Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Editorial: Curbing fire safety overreach

Fire safety is quick to fine students for even small offenses. Fines are sometimes necessary to ensure compliance, but a greater reliance on warnings and a more graduated fine schedule would be positive improvements. For example, students are fined $25 if they have disabled the lock on their door. This situation does not pose a safety risk to other students in the dorm, since the doors remain shut, and a warning would be a more appropriate response. Similarly, since banned appliances are already confiscated when found, the $50 fine for a first offense is excessive.

Students are prohibited from attaching posters and other signs to their dorm room doors. However, other colleges do not follow this policy. For example, Columbia, Yale and Harvard allow students to post signs on the exterior of their doors. Princeton’s policy is also inconsistent: Students’ names are already posted on many underclassmen’s doors at the beginning of the year. It is hard to imagine that a change in this policy would pose a significant risk to students’ lives, since it is unlikely that a poster would make students confuse a door with a wall. If the risks are low, students should be allowed this avenue of expression.

ADVERTISEMENT

Students are allowed to use a University-approved combined microwave-fridge, but not a standalone microwave. Brown, for example, allows students to keep standalone microwaves in their rooms. Even if power consumption concerns make the combined device the only practical option for Princeton dorms, students should be allowed to purchase their own device, not forced to rent one every year from the Dorm Furnishings Agency.

Other aspects of the fire safety code are overly pedantic. For example, extension cords must not be taped to floors. Water bottles may not be placed in stairwells. Students may not own a grill even if they do not use it. The University’s list of approved appliances is restrictive, though students can submit an appliance for review. At the very least, it would be useful to be informed of the benefit of these measures.

The University has an obligation to protect its students and facilities. But the housing office should reevaluate its fire safety regulations and seek to reduce the inconveniences it creates for students wherever possible.

ADVERTISEMENT