Safety Should Be Accessible

I was trying to visit a friend in Leverett when it happened. It was around 1:30 a.m., and I was waiting outside the entrance to Leverett House, hoping to find someone to swipe me in. It was dark. I was a sophomore, just about to turn 19. A young girl on the streets, with music blaring out of Quincy House and small groups passing by under the streetlights, their faces oddly lit and eyes downcast. That was the scene. That’s when it happened. I asked a passer-by to swipe me in. She looked at me and asked, “Can I see your ID?”

The first time. My second year at Harvard, and the first time anyone had ever followed the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) guidelines that you learn during Freshman Week, the guidelines repeated by proctors and tutors and guards: always ask to see ID. I was taken aback. I reached for my ID when she smiled. “I’m just kidding,” she said as she slid her card through the machine and popped open Leverett’s door for me.

Of course, asking to see students’ IDs before you swipe them in seems like a prudent thing to do. Why would I want to allow a stranger into my House or dorm, someone who could harm me or my neighbors? We don’t push the uncomfortable demand—we are often on the other side of the situation, trying to get in. Instead, we let almost anyone in, assuming that they are a Harvard student from another dorm.

Universal Keycard Access (UKA) would change this. If everyone’s ID let them into the place they wanted to be, the scenario would be different. I would be more cautious about letting people in late at night. In its hopelessly mangled state, Harvard’s swipe system allows access to anyone willing to wait to be swiped in. In fact, the only people who don’t benefit from this system are those who need it most—those seeking fast security from a nighttime threat. The lack of UKA on campus is an issue of safety, and the decision to limit access does not help increase safety. It further hinders it.

In an e-mail that circulated Harvard campus almost a month ago, a Quad resident described a hellish, desperate experience trying to swipe into River Houses after 1 a.m. She claimed to have been pursued by a group of men, who did not appear to be other students. The story of a series of locked doors barring entry into the Houses culminates in an assault. Whether or not the anonymous account is true, it without a doubt reminded many Harvard students of our fears about similar near-encounters.

Despite our concerns regarding assault on Harvard students by outsiders, the greatest threat to Harvard students is actually other Harvard students. In the past, House Masters have used this fact to argue that UKA would promote assault. A Harvard student fleeing a Harvard stalker would find safety in his or her own House, where the stalker could not follow. In theory, UKA seems an appropriate way to provide all students their own space from which to escape a threat. But in practice, Houses are not the insular places that Masters might wish them to be. As students are constantly attending late-night study sessions, performances or social events, the Houses remain open to all by a simple swipe from a passer-by.

True, the lack of UKA after 1 a.m. forces students to wait a minute or two to get into another House. But Harvard students have learned to wait. If one student took the trouble to follow another back to his or her House, the pursuer would surely linger the minute or two it takes to get swiped in. Last year, when UKA was proposed to House Masters, it seemed more of an issue of convenience—getting access whenever you want it. But the truth is that we already have access: Harvard students are quick to swipe anyone in. UKA is not really about access at all—the only thing not accessible is safety.

Implementing Universal Keycard Access is in effect the safe version of the system we already have. It would guarantee that a protected, nearby space would be instantly provided to those who need it. Safety should be accessible, too.

Sarah E. Potvin ’04 is a history and literature concentrator in Adams House. Rebeccah G. Watson ’04 is a history and literature concentrator in Pforzheimer House. They are both board members of the Radcliffe Union of Students. Watson is a member of the Coalition Against Sexual Violence.