hoya4ever
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 805
|
Post by hoya4ever on Apr 30, 2008 7:54:00 GMT -5
We made the news today. I was driving and the radio announcer said something like: Georgetown University is having problems calming down students after a female student was sexually assaulted at gunpoint.
Now there are more?
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Apr 30, 2008 10:01:11 GMT -5
Sounds like they were just discussing the backlash from the initial incident
|
|
|
Post by 98hoya on Apr 30, 2008 10:14:59 GMT -5
Between this series of incidents and the much less scary (but still serious) theft of thousands of names/SSNs that the school allowed to be stolen earlier this year, I'm feeling pretty down about Georgetown's ability to live up to its responsibilities of keeping its people safe.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 30, 2008 10:31:46 GMT -5
Between this series of incidents and the much less scary (but still serious) theft of thousands of names/SSNs that the school allowed to be stolen earlier this year, I'm feeling pretty down about Georgetown's ability to live up to its responsibilities of keeping its people safe. Stuff like this drives me nuts. From everything that I've read, the same conditions were in place a month ago, and no one cared. Students didn't follow the rules on signing people in, people propped open doors, et cetera. Then an incident happens and people are questioning why GU can protect their students (and the tieing of losing SSNs to the assault is a stretch at best). Everybody at Georgetown was fine with lax security, because it wasn't convenient otherwise. What GU has to answer now is what level of security they're willing to put up with.
|
|
|
Post by 98hoya on Apr 30, 2008 12:17:32 GMT -5
Exorcist,
I linked the two because for me personally, these two incidents were a revelation about the carelessness of the Georgetown administration. So, to the extent it was a "stretch," you'll have to excuse my own sense of realization (and by the way, allowing the private data of 39K people get stolen is, in fact, a BFD and resulted solely from poor physical security measures taken by the university).
The reason that people have historically propped open doors, etc., is because they are young, privileged kids who are too inexperienced and immature to realize stuff like this can happen. That is why we have real adults who have been around the block provide security. It just seems that they're not doing such a hot job of it.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 30, 2008 12:45:33 GMT -5
Exorcist, I linked the two because for me personally, these two incidents were a revelation about the carelessness of the Georgetown administration. So, to the extent it was a "stretch," you'll have to excuse my own sense of realization (and by the way, allowing the private data of 39K people get stolen is, in fact, a BFD and resulted solely from poor physical security measures taken by the university). The reason that people have historically propped open doors, etc., is because they are young, privileged kids who are too inexperienced and immature to realize stuff like this can happen. That is why we have real adults who have been around the block provide security. It just seems that they're not doing such a hot job of it. How can they do a "hot job of it" when their efforts and policies are undermined by students? This is a legitimate item when discussing physical security. You can pay security guards lots of money and make sure that they're not sleeping. But if people prop open doors, the guards don't work. There's going to be a lot of sound and fury on this, and some people are going to lose their jobs, but if all of the immature students don't grow up fast, this is going to happen every so often. It's not going to happen often because Georgetown is in a low-crime area, but stopping anything will be purely based on luck.
|
|
|
Post by 98hoya on Apr 30, 2008 13:00:55 GMT -5
"Undermine" is not the word I'd use because the connotation is that intentional laxity of the students toward their own security resulted in these incidents. I attribute laxity on the part of students to their lack of experience and immaturity. This incident will help them grow up. It's like after 9/11 when we said "how could we let a bunch of shady Arabs who the FBI was warned about get on planes with boxcutters?" Well, starting on 9/12/01, we as a society grew up a little and realized the world ain't so safe. That's the sort of effect that I'm talking about. Until these incidents, I'm not sure most of our students had the wake-up call that I hope they now have had.
While I think the laxity was understandable on the part of students, I think it is unforgivable on the part of the administration. They ARE adults. They do need to understand that their kids are going to be irresponsible, and they need to protect them knowing that. That's not an excuse for students to be foolish, it's a reality that DeGoia, et al need to consider. It's like the 4th grade teacher on the school yard: he has to be READY for kids to play dangerously on the jungle gym. It's still not excusable behavior for the kids to play dangerously, it's just that the people in control have to take the immaturity of those they're charged with protecting into consideration.
