EDITORIAL: Practicing safety on two fronts

Last week's assault in Steinberg-Dietrich Hall casts doubt on current safety measures. Sadly, the sense of security students had while studying late in on-campus buildings diminished last week following the assault of a female sophomore in Steinberg-Dietrich. Even with the capture of the alleged assailant four days later, the bloody attack has prompted an outcry from friends of the victim, students who study in Steinberg-Dietrich and the Undergraduate Assembly, which urged the University administration to implement greater security measures in on-campus buildings. The University indeed should take action to increase security in facilities such as Steinberg-Dietrich and the Towne Building, both of which are open 24 hours every day. But responsibility for ensuring students' safety does not rest solely with the administration, especially in light of the fact that the alleged attacker likely entered Steinberg-Dietrich through a door that had been propped open. Students themselves must make an extra effort to guarantee that their peers are not put in danger late at night. Beyond making sure that the doors to all buildings are always closed, students should pay close attention to their surroundings when they enter and exit buildings. Doing so will allow students to spot anyone suspicious lurking in the shadows and perhaps waiting to sneak inside. Such advice would seem like common sense, but last week's assault -- when such actions apparently were not practiced -- indicates that the convenience of propping doors open can take precedence over safety. Even with a new attitude on the part of students, however, the elimination of possible threats will not be adequately reduced without administration involvement. Options for addressing lapses in security include more functional PennCard scanners at all building entrances, restricting access to one monitored door and ensuring that guards are fully performing their duties. Installing PennCard scanners would keep the current level of convenience in entering and exiting the buildings while theoretically preventing people not associated with the University from gaining access. Such a system would only succeed, however, if doors are not propped open. Alternatively, the University could close all building doors except for one main entrance, which would be monitored by a security guard. The other doors could be equipped with alarms that would sound if they were opened. At the same time, security guards need to remain stationed at building entrances and diligently check PennCards -- a practice which currently does not always occur. Other possibilities discussed by University officials include installing video cameras and requiring students to wear badges in the buildings. Regardless of such specifics, last week's assault makes it clear that current security measures in on-campus buildings fall short of protecting students. Improvements on the part of students and administrators are beyond necessary.