UAPD needs to focus more on sexual assault
After the recent sexual assaults on our campus, I have become extremely concerned with the security at campus dorms. The question of how a man was able to get into Manzanita-Mohave Residence Hall on the night that young girl was attacked still lingers in my mind on a daily basis.
I live in Apache-Santa Cruz Residence Hall, and although I have not noticed it before, there are almost 11 doors leading to the outside and zero cameras that I have been able to detect. This means any person can easily find a way into the hall, either by following someone in or asking a resident to let them inside.
Sure, authorities tell us to ask a person if they live in the hall before allowing them in, but what makes us think that that person is likely to tell the truth? When that stranger found a way into Manzanita-Mohave on April 11, he was able to scar a life forever and increase fear and anguish among many others around campus. So as a result, security needs to be tightened, and without hesitation.
Why don’t we look at Coronado Residence Hall, where residents must check in on the weekend with student identification, as well as checking in guests? Let us also realize that they have cameras surrounding the building inside and out. Why aren’t all resident halls like Coronado? If it is a money issue, I am sure that parents and students will be willing to chip in that extra bit of rent money to secure their safety in the place they are living in.
The statistics on the UAPD Web site show that there is an average of one-half of an arrest for sexual assault per year, compared to 257 arrests for liquor violations per year. Seems to me that we are focusing on underage drinking more than rape and assault. It may be that our campus has rare occasions of sexual assault, or that people are not reporting the crimes, but right now the tables have turned. In order to secure the safety of our student body, heightened security needs to be the first step.
Taylor Hoffman creative writing freshman
Democrats are hypocrites? Hardly
In regard to David Francis’ column “”Checking in on the 110th Congress”” on Monday, I’d just like to extend my wholehearted thanks to Francis because I haven’t laughed that much in a long, long while. Apparently it’s never too early for Republicans to begin ripping the Democrats for any and all the problems of this nation.
Don’t get me wrong: I despise the hypocritical Democrats (as well as the Republicans) as much as the next person, but I’m pretty sure that Republicans have spent the past six years digging the United States into its current hole, so I can’t fault the Democrats for not pulling us out of it in less than 6 months.
As for the corruption aspect, my little time spent researching revealed a lot of accusations, but not a whole lot of convincing evidence against the Democrats that Francis questions.
On the other hand, investigators have hard copies of the filthy e-mails and instant messages that Republican Mark Foley sent to the congressional page. These messages alone should be enough for anyone at any job to be fired, let alone the possibility that he actually followed through with any kind of sexual act. As for Foley’s “”comrade-in-pedophilia,”” Democrat Barney Frank actually asked the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to conduct an investigation into these matters.
After 10 months of investigation, the committee ultimately determined that Frank had no involvement or knowledge of the prostitution activities that allegedly occurred in his apartment. On top of that, the committee could not conclusively determine that Frank’s apartment was even used in the prostitution ring. The committee only recommended that the openly homosexual Frank be reprimanded for his relationship with a male prostitute who eventually became his live-in boyfriend.
If calling for an investigation of yourself and being found almost completely innocent isn’t honest, then who knows what is?
Shad Smith junior majoring in biochemistry and molecular biophysics
React-gathering strategy cost student lives
In light of Monday’s tragic events at Virginia Tech University, we at the UA would like to believe that we are safer than students elsewhere and that such a horrible event could not happen on our campus.
Yet the chief of the University of Arizona Police Department, Anthony Daykin, defended the actions of police and administrators at VT in a radio interview yesterday morning, saying that until the police had all the facts (of the first shooting), it may not have been appropriate to initiate a campus lockdown or some other emergency procedures beyond sending out the blast e-mail, which we now know did not go out until the second attack was beginning.
Administrators and police at VTU have defended their actions after the first shooting using exactly the same line. This idea of “”Wait until we get all the facts to act”” might seem like prudent decision-making, but I think it’s a poor excuse for a lack of leadership and indecision. On Monday, that lack of leadership cost 30 more students their lives.
The bottom line is that Virginia Tech officials failed to act effectively in order to prevent the first incident from escalating into the second one. I certainly hope that such indecision would not stifle administrators at the UA should a crisis ever befall our own campus.
The president of Virginia Tech and its chief of police should resign, and administrators here at the UA should learn a valuable lesson that could save lives: In times of crisis, leadership requires decision-making, and hiding behind a desire to “”get all the facts first”” will not be acceptable.
Michael R. Huston senior majoring in political science and philosophy former Wildcat columnist
Gun-free zone? More like turkey shoot
As students at a university where a shooting has previously occurred, the tragic events that took place at Virginia Tech this past Monday sit heavy in the hearts of all. The loss of life was immense; with 33 people dead and more injured, it is the being called the most deadly shooting in U.S. history.
It makes one think: How safe are you? What measures are in place to keep you safe from harm while you’re in class, in your dorm or walking across campus? Heaven forbid that another shooting occur on our campus, but if it did, what would you do? What could you do?
The truth is: not much. Current law, as well as UA policy, prohibits you from providing yourself with a means of self-defense. The UA’s weapons policy (see: http://web.arizona.edu/~policy/weapons.shtml) prohibits common defensive items such as pepper spray. Like Virginia Tech, the UA doesn’t allow firearms on their campus even for law-abiding individuals trained and licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Even if they did, Arizona state law prohibits it.
As UA students, we’re forced to be unarmed and defenseless, hoping that being suspended or expelled will be a sufficient deterrent for those who mean to harm us or to those around us. Forgive me if I’m less than confident.
While one can always call the police, response time is measured in minutes, while in life-threatening situations like the shooting at Virginia Tech, survival is measured in seconds. A single armed student or faculty member could have quickly ended, if not prevented, any and all school shootings.
It’s time for change. It’s time to rethink the “”feel-good”” legislation that is leaving thousands of innocents defenseless. It’s time to let our state representatives know that we want to be safe. It’s time that we let university students and public school teachers protect themselves and those in their care.
I urge you to call, write a letter or send an e-mail to your representatives and ask them to place public schools and college campuses back onto the list of places where law-abiding citizens can defend themselves.
Nick Lincowski history junior