They have failed to do that to date. Student guards? Inappropriate. Unarmed DOPS? inappropriate. Sleeping private security officers? Inappropriate, reckless and maybe criminal.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 30, 2008 13:17:54 GMT -5
"Undermine" is not the word I'd use because the connotation is that intentional laxity of the students toward their own security resulted in these incidents. I attribute laxity on the part of students to their lack of experience and immaturity. This incident will help them grow up. It's like after 9/11 when we said "how could we let a bunch of shady Arabs who the FBI was warned about get on planes with boxcutters?" Well, starting on 9/12/01, we as a society grew up a little and realized the world ain't so safe. That's the sort of effect that I'm talking about. Until these incidents, I'm not sure most of our students had the wake-up call that I hope they now have had. While I think the laxity was understandable on the part of students, I think it is unforgivable on the part of the administration. They ARE adults. They do need to understand that their kids are going to be irresponsible, and they need to protect them knowing that. That's not an excuse for students to be foolish, it's a reality that DeGoia, et al need to consider. It's like the 4th grade teacher on the school yard: he has to be READY for kids to play dangerously on the jungle gym. It's still not excusable behavior for the kids to play dangerously, it's just that the people in control have to take the immaturity of those they're charged with protecting into consideration. They have failed to do that to date. Student guards? Inappropriate. Unarmed DOPS? inappropriate. Sleeping private security officers? Inappropriate, reckless and maybe criminal. "Undermine" is the correct word. Every time a door is propped open, security is intentionally undermined. Now, the question is what to do about it. You can say that students are blameless and foist the responsibility on the administration. I disagree. Georgetown has 78 acres on it. You can't provide security without either a) locking down the campus (which was suggested for universities after the VT massacre and was rejected out of hand as antithetical to the university mission) or b) getting support from students, faculty and staff. And I think that, until graduation, people will be a little more vigilant. After that? You lose a quarter of the population. In a year, it's the same stuff. I'm still unconvinced that the numbers justify a move to tighter security, which is not cheap. Georgetown remains a very safe campus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2008 13:21:49 GMT -5
"Undermine" is not the word I'd use because the connotation is that intentional laxity of the students toward their own security resulted in these incidents. I attribute laxity on the part of students to their lack of experience and immaturity. This incident will help them grow up. It's like after 9/11 when we said "how could we let a bunch of shady Arabs who the FBI was warned about get on planes with boxcutters?" Well, starting on 9/12/01, we as a society grew up a little and realized the world ain't so safe. That's the sort of effect that I'm talking about. Until these incidents, I'm not sure most of our students had the wake-up call that I hope they now have had. While I think the laxity was understandable on the part of students, I think it is unforgivable on the part of the administration. They ARE adults. They do need to understand that their kids are going to be irresponsible, and they need to protect them knowing that. That's not an excuse for students to be foolish, it's a reality that DeGoia, et al need to consider. It's like the 4th grade teacher on the school yard: he has to be READY for kids to play dangerously on the jungle gym. It's still not excusable behavior for the kids to play dangerously, it's just that the people in control have to take the immaturity of those they're charged with protecting into consideration. They have failed to do that to date. Student guards? Inappropriate. Unarmed DOPS? inappropriate. Sleeping private security officers? Inappropriate, reckless and maybe criminal. 98 - so where does GU's responsibility end and personal accountability begin? Should a guard be stationed at every single door that might get propped open, so he can tell people "That's unsafe. Don't do that." Seems to me the University had/has policies in place that involve some level of trust of the students. Like "These doors aren't guarded because they're not meant to be propped or opened from the outside. We trust you to comply with some basic principles of security here." Students choose to ignore that, and then it's the University's fault? I'm not buying it. Unless tuition includes salaries for a nanny for every student...
|
|
|
Post by 98hoya on Apr 30, 2008 13:21:50 GMT -5
I'm still unconvinced that the numbers justify a move to tighter security, which is not cheap. Georgetown remains a very safe campus. You think it's a money issue?
