So far, the police response appears to be effective. Parents and students said that they have seen and appreciated the patrols. Reported crime rates in the area have been low during the past two to three weeks. The police have leads on suspects in the recent robbery cases, including photos of vehicles possibly used by the perpetrator(s). According to Chief Dom Strom of the Washington University Police Department, no new incidents have been reported at this point. These supplementary patrols were extensive, but were discontinued, at least by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD), one week ago. Directed patrols continue to police the area at normal numbers.

While we applaud these responsive measures, the issue of transparency with regard to crime has not been fully resolved. Although the SLMPD has been open about its plans, the University City Police Department has not. For the sake of safety, it is not reasonable to expect that the police will make all details public. That being said, students deserve to know just how much crime affects the Wash. U. community and how much they are being protected.

While living in dorms and off-campus necessarily entail different risks, the safety provided to all students should be reasonably comparable. Not all students who live off-campus chose to do so: students who wish for more safety may be forced into off-campus housing by the lack of availability in the housing lottery.

Furthermore, though those in non-university owned housing take on added risks, their safety is also important. It reflects poorly on the school if a large number of students fall victim to crime.

Even students who live on campus attend parties on Pershing and visit friends north of the Loop. The student population extends beyond on-campus dorms and should be similarly protected.

Police patrols and other safety measures immediately north of campus have produced great results. WUPD has stepped up to provide a high level of service to students, and we appreciate the efforts. The key now is to continue to expand the level of security, whether in its current form or using different strategies.

The safety of students is not the sole responsibility of WUPD, either. It is obviously up to students to utilize some of the added safety precautions that the University offers. There are mechanisms in place to ensure off-campus safety; use them in conjunction with common sense. Take advantage of Campus2Home and avoid walking alone off campus late at night.

However, there are only so many preventative measures students can take. As students, we should be able to expect a high level of safety and security while on and near Wash. U. property. Even when crime ceases to be a main focus of concern on campus, preventative measures should not be neglected.

St. Louis has earned a reputation as a dangerous city. While Wash. U. deserves its reputation of excellence and undergraduates do not live in the city, the city’s crime situation can be a major deterrent to potential students. For the sake of both current students’ safety and the school’s reputation as a whole, we urge that off-campus safety and transparent and open communication about crime remain high priorities.

Let me first address the theft issue. Theft has sadly proven to be a problem for dining services, though this issue, perhaps, speaks to bigger ones in the Washington University community that I do not intend to address. I will simply consider theft from the point of view of an economist. Is the guard preventing enough theft to justify the expense of his salary? A conservative estimate might be that a security guard at the Village is paid $10/hour. That means that each hour, the security guard must prevent $10 worth of theft in order to financially justify his presence. Keep in mind that these must be thefts that would also go unnoticed by other employees, including cashiers and servers. While my evidence is anecdotal, I surveyed my own experience and that of several friends who frequent the Village on weekend nights, and not one of them have ever seen a guard catch someone stealing food. Furthermore, all crimes, even petty ones, are reported on the WUPD website. A quick look at the January crime list shows no evidence of any theft of food from the Village. Based on this evidence, I think it is safe to conclude that the security program is not stopping enough theft to warrant its existence. Another argument might be that the guard provides a theft deterrent. If that is the case, why is he only there on weekends? I don’t think the incentive to steal is any higher on weekend nights then on others.

Perhaps the reason there is a guard on weekends is for the maintenance of order. Once again, I contend that this does not make sense. While I acknowledge that the weekend crowd might often be a little inebriated, all students know that if there were a serious emergency or disturbance, police are only a fistful of fives away. I also have full confidence that the food services employees are fully capable of handling any minor disturbances. I honestly cannot think of any kind of issue that would be too small for the attention of WUPD and too tough for the dedicated and genial cashiers and chefs at the Village to handle. While it may be a different situation one block to the north, I doubt any students feel (or are) unsafe in or around The Village. If this is the case, then I seriously question the rationale behind the security program.

