One obvious addition to an article was pointed out to me a few times over the past few weeks that I’d like to address.
In Jazmine Hughes’s article two issues ago on “Safety at Conn” one question was left out – why were two separate emails sent about the man in Cro with such differing information?
My recent conversations with College Relations (the ones who sent out the email) revealed that emergency emails are written and sent out quickly to ensure that information is sent to students with as much detail as the college happens to know at the time about an incident or concern.
This initial email is is often corrected, or at least further investigated with additional details, in a second email.
Anyone remember the two emails about bullets in Freeman last semester?
Something similar occurred, with a quite frightening first email (“There are bullets in the trash can in Freeman? Why?!”), though we were quickly assured later in the email there was “no reason to assume” there was a gun to accompany the ammunition.
A second email swiftly followed which assured us that the student who had thrown out the bullets did not have a gun, but that he “found them in his suitcase” and quickly discarded them.
That line still left me quite confused, though fairly confident we were not going to be the site of any campus violence from this discarded ammunition.
This idea of one preliminary email with limited information followed by a second email with more detail or clarification makes sense. I personally would rather be forewarned about a possible sex offender found on campus or a breach of security, than to wait for the administration to look into the issue fully over the next few hours or days in order to confirm all of the details.
However, I still don’t understand why the phrase “he was not affiliated with Connecticut College” was even necessary in the first email sent about the sex offender. If that had not yet been confirmed (since it wasn’t even confirmed who he was) when that first email was released, why was that necessary?
Regardless of whether or not he was affiliated with the college as a student, member of the faculty, administrator, Oasis staff worker, custodian, campus safety officer, etc., my first concern would not be whether or not he was affiliated with the college. It would not have made me feel any more or less safe.
He was on our campus, in our bathrooms. Somehow or other he got there, and that’s what was addressed and needed to be addressed in the email.
He affected us negatively and we as a community should not, at least in a preliminary email, be concerned with what official affiliation he had with the college, if any, especially since his name was not released to those who wrote the email.
It made it look like the college had something to cover or hide, as if it were some sort of liability if he were hired by the college.
It was simply unnecessary, and made it look worse when the correction was made in the second, more detailed email.
So my points are twofold: continue using the two email emergency system. It keeps all of us in the loop and reminds us to stay especially observant if there is a security or safety concern.
However, make the first email as straightforward as possible with only confirmed details so that large clarifications or corrections do not need to be made.
I’d rather just know there was a prowler in Cro who was arrested for sexual voyeurism and read the specifics later.
Also, I’d love to see the subject line as something more eyecatching since unfortunately not everyone reads every single campuswide email. A title like “Message from Dean of Student Life and Campus Safety Director” is not as stimulating as “Waterford Man Arrested in Cro.”
