Reasonable Security, or Unnecessary Burden?

As I sit here in 30th Street Station, waiting patiently for my train to come and bring me home, there is a presence here that no one can ignore. That presence is the police. Many armed police officers, some with dogs, are wandering around the station. They are here looking for anything that seems out of the ordinary. Now I am not complaining about their presence, in fact, I feel much safer with them here. They play an important role in preventing crime and terrorism in our country, especially in a transportation hub such as this one. But the question that I now ask is, is this same presence needed elsewhere? Is a heavy police presence needed or even necessary in a place such as a school?
I was pleasantly surprised when I came to Drexel to see the efficiency of the security here. In a big city campus, in a city with a somewhat large crime rate, you would expect the security here to be efficient. Unlike in some colleges, the Public Safety organization here is not a police department, but instead they work with the city police. Their presence and their close relationship with the police help to deter crime from happening, but their limited authoritative power deters them from hassling students or other people. The security here for individual buildings is effective in that you need a card in order to scan yourself into the buildings. It is in my last statement where security is the most important, and that is in access. If a criminal, or someone who shouldn’t be in a particular place, cannot get into that place, then there is little need for the security inside that building. For example, you don’t need bomb-sniffing dogs inside the vault of Fort Knox, if no one can get into the vault anyway.
I have seen schools that are very easy to infiltrate, but once inside, there is a ton of unnecessary security, that in the end, only tend to piss off students and others. Security is important, but not at the expense of certain freedoms. I went to a friend’s college the other weekend, and the security there was painful. Not only was I able to easily sneak in, but people there thought I was just another student. But, since I wanted to be the responsible law abiding citizen that I am, I went through hell trying to get registered to stay there. This doesn’t prevent crime; this only punishes those who try to do the right thing. This college is not the example of a school with good security, although they had a large presence, they were only there to punish, and not prevent.
I think that the difference between effective and ineffective security lies in their purpose. If their purpose is to punish, then the security is ineffective, because by punishing, you are not stopping crime from happening, you are only punishing those who already committed a crime. If the crime in question is a shooting or a robbery, then the damage is already done. An effective security is one that prevents crime. Having a presence and stopping bad people from “getting in” is the key to safety, and the key to not stepping on people’s freedoms. When a crime is committed, some people will do whatever it takes to punish those responsible, and this could step on any number of individual freedoms. A random search, or an accusation, are all violations of a person’s freedom; their freedom from persecution.
This is not only happening at the college level, it is also happening at the high school and elementary school level. I worked for a computer technician for my school for a little over a year, and I was involved in security. I was involved in implementing a system of cards that provide access to buildings. Before that though, it was very easy for people to come and go from any school building. Then they created a system where everyone had to sign into a building when they came it, and the problem with that is that it lets people come into the building, the good people just have to make sure they check into the main office, even employees with ID cards.
When someone has to be “hassled”, they tend to feel violated, and they feel that their freedom to do what they please has been violated. Poorly designed security at places like schools can exacerbate this feeling of being hassled. When it is possible for anyone to get into a place, then the security there treats everyone like criminals. Security needs to be designed to accommodate the people who do the right things, and prevents the people who wish to do bad things from having a chance. Personal freedom should never be sacrificed in order to accommodate security. Security needs to be able to be flexible in order to accommodate people’s freedoms. There are good models and bad models, and luckily I go to Drexel, which is a good model of effective security.

