Editorial: Preempt new lock out policy

Beginning in September, students who lock themselves out three times or more will be charged a $30 fee in order to regain entry to their room, regardless of whether they go to the New South Building to pick up a replacement or call a Public Safety officer to come to their rooms. They will also be recommended to the dean for disciplinary action after their third lock out and each lock out thereafter. The fee charged for walking to New South and the recommendation to the dean both seem like unreasonable consequences for an unintentional act.

The University’s primary rationale for the new policy remains the same as it did in the fall — dealing with lock outs is a heavy burden for Public Safety and a fine would deter students from forgetting their keys. However, this reasoning is questionable. First, students already have an incentive not to get locked out. Walking down to the New South Building or waiting for Public Safety is time-consuming and inconvenient, and students already try very hard to remember their keys. Those students forgetful enough to lock themselves out before this change are forgetful enough that they will continue to do so afterwards.

Furthermore, the addition of disciplinary action and higher costs is likely to incentivize different outcomes: the new policy will encourage more students to leave their doors unlocked or propped open. This change imposes a serious safety risk to not only the students leaving their rooms unlocked, but also to other students in the dorm.

It certainly costs money to handle the 12,000 lock outs that occurred last year, and it is reasonable to ask those who require Public Safety’s services to shoulder the cost. But it is unreasonable to charge students $30 for walking to New South during business hours — the University spends no extra money by having present Housing staff members pass out keys. Furthermore, it is vastly disproportionate to recommend disciplinary action for a third lock out — we shouldn’t punish students for simply being forgetful.

The new policy seems to be inspired by an implicit premise that the presence of lock outs on campus is in some way harmful to the University and its members. This premise is false. Lock outs cause inconvenience to the students locked out and costs to the University associated with opening locked rooms. If those students are made to pay those costs, then students who lock themselves out of their rooms would do nothing but inconvenience themselves. It would be perverse to address the problem of students making themselves spend half an hour bored in the hallway by threatening disciplinary punishments. This new policy should be abandoned.