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Apr 30, 2008 14:49:32 GMT -5
98 - so where does GU's responsibility end and personal accountability begin? Should a guard be stationed at every single door that might get propped open, so he can tell people "That's unsafe. Don't do that." Seems to me the University had/has policies in place that involve some level of trust of the students. Like "These doors aren't guarded because they're not meant to be propped or opened from the outside. We trust you to comply with some basic principles of security here." Students choose to ignore that, and then it's the University's fault? I'm not buying it. Unless tuition includes salaries for a nanny for every student... Sorry to burn down your strawman, but this is bull. The university pays uniformed DOPS officers to patrol campus; those officers' duties include (or at least used to include) checking the exterior doors to buildings and securing them if found unsecured. If it was apparently common knowledge among every student interviewed that these three doors to LXR were broken and left open all semester, how did the Administration not know? Were DOPS officers not reporting it after patrols? How did the RD or AC for LXR fail to know or did they just not care? Did Facilities fail to repair the doors when DOPS or the Residence Hall staff reported it to them? This shouldn't be hard to investigate in the least, but the results would surely reflect very badly on the GU Vice President for Campus Security. Even a federal employee caught exercising this poor of oversight would have been fired by Monday morning. Someone apparently doesn't have a good grip on what “simply and utterly unacceptable” means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2008 14:57:23 GMT -5
98 - so where does GU's responsibility end and personal accountability begin? Should a guard be stationed at every single door that might get propped open, so he can tell people "That's unsafe. Don't do that." Seems to me the University had/has policies in place that involve some level of trust of the students. Like "These doors aren't guarded because they're not meant to be propped or opened from the outside. We trust you to comply with some basic principles of security here." Students choose to ignore that, and then it's the University's fault? I'm not buying it. Unless tuition includes salaries for a nanny for every student... Sorry to burn down your strawman, but this is bull. The university pays uniformed DOPS officers to patrol campus; those officers' duties include (or at least used to include) checking the exterior doors to buildings and securing them if found unsecured. If it was apparently common knowledge among every student interviewed that these three doors to LXR were broken and left open all semester, how did the Administration not know? Were DOPS officers not reporting it after patrols? How did the RD or AC for LXR fail to know or did they just not care? Did Facilities fail to repair the doors when DOPS or the Residence Hall staff reported it to them? This shouldn't be hard to investigate in the least, but the results would surely reflect very badly on the GU Vice President for Campus Security. Even a federal employee caught exercising this poor of oversight would have been fired by Monday morning. Someone apparently doesn't have a good grip on what “simply and utterly unacceptable” means. I'm not saying the University isn't responsible for repairing broken doors, etc. I was replying to 98hoya's assertion that the students who do stupid things should get a free pass due to "immaturity" and that the University should account for and police that immaturity.
|
|
|
Post by 98hoya on Apr 30, 2008 15:12:19 GMT -5
98 - so where does GU's responsibility end and personal accountability begin? Should a guard be stationed at every single door that might get propped open, so he can tell people "That's unsafe. Don't do that." Seems to me the University had/has policies in place that involve some level of trust of the students. Like "These doors aren't guarded because they're not meant to be propped or opened from the outside. We trust you to comply with some basic principles of security here." Students choose to ignore that, and then it's the University's fault? I'm not buying it. Unless tuition includes salaries for a nanny for every student...
Cam,
The school's responsibility begins and ends with keeping the campus community safe. I don't know enough to know whether that means that we need a guard at every door, or simply need to buy our Securitas guys some No-Doz. I'll leave those decisions to the professionals, so long as the result is that girls don't get sexually violated at gunpoint in their own dorms as a result.
If student A props a dorm door, and student B gets raped as a result, do you think it's appropriate for the school to tell student B "sorry, student A was irresponsible?"
