Will Cameras Provide Security? First-Years, Come Sign On!

Author: [no author name found]

Will Cameras Provide Security?



It is refreshing to see a Student Government Association (SGA) pass a bill on issues like the rising number of theft on campus. The bill calls for the installation of security cameras outside of the dining halls in hopes that thefts of backpacks and jackets left by diners would decrease and the "normal" atmosphere of complete safety and security at Middlebury College would be restored.

How much of an affect will cameras have? The bill calls first for the installation of one camera outside of Proctor. After a four-month trial period, if the effectiveness of the system passes muster, then more cameras can be installed with a maximum of three. But remember that past drastic security measures have not always been the most effective. The dorm access system has not prevented miscreants from entering rooms - since its installation there have been multiple-intrusion reports. The installation of video cameras in very public places will be a drastic change from the Middlebury norm. Yes, there are already cameras installed on campus - one a live-feed camera outside of the health center to let 24-hour staff see midnight visitors, and the other in WRMC - but for people to have that reminder that something's wrong will likely be the only tangible affect.

Instead, the cameras probably are not the best solution. It might end up more a waste of money than a good idea. Starting February door checkers will reappear at dining hall entrances, providing a measure of monitoring. More importantly, cameras won't fix the issue at hand - students have little choice but to leave bags outside of the dining halls, providing easy access for would-be looters. The real solution is to allow students to have a safe place to put their bags, cubbyholes inside dining halls for example.

The fact is, anyone outside of Middlebury would look at the lifestyle here and think everyone is inviting theft. Few students lock their doors, most feel comfortable enough to leave computers and other valuables in the library. The SGA is doing its job to come up with a solution, but realistically there is only so much a camera can do. Maybe it's time for students to see Middlebury as the real world and not just an escape from. Instead of looking for outside agents to protect all from the harsh realities, take steps yourself.



First-Years, Come Sign On!



At the same meeting, the SGA also passed a bill that - if supported by the Community Council and then by President Liebowitz - would allow first-year students to rush social houses during their second semester. Currently, only students matriculating in February are allowed to do that. Supporters of the bill have many arguments as to why this bill should be put into action. Can anyone explain why the SGA putting their weight behind this Inter-house council (IHC) driven initiative?

First, supporters claim allowing first-years to rush would equal out differences between "Febs" and "Regs," allowing both to rush after they have spent the same amount of time at Middlebury. But at the same time it will cause an even greater divide between the two when Regs are too busy pledging to meet their new classmates. Additionally, it would disrupt the dorm community, introducing yet another social pressure at a time when first-years form friends.

Second, supporters highlight how the main exposure first-years have to the social houses is the large, open parties that are thrown. "Freshmen are largely unaware that the houses do so much more than host parties." If this is the case, than why is it all non-members associate social houses with partying? Maybe if the houses themselves took their minds off that aspect, others would see there's more to life as a brother than the "Animal House" ideal.

Third and most important, the bill supposedly cuts down on the amount of "dangerous dorm room and off-campus activities." Honestly, no one is naive enough to expect underage students won't drink once they've joined a social house. Supporters claim that pledge and rush are 100 percent dry, and while formal pledge events might be this way, it does not prevent copious amounts of alcohol from being served at informal events. As well, rush ends halfway through the semester - the "dry" period is over. In fact, the bill writers have the audacity to say that "under the status quo, first-years ... often 'pregame' before going out to these parties, due to their inability to get drinks at the houses." If by "inability" they mean easy access to the free-flowing keg, then their claims would be correct, however to present a bill with such blatant misrepresentations is an insult to anyone in a position to pass judgment.

To be fair, this bill does have some benefits - to the social houses - for instance first-years would increase the size of their pledge classes thus helping the houses fill beds. But for every one reason supporters give for why this bill should take effect, two or three counter arguments can be made. Perhaps instead of trying to work the system to their advantage, social houses should spend more effort on making membership appeal to the student body at large so when students become eligible to rush during their sophomore year, they decide that they want to.