The Justice

When I learned of the University's new policy to fine students $150 for covering dorm smoke detectors, it occurred to me that few things in life are a simple matter of black and white; right and wrong, especially in situations like these, are usually not immediately obvious. The decision to take action on the issue of covered smoke detectors follows the Waltham Fire Department's discovery of numerous fire safety infractions in residence halls. This is neither as justified as those who support it believe nor as heinous as those who decry it think.

The University -- and indeed all its students -- have a serious interest in ensuring that, in the case of a true emergency, people do not lose their lives or property due to others' shortsighted actions. With this in mind, I urge anyone who is considering covering a smoke detector to think seriously about the consequence. Is it really worth placing people in potential danger just for one person to do as he pleases?

But as much gravity as the issue holds, it doesn't justify the random room inspections the University said it will start carrying out. These inspections contravene the guidelines delineated in the Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. The University contends that its right to conduct such inspections has grounding in Section 10.5 therein, which states that "the University reserves the right to inspect rooms at reasonable times."

This is not, however, the only comment the Handbook has on such inspections. In fact, Section 17.3 refers nearly precisely to the issue at hand. To wit, it states that "student residence halls are inspected periodically to evaluate safety. These inspections will be conducted by floor, section of building, or building. Public notification of such inspections will be provided 24 hours in advance and will specify the date and time of the inspection for a given area." Thus, it would seem that the policy of unannounced periodic spot checks is, in fact, in direct opposition to an explicit clause in the Handbook.

This specific breach of the Rights and Responsibilities Handbook is particularly disturbing. The document's title connotes that students and administrators should be expected adhere to certain standards of conduct. As such, it is only proper that the University uphold its end of the bargain, just as the students are expected to uphold theirs.

When an authority-wielding body makes guarantees about what it will or will not do and then proceeds to break them, the authority's statements become less definitive. The situation is a most important one, but this does not justify the wanton scrapping of certain key facets of students' privacy guarantees. A solution to the extremely serious fire safety issues is of the utmost importance, but there are two groups who hold responsibilities, and both of them must follow through.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools