EDITORIAL: A breach of student security

U. officials should change all locks that are affected by the lost control keys. Associate Vice President for Campus Services Larry Moneta said the decision not to replace the locks was made so students would not be inconvenienced. But students would much rather have to get new keys then have to worry about someone breaking into their dorm rooms. Administrators are assuming the best case scenario, when they should be examining the worst -- especially if officials' rationale was that since there have been no break-ins due to the lost keys, then there is no breach of security. The University is spending huge amounts of money on security. Why not cover all of its bases and spend money on replacing these locks? The lost keys pose a "minimal security threat" that can easily be eliminated. Facilities and residences adminisatrators communicated poorly with security. Officials said all police were told of the lost keys' security threat, but several Spectaguards and University Police officers said they had not heard of the incident. It is imperative that those who are responsible for protecting students know about this incident. The argument that desk security and PennCards adequately cover the risk posed by the lost keys is empty. Although security as a whole has increased over campus in the past year, security in the dormitories has been not as stringent for two weeks because of the problems with the new PennCard. University officials are lucky there has not been a rash of dorm room break-ins since people were being waved into dormitories by just flashing a PennCard for a time. While this may be overreacting to what Moneta called a "rare, but occasional situation," students -- not the University -- are the ones who will have to pay if the keys turn up in the wrong hands.