LETTER: Safer Campus

To the Editor: The University students can no longer ride the Escort van to any building other than the few designated places specified by the new policy. Penn students are angry -- and frightened. They are talking about the activities they'll have to give up, because they are now afraid to travel to and from most locations in the hours when it is dark. They're talking of their fears and concerns about a poor security system. They're talking about the University officials who seem to have abandoned them. And, saddest of all, they're talking about transferring to a college where they can be safe. To whom are they articulating these fears and concerns? They are telling their parents and their friends at other colleges. They are telling their younger brothers and sisters who will soon be applying to colleges. Their parents and friends are telling their own friends and acquaintances. The network is ongoing. People know about it not just at places like George Washington, Lower Moreland and Upper Dublin. Why did they change the system? Is it possible they believe that walking with other students "armed" with walkie-talkies is as secure as a locked, motorized van? Do they think it's reasonable to be taken to certain locations -- in the dark -- rather than to your actual destination? Are they thinking about the revenues that will be lost when some fearful students transfer or when prospective students refuse to apply to the University? We can be certain that this will happen. Even prior to this foolhardy change, some talented young people would not apply to Penn because of neighborhood crime. A bad situation has been exacerbated by a terrible decision. The authorities make a poor decision, so the campus security system suffers. The campus security system suffers and good students won't come to Penn. Good students won't come to Penn and the school's reputation diminishes. When I heard about the way the Penn campus security system had been modified, I thought of George Herbert's depiction of an escalating chain of responsibility. "For want of a nail the shoe is lost; for want of a shoe the horse is lost; for want of a horse the rider is lost; for want of a rider the battle is lost; for want of a battle the kingdom is lost." Is the scenario listed here an accurate one? Has the campus security chief triggered a deadful series of events? Or, can something beneficial result from this clumsy decision? Perhaps the students will rally and demand a meaningful Escort security system. Perhaps Sheldon Hackney and other University officials will realize that catastrophe can result from one small, stupid act. It is now the responsibility of the students to authoritatively and urgently request the requisite safety measures that will assure freedom from apprehension. HILLEL LIEBERMAN Father of College junior

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.