In last week’s issue, we ran an article on the cameras being placed in Cro’s snack shop. I have some strong, albeit conflicting opinions, about this topic, but there are a few clarifications I’d like to make about the article before I discuss them.
There will now be one camera inside the snack shop, by the cashier. It, like the other surveillance cameras around campus, will be only reviewed if an incident is reported.
In regards to the quote from Ulysses Hammond which claims that SGA supported the initiative “one hundred percent,” Hammond and Bengochea brought the topic of cameras at SGA executive board administrator meetings during training, and SGA President Peter Friedrichs and Stewart Smith, Director of Campus Safety, discussed the topic during the first SGA assembly meeting.
I could not attend the executive board meeting with Hammond since I was at a journalism conference, so I cannot speak for how the rest of the executive board reacted to the topic of surveillance cameras. But the phrase “supported ‘one hundred percent’” is misleading because there was no formal vote at the SGA assembly meeting, or at the SGA executive board meeting.
In fact, it was less of a conversation, and more of a discussion about a decision that had already been made by the Oasis staff and administration over the summer.
These facts now clarified, I would like to state my own opinion about this issue, which is actually quite complex. When I first heard that a camera would be placed in Oasis for safety reasons, I immediately agreed with the idea. I’ve seen plenty of drunken Conn students on any given Thursday or Saturday night stumbling and slurring their way through the snack shop, and disrespecting or verbally assaulting staff members.
“Where’s my pizza, b—-?” is one such expression I heard first-hand last spring on a particularly crazy night in Cro.
For staff member’s safety, and overall wellbeing, I agree that camera surveillance would help to deter some incidents, and that reviewing film footage could be useful in Judicial Board hearings as evidence of misdemeanors.
However, (and this is where my confliction comes in) not everything can be resolved by relying on surveillance.
It’s actually a very passive way to maintain order. Instead, the root of the problem should be addressed: how effective is our Honor Code?
The matriculation pledge we all make freshman year states: “I understand my obligation to this community under the Honor Code and pledge to uphold standards of behavior governed by honor. I pledge to take responsibility for my beliefs, and to conduct myself with integrity, civility, and the utmost respect for the dignity of all human beings.”
Emphasizing the line “conduct myself with integrity, civility, and utmost respect for the dignity of all human beings,” disrespecting Oasis staff is a blatant breach of our Honor Code, which gives me cause to believe that placing cameras in the snack shop demonstrates the administration’s assumption that students will undoubtedly break the Honor Code.
This nonsensical reaction from the administration would be like:
– Students cheat on a test. We’ll put cameras up in classrooms and academic buildings!
– Underage students drink in their rooms. We’ll put cameras up in every residence hall!
Where does it end?
I’m pushing it on this account, I know, but I really want to drive my point home: we need to get to the root of the problem (Honor Code) and look at the bigger picture instead of simply taking the easier way out.
Please note that I’m not completely against the purchase of this camera. As mentioned earlier, I think it’s a good idea for the wellbeing of Cro staff who are verbally abused.
I do think, however, that students should have had a say in this, both so that we can express our concerns (if any) and so we can be made more aware of the fact that behavior on Thursday and Saturday nights has reached the breaking point.
It’s time for some self-evaluation, and time to revisit the effectiveness of the Honor Code in our daily lives and interactions with others.
