For the specifics of what went/is going on I'm going to direct people to the article and comments I am responding to: http://jezebel.com/5650995/rutgers-sex+spy-victim-commits-suicide and the new articles they link to at the end of the post. The basics of the situation is that a Rutgers student was recently taped (without his or his partner's consent) having sex with a same-sex partner by a webcam planted in his dorm room by his roommate and another student. The two students then broadcast the video on the internet. They were arrested, and charged with invasion of privacy. Devastatingly however, the victim (of this invasion of privacy? assault? hate crime? see the discussion at the link above) is now believed to have committed suicide on the 23rd.
This breaking of this story is causing a lot of discussion about criminal charges, legal issues, hate crime, harassment, young peoples' lack of empathy and respect, university culture, suicide and depression etc. but I want to bring up an additional factor: student safety at Rutgers, specifically student-housing resident safety:
I am a graduate student at Rutgers and also just this month moved my little sister into her Rutgers dorm for the start of her freshman year. On move-in day my parents and I were simply flabbergasted by the condition of the locks in my sister’s residence hall. Her co-ed dorm (which is supposed to be by far one of the best Rutgers has to offer according to word of mouth) is set up in a suite-style: 3 two-person bedrooms with a communal bathroom and common room. Each suite of course has a door, and each bedroom has a door. However, while the suite door has a “security lock,” the bedroom doors have “privacy locks” (to use housing office terminology).
What is a “privacy lock”? Essentially, a lock that does not work. Residents are given a key to their bedroom privacy lock, but it is not necessary. Anything will open a privacy lock: the official key, my dad’s car key, a quarter, my thumbnail, shoving the doorknob with enough force. It basically functions just long enough for the resident inside the room to, as my sister’s RA put it, shout “Wait, wait, wait! I’m changing! Don’t come in yet.”
My parents did all they could to keep from guffawing with astonishment when they discovered the ineptitude of this ‘privacy lock’ and its apparent normalcy. They went, as one would predict, to talk to a housing staffer about getting the lock fixed or replaced. What they were told is that the university can replace the lock, but only at the expense of the resident; “Privacy locks” were a normal and unproblematic issue. In other words: if you cough up the $200 to buy a new lock for us, we will keep your child safe. And of course, if you don’t, we are not liable for any loss of valuables.
This is an outrageous enough demand, but what has further frustrated my parents is the university’s attitude toward their concerns. They have responded as if my parents’ refusal find this security policy acceptable puts them into the category of the crazy college-student parents that one hears about in horror stories. Seemingly oblivious not only to basic assault and sexual assault statistics in general, but also school-specific violence and sex crime issues (Collegetown creeper anyone?), and complacent towards the theft in the Rutgers/New Brunswick area, they point out that there is after all a quite functional lock on the suite door.
But what anyone who has lived in campus dorms can point out: 1) that still leaves free access to a resident’s private room open to 4 additional people (beside the roommate) and anyone these people invite into the suite; 2) dorm culture often finds residents leaving their suite doors open, in (falsely-secure) efforts to foster community and camaraderie--- and this is a common practice in this particular dorm; and 3) even though there is card-access to the building, it is usually not difficult to gain access to a dorm if you are a friend of someone inside, loiter around the entrance long enough, are a delivery person, or are an official or official-looking university staff or maintenance person.
This means my sister, and any other resident, is actually unable to reasonably and confidently protect her/himself from not only theft of valuables (such as a computer, which a lot of Rutgers students can probably not afford to replace) but also from breaches of privacy, sexual or physical assault (remember, a lot of sexual assailants are people known to the victim), grey-areas of participation in illegal or banned drug/substance use going on in the suite (at many universities, even if you are not using the drugs/alcohol or know about their presence, if your door is open, your room is considered part of the space in which the illegal activity is going on)---- and let us remember school shootings, something for which most universities now claim to have protocols and security measure. But what do security officials usually advise individuals to do in these situations? Barricade yourself in your room. My sister cannot really effectively do that unless she has the time to push her dresser against the door. Additionally, all this applies to situations in which the resident is conscious and present, and if they are unconscious, for example, if they are, oh I don’t know, sleeping?
To get back to the events of the original Jezebel post: I’m not saying Rutgers’ housing/security policies or conditions are responsible for the independent malicious and harmful intentions/actions of these students, but I do think they should be asked to account for creating conditions in which crimes like this are extremely easy to perpetrate.
In my opinion, the university is demonstrating clearly that they do not care about their students’ (especially female students’*) safety, privacy, and therefore well-being. A call for replacement of old and dysfunctional locks in campus housing is not an outlandish request. But especially now, in light to the budgeting crisis, the university seem more interested in increasing enrollment to cover costs, pouring money into the underwhelming football program (see this opinion article for just a taste of the football issues http://www.dailytargum.com/opinions/let-athletes-choose-their-own-paths-1.2337417), and luxury construction projects like the new ‘welcome center,’ than actually spending money where it is needed and in the interests of its students.
While, I am only familiar with this one dorm and cannot speak to the conditions of the dorm involved in this particular criminal case, it is something I intend to investigate and needs to be investigated in general. As my sister’s dorm is “one of the best” I am going to speculate that the security measures in the other dorms are likely to be the same, if not worse.
This is an issue that I think other people and other Rutgers’ families need to hear about. With student/parent outrage at the continuing tuition hikes and the moving of costs to ‘student fees’ (which are often not covered by many forms of financial aid) this is yet another cost a student is expected to absorb (or not absorb at his/her own risk), and yet another example of the university’s inability or unwillingness to put the student first.
*This is a “female” issue for me simply because of the statistical likeliness of females to be sexually assaulted. But clearly, most (even all) of the concerns I’ve touched on are issues that affect all genders, and as this article/incident demonstrates, we should remember this should certainly include those of non-traditional genders and sexual orientations. In addition, I do think this is an ‘income’ issue and thereby possibly a racial issue, as those with resources are more able to purchase their child’s safety and absorb the financial costs of theft and trauma.
P.S. If you are familiar with the Rutgers dorms, especially if security measures in other buildings vary greatly from what I have described, or if you just want to send some information or corrections my way, please do.
