Security in the Houses

SINCE IT IS particularly important that all sectors of the University work together as efficiently as possible on so pressing a matter as security, I regretted reading a statement attributed to Vice President Stephen Hall that he had "been pushing House Masters this fall to bolster security, but that it took the recent crisis to get things moving." Since the suggestion has been made in public, however, that the Masters have been somehow irresponsible about security, I should like to state briefly what seem to me the facts of the matter and to add a comment on recent developments.

During the last few years it has been the Masters and staffs of the Houses who have been most conscious of the growing dangers of theft and assault and have been almost alone in demanding greater protection. They live as close neighbors of students and have intimate knowledge of the dangers and needs of the House areas. Four years ago they had already asked Police Chief Tonis to meet with them in special session to suggest increased police patrolling. They have resisted repeated attempts in the last three years to eliminate watchmen in the Superintendents' offices after 4:30 p.m. Masters of several Houses began asking some years ago for better locks for student rooms, especially locks that couldn't be left open. They were told that buildings would be done one by one beginning in the graduate areas.

A year ago last fall, Professor Andrews, as new Master of Leverett House, was insistently forceful in his demand that McKinlock Hall be protected either by guards or locks and that the streets in his area be adequately patrolled. The Master of Mather House joined in his plea. In meeting after meeting, Professor Smithies had been asking for better lighting and protection in the area outside Kirkland House. Two years ago the effort of the Senior Tutor of Lowell House finally led to some lighting along the front of the House where students had been mugged. A year ago the Senior Tutors as a group, led by the Senior Tutor of Dunster House, made a complete survey of lighting and patrolling needs in the river area, and the Masters of the Radcliffe area Houses developed a similar plan. It was, finally, in reply to a question by the Senior Tutor of Levertt House last spring that the President promised in a Faculty meeting that security of students would be henceforth a matter of first priority. This led directly to installation of improved lighting during the summer. During these years the measures urgently advocated by Masters and Senior Tutors have been accomplished, if at all, only by diligent effort in the face of complaint that their requests showed exaggerated concern or were too costly.

I know best, of course, my own experience and the timing of events at Lowell House. Beginning six years ago I posted warnings each year about the danger of interlopers and of unlocked rooms, urging students to report their suspicions at once to the University Police. Two and a half years ago we permanently closed the side gates of Lowell House. For two successive years I have posted urgent warnings in every entry and bulletin board giving detailed figures about violence and theft that had to be compiled for the purpose by our assistant Senior Tutor since they were unavailable otherwise. Then last summer, I talked with two different interviewers from the Vice President's office making surveys of security needs. To both of them I said that what I'd like to see most at Lowell House would be a 24-hour watch at the main gate and good door locks that couldn't be left unlocked. I discovered only last week that following my request, the Lowell House locks were surveyed and declared adequate; and therefore only last week were we able to set in motion the repair that many of them need and the de-activation of their unlocking mechanism.

Early last fall I requested peepholes in student doors, feeling that they, together with proper locks, were the most efficient safeguard for students. My request was cut back to about one-third of the rooms. Only now, three months later, has the President informed me that the remaining peepholes will be provided. This fall the Vice President instituted a midnight-to-eight patrol, one patrolman covering three river-area Houses. Everyone welcomed and supported this step toward better security; but after four months the punch-clocks to insure that the patrolling is actually being done in the House areas have not yet been installed. I continue to feel uneasiness for security during those hours.

Since Masters have for several years shown such urgent concern, one may wonder why they have now been accused of hanging back. The reason may lie in an issue between Mr. Hall and some of the Masters that should perhaps be aired publicly. The Vice President has wanted to use students both as patrolmen to man Superintendents' offices in the evening, seeing no great objection to giving them access to master keys (which would include House Offices, student rooms, Tutor' rooms and offices, and Masters' houses). This move has been strongly resisted by some of the Masters. There are two reasons for this resistance. First, there was concern for the safety of students acting as untrained patrolmen and carrying such keys. Secondly, there was concern for the wisdom of entrusting these keys to graduate and undergraduate students who had had little if any clearance. It may be that we are too sensitive to this aspect of security. But certainly we should have been considered derelict in our duty if we had given students access to keys during the last five years; certainly Dean Dunlop at least would have been vastly distrubed by such a system as recently as the SDS convention of last spring; certainly the attitudes of the Faculty toward student representation on the CRR is a sign of what our collegues, to whom we have some responsibility, consider appropriate even now. Professor Wilson recently described accurately and eloquently in a different context the weight of peer pressure on undergraduates in critically responsible positions. It is a pressure that might in certain circumstances be very awkward to deal with in the use of master keys in our communities. I should prefer to avoid that risk, concern for my responsibility will end only if the President decides explicitly to undertake it.

There is perhaps one other reason for tension. The House staffs have been for several years acutely aware, through personal experience, of the increasing danger of theft and violence in their area. Incidents similar to recent troubles have occurred more than once during the past three years. They have fought bitterly for security measures they deemed proper--watchmen, lights, police, locks, peepholes. Now suddenly an awakened central administration has offered all this and much more, urging the locking of entries, too, and the installation of gates. I should not want to be thought ungrateful if instead of locking everything up I should like to pause a moment to consider the effects of these new proposals on the quality of undergraduate life in this area. Convenience must of course be sacrificed to security. But there are other values of communication and openness in the House area which can perhaps be preserved by careful planning and judgment. Those whose concern is security alone may understandably be impatient with these considerations. My own concern is for the greatest security we can afford that is least disruptive of the life and habits that have made the Houses pleasant, interesting and varied centers of undergraduate life. This can be achieved, I believe, only by some thoughtful choice among the various kinds of protection.

Zeph Stewart is professor of Greek and Latin and Master of Lowell House.