We lock our homes, our cars, and are wary of what’s around us in public. The more gadgets we carry around, the more we become conscious of this. We should be grateful that RPI is taking an active role to safeguard our community and our possessions, and we should work together to find the best and least obtrusive ways to provide good security.
Jyri Palm
ALUM