Now I must answer the questions: Why does it matter? Unless you are an aspiring thief, then why would the presence of a security guard bother you? The answer to these questions is twofold. The first is that food at our school is expensive enough as it is. Paying a security guard adds costs that are inevitably passed on to the students. The second part of my answer concerns the intrusion of security guards into our living space. I am sure I am not the only one whose heart skips a beat when a police car pulls into their rear-view mirror even when they are doing nothing wrong. The same principle applies here. I shouldn’t have to feel nervous when I am waiting in line for some late-night study (or party) food. Furthermore, on numerous occasions, the guard at the Village has rudely asked me or other students to refrain from hanging out with friends who are in line. Once he told me that I was not allowed to munch on a few tots while my friend waited for his meal. He said I would have to close my box or leave. Not a single Village employee has shown any semblance of caring about things of this nature when the guard is not around. It seems that the guard is a power trip, plain and simple. Sadly, this takes away from the usually pleasant experience that is a late-night Village run. Because the guard is an expense and nuisance who could be done without, I ask the school to consider removing the security guard.

I have such a backpack because a mesh or clear plastic one was required in almost all my years of schooling, including elementary school. The intention was to allow adults to notice weapons and drugs easily and therefore improve school security. Perhaps this fact reflects poorly upon the types of schools I attended; perhaps it also highlights the Band-Aid remedies to problems inner-city public schools face.

But what does the dominance of opaque backpacks say about Wash. U.? For one thing, it certainly reflects the independence we enjoy and the privacy we cherish. Few students would want the board of trustees dictating whether their L.L.Bean bags (complete with stitched initials) are safe and appropriate. We are at a point in our lives when adults trust our judgment in at least the more trivial matters. Nor would students want other people to peer effortlessly into their backpacks. These bags hold everything from the mundane to the intimate; I’m sure that every day, someone is carrying more than pencils and a textbook.

Yet on a broader note, I feel that the most common style of backpack reflects the safe, trusting atmosphere of our campus. I bet if you polled a large group of students, the vast majority would say that they feel safe on campus, even late at night. WUPD, Bear Patrol and other entities have done an admirable job of ensuring student safety. Unlike at previous schools of mine, there is little anticipation here of a blatant drug or weapons-related incident—though, thankfully, there is ample preparation, such as the emergency text message service, should one occur.

At Wash. U., some students nonchalantly (and stupidly) leave their computers on the library desk while they run to make copies. We prop open our room doors, calculating that it is more likely for a friend to stop by and chat than it is for a stranger to enter and steal. Basically, at this university, there is a wonderful expectation of safety and general sense of security. Our campus is blessed with very little serious crime.

But then again, I don’t know if I would always call the sense of security a blessing. I can see it leading to a feeling of invincibility, a justification like “This is Wash. U.; that would never happen.” To take a different angle, I see this consistent ambiance of security on campus as another way in which Wash. U. lacks diversity. For all the attention that the lack of socioeconomic diversity on campus has drawn, we’ve failed to acknowledge an often intimately connected truth: Most of us grew up in safe communities which didn’t require us to worry very often about bad things happening. Coming from an upper middle-class neighborhood, I know this is true for me.

I do not advocate a less-safe Wash. U.; that would be regressive and stupid. Yet I think we could all benefit from a student body that was less assured and more cognizant of the realities of crime on campus. To become safer, we students must become more vigilant. To become more vigilant, the University must attract a more diverse crowd, a student body with a broader spectrum of comfort. Crime, from bicycle theft to sexual assault, will not abate until we learn to actively protect ourselves against it.

And it IS a situation. What happened to that grad student last month is not unusual. How many of your friends have been held up at gunpoint, stripped of their wallets, phones and wedding rings? But at least they have their education. The University needs to build off-campus housing for students who don’t/can’t live on campus. A great many universities (even STATE universities, Dr. Wrighton) have complexes and housing for grad students and upperclass undergraduates. So why don’t we? The one at Stanford is the size of a small city and even has its own bar.

Grad students, who make very little as it is, essentially have two options: Sign on with Quadrangle (and please, don’t sign on with Quadrangle!), or bag a Special Someone who has a real job and who has the monetary capital to make everything better. Undergraduates who choose to live off campus may have no options…That’s why the University needs to devote some of its cranes and hardhats and executive meetings to off-campus housing. Although the University may install more security cameras, offer more counseling, and get more carts to drive around the block, this problem will not go away. It’s time for plan B, which should have been plan A.

And it IS a situation. What happened to that grad student this past week is not unusual. How many of your friends have been held up at gunpoint, stripped of their wallets, phones, and wedding rings? But at least they have their education. The University needs to build off-campus housing for students who don’t/can’t live on campus. A great many universities (even STATE universities, Dr. Wrighton) have complexes and housing for grad students and upper class undergraduates. So why don’t we? Hell, the one at Stanford is the size of a small city and even has its own bar.

