When a rape occurred at 3 a.m. during January in Grover Center, Ohio University did not change any of its security policies for access to academic facilities. Security issues came to the forefront again Tuesday night when an armed man entered Alden Library's Learning Commons. Despite those two incidents, the university should refrain from changing its current security policies.
Though individual academic departments determine closing times for their respective facilities, most are locked well before midnight. The absence of a universal closing time for campus buildings does not mean they are left open constantly. However, the interior architecture studio in Grover Center, where the rape occurred, is somewhat of an exception. The department, of which the victim is a student, requires extensive outside-class work that necessitates the use of equipment in the studio. Many students often are there late at night, but they need a special code to enter the building. The exceptional nature of these circumstances disqualifies the incident as an accurate reflection of safety in academic buildings campus-wide.
The only area officially open to 24-hour use is the second floor of Alden Library, and even that applies only four days a week. While the incident Tuesday was shocking, it is a similarly insufficient justification for depriving students of what is often their only refuge for studious pursuits, especially of the last-minute variety. Security concerns should remain balanced with concern for the student's right to free access of academic resources.
Truly understanding why security policies should not be modified in light of these events is a matter of understanding the reasoning that can lead to such drastic responses to tragic occurrences. Collective thought could lead people to make inaccurate assessments of the student population as a whole. A first-time rape in an academic facility and the actions of one unstable individual should not lead to the generalization that the campus has fallen into a state of moral degradation and continuous violence. Security policies should continue to be fashioned with respect for the vast majority of students, who have no intentions of harming others. The actions of a minority of felons should never lead to the deprivation of rights for the majority of people.
Hed: A bridge too far Subhed: Passport requirement unnecessary Last year, Congress overwhelmingly passed a sweeping intelligence reform bill in response to the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations. When President Bush signed it into law in December, debate focused on the appointment of a new national intelligence director. With that taken care of, a separate and initially down played aspect of the bill is coming to the forefront. It would require U.S. citizens to display a passport when returning from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, the Caribbean and Panama. The plan is to be gradually implemented during the next three years. That will do no more than hinder trade and tourism with America's neighbors and should be abandoned accordingly.
One important distinction in assessing the initiative is that it is intended for the purposes of homeland security, not necessarily to combat illegal immigration in and of itself. It was jointly proposed last week by the representatives of the State Department and that of Homeland Security and was immediately faced with criticism and concern about its implications for tourism and commerce. All such concern is warranted. According to the Travel Industry Association, almost 16 million Canadians crossed into the United States last year and generated roughly $7.9 billion in travel-related revenues. Commerce with America's largest trading partner also results in $1.2 billion worth of goods crossing the border every day, according to an article in The Columbus Dispatch. That is not even to mention the benefits of trade and tourism with America's neighbor to the south. On an individual note, the almost $100 cost of a passport for those over 16 can be a major inconvenience.
In the uncertain post-Sept. 11 atmosphere of the United States, one certainty is that a strong effort on the part of lawmakers to strengthen the security of the country is necessary. That Congress and the president have responded to the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission is a sign that reform is taking place. However, lawmakers have reacted perhaps over zealously in this instance. Any homeland security benefits of tightening border control in that manner are largely unknown. The same bill calls for 2,000 additional Border Patrol officers and 8,000 additional immigration detention beds. Those are justifiable changes, but the new passport requirement will likely only hinder business and tourism. The government has announced the proposal well ahead of implementation so they can first gauge the opinion of the American people. The initiative is best opposed.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
University should maintain status quo
