I would first like to state that Duke is not responsible for the crime that occurs on campus. When pointing fingers, we often forget it's the fault of the individual who commits the crime, and not the fault of where the crime occurs. Sure, if Duke literally put up a bubble around campus to keep the outside world out, crime would likely decrease. But it wouldn't disappear, because those within the Duke community (students, faculty and employees) are capable of crime too. So in a word, it is absurd for us to blame Duke University for the crimes committed within Duke's walls.
I'm not saying that the University shouldn't take preventative measures, however. I was attacked at gunpoint outside Southgate two summers ago, so I am not unsympathetic to victims of crime and certainly not opposed to decreasing crime. But we lately have been dealing with crime out of fear alone, disregarding logic. Having said this, I think it's time Duke re-examined some of its crime prevention measures, especially the new talk of a gender-specific second key to get into a bathroom.
I think this is a horrible idea. For one, where are my opposite sex guests supposed to go to the restroom? For two, imagine how disgusting hallways will be during parties if people cannot get into the bathrooms. And the prospect of having to carry around a completely different key isn't very enticing either.
Obviously, it's inconvenient, but mainly, it won't prevent crime. If it actually prevented crime, I would consider a second key a small price to pay for absolute safety.
Given our current bathroom situation, consider seven scenarios. In the first, a Durham criminal A finds a way inside a dorm and encounters a locked bathroom door.
He either goes away or breaks in. In the former case, locking the bathroom has effectively prevented this crime. In the latter case, especially if he counted on the door being locked, it does not.
The University's solution to the latter situation is to change the lock on the bathroom door to make it gender-specific. Has anyone actually thought through this idea? If the people designing this proposal had, they would have realized that the same person who didn't have a key in the first place would still break in to the bathroom, if that was what he was intending to do. The criminal didn't have a key to the old lock and still doesn't have a key to the new lock-so how does the additional lock prevent this crime?
Now consider Duke student criminal B. Either B doesn't have a key, and he too can only break in or go away, or B currently can open the girl's bathroom on his floor.
In the latter situation, making gender-specific bathroom door locks would prevent the crime, so long as he was not intending to break in.
However, we must also take into account the case where A or B steals a key from a room nearby. In this scenario the criminal will always get in.
Out of our seven plausible situations, we have found that in only one case (where the criminal is a Duke male with a key that opens both bathrooms) is changing the lock an effective solution. That's one out of seven.
But I doubt this particular type of criminal would be a Duke student, because he is too likely to get caught. Assuming logic and post-crime publicity, a student, seen every day by classmates, would eventually be noticed and turned in.
So now we have limited our seven scenarios down to the three most likely ones (the Durham criminal who breaks in, goes away or steals a key), where changing bathroom locks would not further reduce crime.
Given our original seven situations, the most effective solution has already been enacted-locking bathroom doors in the first place. I think this particular issue should be one voted on by each bathroom in each hall, male and female. That way, males will not be lumped into this victim group and can choose to leave their doors unlocked.
Just as an addendum, locking bathroom doors can prevent a third party from helping a victim in the bathroom, if this third party doesn't live on the hall. Moreover, if the locks were made gender-specific, this third party would have to be a female in the hall too. And it doesn't seem like throwing another female into this mix is a good idea.
Chandra Jacobs is a Trinity junior. Her column appears every third Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.