The school has to ANTICIPATE some level of irresponsibility by the student body while at the same time working to encourage responsibility on their part. I think this incident will wake some folks up, but soon enough, they'll forget and be at the same risk (someone else made that point before - with which I agree). It's the school's responsibility to fill that gap when they do.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Apr 30, 2008 15:13:46 GMT -5
I really think allowing any student with an active go card access to every dorm would solve the whole door propping problem. The reason why I and countless other students use these back doors are because other wise we need someone who lives in the dorm come down and sign us in. If i want to visit my friend on the 9th floor of a dorm they have to come all the way down and sign me in not a terrible burden, but if it could be avoided by me going through a propped open door, why wouldn't you. With LXR security the propped open broken doors are for the most part in the court yard and to get into the court yard you have to pass a security guard. So the only problem point for LXR is the door in walsh down the stairs that can give you access to the court yard by passing the check point. when i lived there last year they started station a dops officer down there on weekends to prevent partiers from doing that. of course this year it's back to being ungaurded.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 30, 2008 15:26:05 GMT -5
Wow, this isn't a flame war yet! I love this board.
98hoya's comments, I think, boil down to this: "The school's responsibility begins and ends with keeping the campus community safe. "
I fundamentally disagree. I think that's too much of a reach and is impossible. The responsibility you discuss places all responsibility upon Georgetown, even if someone does something like keep a door unlocked. Georgetown is not an elementary school or a day care, where there's a total need to keep those under care safe - it's a place that invites members of the community to open lectures and has foot traffic all day. All members of that community bear some responsibility.
As for RH's comment about firing the VP of Campus Security, eh. Georgetown does not appear to take the issue of general campus security seriously. I'd assume that a complaint about Securitas before (were there any? from anywhere?) might have been met with "they bid low, GU doesn't have a lot of crime, it's not an issue". The focus may be on security for high-threat events on campus (prominent speakers, etc.), where there's a small but potential threat of riots or terrorism, which GU might take more seriously.
A question to 98, RH, and others. If the premise is that campus security is broken, how should it be fixed? Pass out three to five recommendations that you would make. And I don't want "fire everybody in the chain of command". Should more officers patrol to make sure doors aren't propped open? More security cameras?
|
|
|
Post by 98hoya on Apr 30, 2008 15:36:30 GMT -5
Wow, this isn't a flame war yet! I love this board. 98hoya's comments, I think, boil down to this: "The school's responsibility begins and ends with keeping the campus community safe. " I fundamentally disagree. I think that's too much of a reach and is impossible. The responsibility you discuss places all responsibility upon Georgetown, even if someone does something like keep a door unlocked. Georgetown is not an elementary school or a day care, where there's a total need to keep those under care safe - it's a place that invites members of the community to open lectures and has foot traffic all day. All members of that community bear some responsibility. As for RH's comment about firing the VP of Campus Security, eh. Georgetown does not appear to take the issue of general campus security seriously. I'd assume that a complaint about Securitas before (were there any? from anywhere?) might have been met with "they bid low, GU doesn't have a lot of crime, it's not an issue". The focus may be on security for high-threat events on campus (prominent speakers, etc.), where there's a small but potential threat of riots or terrorism, which GU might take more seriously. A question to 98, RH, and others. If the premise is that campus security is broken, how should it be fixed? Pass out three to five recommendations that you would make. And I don't want "fire everybody in the chain of command". Should more officers patrol to make sure doors aren't propped open? More security cameras? Exorcist, I respect the way you disagreed without being disagreeable. In direct answer to your question - and I'm being honest - I'm not sure how to fix it. I think it's a nuanced problem that is far beyond my expertise (reminds me of a conversation I was in complaining about gas prices and my friend asked me how I proposed to fix it...I had to admit, I've got no idea). So, I'll take a stab at a few ideas, but I'll gladly defer to others who have some experience in public safety or security: 1. Armed police. I suspect DOPS does not deter crime. Real cops with real authority might. 