Grad students who make next to nothing essentially have two options: sign on with Quadrangle (don’t sign on with Quadrangle!), or bag a Special Someone who has a real job and who has the monetary capital to make everything better. Undergraduates who choose to live off campus may have no options…That’s why the University needs to devote some of its cranes and hardhats and executive meetings to off-campus housing. Although it may install more security cameras, offer more counseling and get more carts to drive around the block, this problem will not go away. It’s time for plan B, which should have been plan A.

David Holloway
Graduate Student, Class of 2013

A proposal fronted by University City Police Chief Charles Adams calls for closed-circuit television cameras on Delmar Boulevard in the Loop area and increased police patrols in the vicinity.

Also being considered by the University City City Council is a revised curfew for those 16 and under between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., seven days a week, unless they are on the Loop on business or accompanied by an adult.

The current curfew hours are 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekdays and midnight to 6 a.m. on weekends.

University City has asked the University for assistance both with planning the upgrades and funding for the cameras and overtime officer pay, according to Cheryl Adelstein, director of community relations and local governmental affairs at the University.

The Delmar Loop, with its restaurants, bars, shops, clubs and performance venues, has long been a popular social destination for University students. The American Planning Association recently named it one of “America’s 10 Greatest Streets.”

The University is concerned for the Loop and University City’s well-being in part because of the high numbers of students, staff and faculty living in University City and frequenting the Loop area, Adelstein said.

“[The Loop] is the downtown for the University,” Adelstein said. “We want our students to feel safe and comfortable in the Loop, and we want University City to thrive, and one of the ways that they do that is by having a successful downtown district.”

The biggest obstacle to the cameras and increased patrols is money, with University City still looking for funding sources.

The City Council will consider the curfew revisions later this month, but the cameras and increased patrols are not ready for presentation to the council. The Loop Special Business District, the University, the University City Police Department and other agencies are still working out the details of the upgrades.

Councilwoman Lynn Ricci emphasized that the University City government must spend responsibly. She said she hopes the University will contribute to funding the cameras and patrols.

“If we’re asked to consider it, our responsibility would be to be fiscally responsible and see how much it costs and where that money is going to come from,” Ricci said. “We’re protecting a lot of [Washington University’s] students and faculty. The Loop is heavily traveled by Wash. U. students and Wash. U. staff and many of them are also U. City residents.”

Officials said they do not yet know how much the upgrades would cost.

Ricci said that the extended curfew was recommended by Adams and the Loop Special Business District. Part of the impetus for the proposed upgrades, especially the curfew, was an influx of young patrons into the Loop last summer.

The large crowds have created a significant loitering problem, Ricci said.

“I had concerns about the curfew ordinance because it didn’t appear that that would really do anything, a one-hour difference,” Ricci said. “We’ve got groups wandering the Loop and doing things like stealing cell phones and just being disruptive, and this is just not appropriate. So if they recommend this change then I will support it.”

The proposal comes months after a series of car break-ins around University-owned apartments near the Loop in late 2008 and the Nov. 2008 murder of University City police Sergeant Michael King, a University alum, near the intersection of Delmar Boulevard and Leland Avenue.

The University doesn’t yet know how much of the upgrade costs it would absorb. The recent 25 percent decrease in the endowment in light of the global economic crisis, however, has forced the University to cut back on spending.

“I don’t believe we’re going to be able to positively respond to everything that they’ve asked for, but I do believe that the security of our faculty, staff and students and the safety and well-being of the University and the University’s neighbors will continue to be a priority for the University,” Adelstein said. “So I believe that we will try to find an appropriate and budgetarily responsible way to respond.”

Despite the issues in funding the cameras and patrols, Ricci said her highest priority is the safety of the city’s residents and visitors.

“If I had to prioritize on being a leader and running a city, my number one priority would be safety,” Ricci said. “Anything to keep our community safe is necessary in my opinion.”

Students say the security upgrades would be worth the costs. For Stephanie Miller, a senior who lives just off the Delmar Loop, not passing the measures would reflect poorly on the city’s residents’ commitment to safety and security.

“I don’t walk out there after 8 or 9 [p.m.] by myself like ever because I don’t think it’s safe,” Miller said. “If they didn’t get passed, it would be sad, because it would show that people don’t have a commitment to making their own community and their own area safer.”

