COLUMN: A misguided approach

From Ian Rosenblum's, "Maplewood," Fall '98 From Ian Rosenblum's, "Maplewood," Fall '98Ina Rosenblum says stickers won't aolve the difficult problems of public safety at Penn. From Ian Rosenblum's, "Maplewood," Fall '98Ina Rosenblum says stickers won't aolve the difficult problems of public safety at Penn.In the wake of a shocking, violent attack in a campus building, the Undergraduate Assembly passed two strongly-worded resolutions and soon after launched a massive public safety awareness campaign. Yet in reality, the UA's resolutions and high-profile bulls-eye stickers do nothing more than flame the fire of paranoia and send the wrong message to students, administrators and the community. The November 8 early-morning assault of a female sophomore in Steinberg-Dietrich Hall's basement bathroom was certainly scary for Penn students. After all, it's frightening when we have to face the fact that safety on campus cannot be guaranteed 100 percent of the time. And the UA was correct to channel student attention to the Division of Public Safety in an effort to find an explanation for the attack. Similarly, the representatives appropriately considered the idea of having students wear badges in campus buildings late at night. But placing blame before the facts came in, and then inciting fear, only counteracts the UA's positive steps. Now that more is known about the attack itself, it turns out that the UA was inaccurate in its initial findings, or at the very least displayed poor judgment in its criticism. In the first resolution, the UA declared that, "the response time from when the victim pressed the alarm was unacceptable." What exactly was the UA basing this judgment on? Rumor. Just days later, the student who came to the victim's aid immediately after the attack told The Daily Pennsylvanian that, "I don't see how anyone could have responded faster." Had the UA demanded an explanation from the University instead of reaching and spreading its own conclusions, such a faulty conclusion could have been avoided. Furthermore, the UA is missing the point by solely placing blame on the police. Adequate security is of the utmost importance in campus buildings where students spend much of their time. Certainly, if SpectaGuards or other security personnel are not doing their jobs properly, immediate action should be taken. Since the alleged assailant likely entered the building through a door propped open by a student, however, the UA should emphasize the complementary roles of student responsibility and security presence. But the most egregious example of the UA's misguided reaction to the attack was the body's recent decision to pass out bullseye stickers which read, "Am I A Target?" If the UA's intent was to show the administration that students are demanding concrete changes in public safety, they went about it the wrong way. Not only do students look foolish sporting stickers which proclaim their status as "targets," but having 4,000 students wearing the stickers while milling about campus clearly perpetuates an us-versus-them attitude with the surrounding community. The message that the UA and the students who wear their stickers are sending to Penn's West Philadelphia neighbors is that more police are needed to protect us students from you outsiders. The fact that the suspect in this case lives a few blocks from campus doesn't mean that all of Penn's neighbors should automatically be labeled as criminals. The message of the sticker effort is also unclear. Urging students to wear a bullseye so that Eat at Joe's stays open a few hours later, a goal cited by organizers, simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Another faulty UA suggestion is the idea of expanding Penn Transit. Whereas ideas like extending the diner's hours and keeping a floor of Van Pelt Library open 24 hours a day would result in more people walking around campus -- thus increasing safety -- encouraging students to use the University's van service would have the opposite effect. Drawing students off the streets only serves to make the blocks on and around campus emptier, facilitating crime instead of preventing it. Instead of making it easier for crime to occur, the UA should be trying to increase late-night foot traffic around campus. And to their credit, the UA did include a request for additional lighting around campus in one of their recent resolutions. While the misconceived sticker campaign may have raised the UA's profile on campus, it did nothing to increase safety. If the UA really wants to follow through with its promise that "we will not let the administration get complacent about safety issues," it's time to stop focusing on the quick fixes that draw easy publicity and instead foster a dialogue with students, community members and administrators aimed at reaching solutions. The UA's job is to bring student concerns to the forefront of administrators' minds, and taking an active role in urging officials to address concerns after the recent assault is definitely in the UA's realm of responsibility. But the key is to do so responsibly. If students and administrators are going to look to the UA for support and answers, it's time to stop passing out stickers and start seeking solutions.