This Board opposed these measures when proposed in the spring and still finds this policy unreasonable. Rather than leading to greater responsibility, this policy only incentivizes students to leave their doors unlocked or propped open, creating serious safety hazards. Ideally, the University would consider repealing these measures and returning to their previous lock-out policy; however, if the administration insists upon revising its policies, several amendments ought to be implemented to alleviate the worst consequences of this change. Under the new system, any student who gets locked out after 5:00 p.m. on Friday evening would have to wait until Monday morning to get back into his room without paying. If the student actually lost his key, rather than simply forgetting it in his room, he would theoretically have to pay Public Safety’s fee each time he wanted to leave his room, given that it often takes a few days for lock changes to be scheduled and carried out. Given that the delay, hassle and lock-change fees are already strong enough disincentives for students, it seems unreasonable to tack an additional fee onto gaining access to one’s room.
In place of this system, the University should move all temporary keys to the Public Safety office, which is already staffed 24 hours a day and allow students to pick up temporary keys at any hour. Although some may argue that this change would place additional burdens on Public Safety, this paper found last spring that, on average, 11 students borrowed keys from the Housing Office during normal business hours. Even if this number tripled during off hours, the time Public Safety would save by having substantially more students walk to the Public Safety building rather than having officers report to their rooms would more than make up for this additional burden. This change would also free up officers to fulfill other responsibilities, which was one of the initial reasons for proposing a new lock-out policy.
Additionally, the University should remove the threat of disciplinary action. It is misguided to address a student’s harmless lack of organization or absentmindedness with the threat of censure before the University disciplinary apparatus. If changes must be made, let them maximize efficiency and defray costs, not succumb to draconian scare tactics and unnecessarily onerous fines.
Read More
Princeton must protect students from Trump’s proposed immigration policies
Jorge ReyesWith the presidential inauguration less than two weeks away, time is running out. Princeton, act now and show undocumented and international students the “energetic and vigorous support” you pledge before it’s too late.
With the presidential inauguration less than two weeks away, time is running out. Princeton, act now and show undocumented and international students the “energetic and vigorous support” you pledge before it’s too late.
The U. doesn’t want you to know about the camera project. Pay attention.
Frances BroganWhen the administration isn’t forthcoming with us about a policy that affects the entire student body, we should be suspicious. Princeton’s lack of communication about the camera initiative suggests a desire to avoid accountability.
When the administration isn’t forthcoming with us about a policy that affects the entire student body, we should be suspicious. Princeton’s lack of communication about the camera initiative suggests a desire to avoid accountability.
Princeton should incorporate well-being days into the academic calendar
Isaac BarsoumPrinceton must commit to ending its mental health crisis by making long-term care accessible, appointing a zero-suicide czar –– and yes, incorporating well-being days into the academic calendar –– to make the Princeton experience happier, healthier, and safer.