The political significance of the event has not been lost on that party, as is evident by their most recent campaign efforts. In the Hindustan Times, they took out a front-page ad decrying the weakness of the current government, which they declared had taken inadequate steps to combat terror and provide for India’s security. As this event is not particularly isolated, in that India has been victim to more Islamic terrorism than nearly any other nation in existence, many are seeking a party that can bring about meaningful reform. And it would seem that the Indian People’s Party is the logical front-runner in that sense.

They have proposed considerably tougher anti-terrorism laws, and have a detailed plan to overhaul the national security apparatus, making it much more effective. There is due cause to take them seriously on matters of defense and security, as during their brief time in power in earlier years, it was they who conducted Operation Shakti, giving India nuclear weapons.

This attack, which has re-oriented the national political mindset, must be put into perspective. At this point, the evidence suggests that the Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out the attacks. Further, some in the U.S. intelligence community are suggesting that direct training of the terrorists was handled by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Whatever the exact details may prove to be, it is quite clear that major fault for this unspeakable atrocity rests on Pakistan in some capacity. The Congress Party has proven over time unable to appropriately confront this threat, or to realize and act on the obvious links between the Pakistani government and the terrorists causing death and civil unrest in India. It is thus imperative that they not be left in charge, as their likely failure to respond will only send the signal that India is cowardly and cannot act when threatened.

Whatever one might wish to say about the Indian People’s Party, which based on their track record ought to be mostly positive, there is no disputing that they are, as evidenced in rhetoric and their track record, keenly aware of the true security problems, and are intent on rectifying them.

So, while the loss of innocent life at the hands of deranged Islamic terrorists is deeply upsetting, it is important that this be used as a lesson more than anything else. People realize once more, as they always should have, that the Congress Party is incapable of protecting India, and that any long-term solution involves dealing with Pakistan in a much harsher way is presently done. The Indian People’s Party has a message perfectly in sync with this, and is thus well positioned to return to power, thereby giving India a chance to properly secure itself from internal terrorist threats and the greater Pakistani problem.

So, as with all things, there is a silver lining to this horrific chapter of Indian history: the chance for genuinely positive change that will prevent such occurrences in the future. Let us hope then that when the polls open, the voting public has the intellectual clarity needed to take advantage of this second chance and elect a government actually capable of preserving their life and liberty.

While Paula Lauris offers some good advice about how and where to nap during the day (“Catch Some ZZZ’s”, Oct. 6), she neglects to tell her readers that they should, before falling asleep, take the elementary precaution of securing their belongings. Recent years’ dorm room burglaries taught us to lock doors; let’s obviate a similar spate of sleeping-student thefts before it starts.

Michael Hamm
Dept. of Mathematics Graduate Student

The importance of debate security became more critical than expected with Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, an unexpected pick that stunned the world and excited voters who previously might not have been excited.

And with Palin shielded from most media contact by the McCain campaign, the vice presidential debate will be the first time voters will see how her credentials stack up directly against those of the Democratic vice presidential nominee, six-term Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).

“I never thought the VP debate would grab the attention of the world like it is. I think it’s based on the Republican Party’s candidate,” Jill Carnaghi, assistant vice chancellor for students and director of campus life, said. “It doesn’t appear to have let up much. Who ever thought that the VP debate would take the spotlight from the three presidential debates?”

After days of preparation and difficulties with funding, the University is hoping that the campus will be secure for another debate, after hosting presidential debates in 1992, 2000 and 2004. Don Strom, chief of the Washington University Police Department (WUPD), has been at the helm of the department’s security efforts for this debate and the 2000 and 2004 debates.

According to Strom, the security measures center around a unified command structure consisting of representatives from WUPD, St. Louis County, St. Louis City, University City and Clayton police departments and the Missouri Highway Patrol, in addition to fire and emergency services representatives.

Police departments in neighboring municipalities may also provide assistance.

“Part of our planning is to plan for a variety of different contingencies, all of which we hope don’t ever occur, but we take them into consideration and staff appropriately,” Strom told Student Life.

The U.S. Secret Service will also have a large presence. Strom noted that there would be a shared responsibility for security between the Secret Service and local law enforcement agencies.

While the planned security measures will likely cause nuisances for students, faculty and campus visitors, University administrators like Carnaghi say the experience of a debate will make the security checkpoints and parking lot closure aggravations worthwhile.

“I’ve had some folks say, ‘One of the most memorable things was being involved in the 2000 or 2004 presidential debate, that I got to see it, I got to be there, or I got to meet Tim Russert or Tom Brokaw,’” Carnaghi said.