2. Tighter supervision of contractors. I've got no gripe with keeping costs down by supplementing with Securitas, but someone has to be ON them to make sure they're doing their jobs. 3. Keep this incident fresh in students' minds. As others have pointed out, the kids will soon forget about this and in the near future, will be back to propping doors, etc. Someone should remind them of the risks. I remember freshman year going to a mandatory thing in Gaston about date rape. Maybe we should add an event on personal safety that includes some horror stories to give the kids a little scare. 4. More interaction between students and campus police. The same way community policing has showed results in bad neighborhoods, maybe it would here too. Maybe you have an officer on patrol in every single dorm. Same guy, every day. The kids get to know him/her just like they do the RAs and RDs. If something isn't right, the kids might be more comfortable telling the cop. Again, these are uneducated, off-the-top-of-my-head ideas. Also, Exorcist, I agree that security is a community responsibility, but ultimately, the governing body has to take control. It's like living in a town - the police are the guys whose job it is to look out for you, but you have a responsibility to yourself, your family and your neighbors to call the police if you see something unsafe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2008 15:36:54 GMT -5
If student A props a dorm door, and student B gets raped as a result, do you think it's appropriate for the school to tell student B "sorry, student A was irresponsible?" Absolutely not. And that's not what I'm saying. But at what point does responsibility shift? Personal responsibility and a sense of looking out for yourself AND other members of your community is a basic principle of life, isn't it? It's why I call a cab if I've been drinking rather than get behind the wheel. The ultimate responsibility is mine in that case, though. If we applied your model of "People do stupid things, so we have to protect them from themselves", we'd have cops at the exit of every bar in America every night with breathalyzers. You know, to make sure that people don't make a choice that might endanger themselves and others. If you see a door that's not meant to be accessed from the outside - FOR SECURITY REASONS - and you prop it open, you might put yourself and others in your community at risk. So what's the answer: don't prop it open. If 18-21 year olds at Georgetown are too immature or naive to understand this, that's troublesome. To blame the University because it doesn't resort to the Lowest Common Denominator solution is easy - easier than people accepting some (not all, but some) responsibility for themselves and the community they live in, it seems.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Apr 30, 2008 16:10:03 GMT -5
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with any premise that posits that the University should not be responsible for securing doors that should not be propped open. If students can't remain responsible for ensuring doors are secured, and security cannot be trusted to ensure that doors that should be closed are so, then the University needs to terminate access to those doors.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 30, 2008 16:30:47 GMT -5
I'll answer theexorcist's questions as well:
1. Make all non-main entrances emergency doors with alarms.
2. Dump Securitas, double the DPS budget, pay them enough to compete with other colleges in the area, and adopt community policing strategies. Howard and GWU pay their officers way more than we do, and both have fully functioning police dept's that are on the lookout for crime. Consequently, there's less crime at Howard and GWU.
3. Revamp the stupid alcohol policy so that there's a lot more leeway in enforcement. DPS should not be keg patrol.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,817
Member is Online
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Apr 30, 2008 16:34:45 GMT -5
A question to 98, RH, and others. If the premise is that campus security is broken, how should it be fixed? Pass out three to five recommendations that you would make. And I don't want "fire everybody in the chain of command". Should more officers patrol to make sure doors aren't propped open? More security cameras? 1. Arm DPS. They are Special Police Officers of the Metropolitan Police Department and hold police commissions signed by the Mayor of the city. They should be equipped as such (this will also require them to become better trained and will hopefully spur them to be more proactive in pursuing criminals, knowing that they can protect themselves if need be). 2. Bring DPS pay and requirements in line with those of other DC area departments. We are the bottom of the barrell in this regard. 3. Have the nighttime (0000-0800) DPS patrols check on every contracted guard to make sure that they are awake. 4. Convert all residence hall entrances that allow access to the living areas that are unguarded and are not the main entrance into emergency exits. Such doors sound an alarm when pushed and do not open for 10-15 seconds, and they signal the DPS command center that they've been opened. 5. Cameras at the entrance/exit to every building. If you can narrow down a time frame for when a suspect entered/existed a building, you can go to the tape and try to get them on film.
|
|