Dear Editor:
I would like to rebut a number of points brought up by Ariel Cascio in response to my article appearing in Monday’s issue of Student Life (“Is a snow day at Wash. U. too much to ask?” Dec. 4, 2006).
1. While it is nice that one of the housekeepers was shoveling when Cascio returned from class on Thursday, the bulk of the snow, as we all know, did not hit until overnight. This shoveling was most likely not significant compared to the amount of snow that fell later on.
2. The fact that Cascio noticed “multiple clear paths” on the South 40 as a result of “several men shoveling snow and even bashing away at the ice” does not convince me that enough paths were cleared elsewhere. I know they were not, as long as I was on campus from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
3. Paths may have been salted during Cascio’s 1 p.m. class; however, this is too late. If the University expects people to move about the campus at 8 a.m. (and earlier), the paths need to be at least relatively walkable by then. If, as Casio notes, salting is impossible earlier and paths cannot be made safe, then the campus should be closed.
Cascio states: “The burden of foul weather falls more heavily on faculty and staff who not only have to navigate around campus, but also to and from campus.” I never doubted this in my article. Of course it is important that people can get to campus safely on the roads. But just because you can get to campus, it doesn’t mean you can get around campus.
Cascio also writes: “If the University truly closes and students are not expected to attend class, we can’t expect the staff to endure weather conditions deemed unfit for residents.” Solution? Close the campus, and no one endures any weather conditions.
The bottom line remains that while steps were taken by the University to clean up the campus, they were insignificant and inadequate. Yes, the campus was eventually cleaned up, but not enough so by the beginning of the day on Friday.
– Andrew Zenker
Class of 2008