Access to campus restricted, lots and streets closed

Yesterday and today, access to campus has been restricted to students, faculty, staff and invited guests. The Office of Residential Life, as in past debates, implemented a no guest policy for students, which ends tomorrow afternoon.

Chancellor Mark Wrighton sent an e-mail to the University community detailing some of the campus restrictions during debate week. The e-mail advises students and staff to carry their ID cards at all times so they can pass through checkpoints.

“We’re going to have a lot of law enforcement people here who are not as familiar with our campus as our officers are, so if they ask somebody for their ID, they’re going to expect to see it,” Strom said.

Security measures have forced the closures of 10 parking lots and portions of Forsyth and Big Bend boulevards, and beginning at 11 a.m., all vehicle traffic entering campus must enter on Brookings Drive via Skinker Boulevard.

“A debate of this size and this importance requires a lot of various staff and media and guests, and it requires a certain amount of parking availability,” Nicholas Stoff, director of Parking and Transportation Services, said. “Some of those lots are [closed] also for security reasons with their distance to the [Athletic Complex].”

With the parking and traffic constraints, Stoff advises people to carpool or use alternative modes of transportation and to give themselves extra time.

A full list of parking restrictions is available at http://parking.wustl.edu.

Security funding difficulties

Security for the 2004 debate cost about $600,000, according to Strom. The University and other agencies involved have in those cases received $300,000 from the federal government in the form of the very competitive Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants.

For this year’s debate, the St. Louis Area Regional Response System (STARRS), a body that handles the St. Louis area’s requests for UASI grants, received several hundred thousand dollars of UASI grants, $300,000 of which STARRS agreed to allocate for the vice presidential debate.

But this past week the federal government withheld the money from use because the grant requires the Homeland Security terror alert level to be orange, or at a high risk of terror attacks. The current level is at yellow, one level lower.

“Certainly we’re disappointed, and it’s a competitive process. You’re always competing against other needs that people have,” Strom said. “It’s also frustrating that you get mixed signals from the start about what was going to be approved and what wasn’t, and after being told that it met the criteria and then being told later that it was not coming after all.”

The University and the other regional police agencies involved will now have to absorb the costs of security. But Strom says that even if the University had received the money, it would have given other agencies funding first.

“We already adopted a attitude internally that if the funding became available [WUPD] was not going to accept the funding. We were going to let the partners on the upside have that first,” Strom said. “It certainly wouldn’t have paid all their costs but it may have been something.”

Strom did not comment on how the costs would be spread among the involved law enforcement agencies, but he said that the number of officers each agency contributes would be one factor.

Regular Upper Row searches not anticipated

Although Greek Life officials recently said that the Secret Service would have the authority to search buildings in close proximity to the Athletic Complex regularly, Strom denied that the Secret Service would conduct regular searches, but it will have the authority to conduct searches if deemed necessary.

“I don’t anticipate any kind of searches that would involve dogs or anything like that,” Strom said. “Obviously if we perceive some sort of threat we would respond to that threat and investigate it.”

But fraternity members are not entirely safe from investigations. Yesterday and today, only the residents of Upper Row are being admitted to the area because crowds pose an additional security risk.

“There are certain stresses on our security measures that having too many people in that area could create,” Strom said.

Administration and students not concerned

Despite the laundry list of security measures, past inconveniences surrounding the debates, have been minor, according to Carnaghi.

“If anything, there were minor inconveniences that people were more than willing to contend with to in order to be part of it all,” the assistant vice chancellor said. “I don’t remember receiving any student complaints. If anything, there was kind of an excitement in the air.”

This debate will be no different. According to Carnaghi, the benefits afforded by the hosting of a debate outweigh the accompanying security inconveniences.

“I think all the benefits and opportunities far outweigh any inconvenience,” Carnaghi said. “From my perspective, the reason we take it on is so students can see firsthand the political process, so they can get involved if they want, they can offer to volunteer.”

“Let’s just hope the weather is good,” Carnaghi added. “That will be the biggest inconvenience.”

Overall, students like senior Adam Cohen, a Student Union senator who lives off campus, are taking the inconveniences in stride.

“Getting onto campus is going to be a little more difficult,” Cohen said. “Unfortunately it is kind of a big cost for Wash. U. But I think that the debate is a great thing in terms of publicity for Wash. U., and I think it’s a great thing in terms of getting students engaged in politics.”