Eat whatever, whenever

Recently, I attended a half an hour commuter cooking tip session at Drexel University, which made me realize how limited dining options are at campus. It was organized by Drexel’s commuter student’s organization and took place in the basement of Creese Center. The event’s main purpose was to teach students how to efficiently prepare three or more dishes out of grilled chicken in order to save money from eating outside as well as time. The session did not intend to turn students into chefs. Although these tips might be helpful to others that are new to cooking, they were basic to me. The Drexel Catering Representative showed us how to make chicken ceaser salad, chicken salad, and pesto pasta with chicken. I believe every person with minimum cooking skills can prepare these meals without the need of a book. The audience in the room was much smaller than I expected and I was unsure if this was due to insufficient advertising or the fact that students at Drexel do not have the time or opportunity to cook. The other twenty students in the room with me did not look like people who needed cooking or shopping advice. Frankly, from the answers heard I suspected that the free lunch was the only reason attracted them to the event. At first I was a little curious why so more people would not go to an event that offers free lunch. You would think that a free lunch is an advertisement that automatically attracts students, but then I realized that all freshman students already have prepaid all their lunches with the golden meal plan for a year ahead.
The school is worried about the stress level of their freshman students and wants to make sure that all students have a healthy meal three times a day. Because Drexel believes that “dining on campus play an important role in fostering a sense of community,” the school requires all freshman students living on campus to enroll in the golden meal plan and be able to visit the Handshumacher Dining Center, also called the cafeteria, as many times a week as they want. I was amazed when I found out from other students that they are actually obligated to purchase the plan if living on campus, which is also mandatory for the first three quarters unless you are a commuter who lives with your parents. I felt like the school has limited students living and dining possibilities and obligated students to spend money they could have had possibly saved. It is true that if one visits the dining center three times a day, seven days a week one meal would cost only five dollars and twenty cents. This is relatively cheap, but also equal to the price of a meal and drink purchased from any of the carts on campus. Let’s be realistic for a second! How often is a student able to visit the cafeteria? As a student, I cannot believe that other students would get up in the morning and go to the cafeteria for breakfast. I am extremely skeptical about Saturday and Sunday mornings in particular. I also know that students enjoy going out and eating in the city if they can afford it. Although I have no meal plan I was curious to check out the food at the Handshumacher Center and I visited it a couple of times myself. I did not need a lot of time to realize that the food choices are very limited, especially if you are a vegetarian or have some other food restrictions. At my first visit I was able to create my salad only to find out that they are out on dressing. About ten minutes later I found out that the lettuce is not fresh as well. A little disappointed, I thought that I could at least enjoy my Chinese meal that looked very appetizing, yet unfortunately tasted exactly the opposite. There is one thing tough that I do recommend at the cafeteria- peach yogurt ice-cream. I swear it its divine! After my second visit at the place I was convinced that it is lacking variety; the food is unhealthy, lacks taste and the ice-cream machine is not working quite often.
Then I heard other students talking about the “freshman fifteen rule”, which states that the average student gains fifteen pounds during freshman year, because of unhealthy food. Is the school interfering with students’ personal freedom by providing food that they might have not chosen if they had the right to dine wherever they want? Is the school responsible for college students’ obesity, because of providing unhealthy food? These are questions that, I am sure, concern some other students as well. It is true that the school has not restricted anybody to go and eat anywhere else, but why spend extra money if you have already prepaid for food a year in advance.
Drexel’s on campus dining opportunities are very limited compared to other schools in the area. University of Pennsylvania, a school in the neighborhood, has a lot more to offer in regards to dining places. Drexel’s students often leave their campus and prefer to experience dining services at foreign campuses. This contradicts with Drexel’s goal for “building a community”. I have heard from Temple students that they can use their Diamond Dollars, which is equivalent to the Dragon card, anywhere on campus, including the carts on the streets. This, as Drexel students are aware, is not possible on our campus.
I am so lucky for being a commuter and having the personal right to pick the food and the place I eat every day. As a business major I only wish there was a little more competition in dining centers so prices would get lower and the quality of food would improve.

A Symbol of Freedom

Imagine living in a country where education is banned. Growing up, children do not go to school and simply stay at home to help their mothers take care of the house, or help their fathers by plowing the soil in the farm. Everyone is illiterate, except top government officials, and all decisions are made by the government. Speaking out against any aspect of life leads to direct imprisonment and possibly death. While this seems like a scene from a horror film, it is a reality for many people living in dictatorial countries. People looking at these countries from the outside, such as Americans, many times wonder how these regimes can be overthrown. They then realize that only through a desire for change and knowledge of the existence of a better lifestyle that progress can occur. It is only through education that people develop this desire and knowledge, which is why it is so important to exalt and display the freedom of education in order to let the world see how important it truly is.

It is ten thirty, half an hour until the beginning of the ceremony and already the main auditorium is packed with students, faculty, and guests. The students have a reserved section in the very back of the room, from which the stage becomes almost invisible. As eleven o’clock approaches, the number of people present begins to outnumber the seating capacity of the room. Although half the front section of the auditorium is completely empty, it is reserved for faculty, therefore making the unlucky standing individuals even more furious that there was insufficient planning put into this event. Unlike a normal event where one can easily tell if students or adults are sitting behind someone simply from their conversations, this event is the complete antithesis. Instead of being able to differentiate the students by their discussions of who got drunk the previous night, during this event both the students and the faculty seem to be focused on the lack of planning put into such a propagated ceremony. By eleven o’clock, everyone is outraged that the seating limitations were not taken into account when inviting guests. A middle aged woman standing to the right of me keeps on saying, “they don’t look very happy to have us here.” The honors students standing in the corners are raging about the fact that the Honors College made attendance mandatory, when in fact there is seating available for only about half of the honor students.

About a quarter after eleven the doors close and the Convocation ceremony begins with Drexel University’s President Papadakis addressing the crowd and wishing everyone a successful new school year. After the president’s speech a few other speakers take the stand until the back doors open and the faculty comes walking in, organized into their prospective colleges and dressed in the medieval, academic attires of caps and gowns. The various colors and forms of caps and gowns represent the school and degree of a particular professor. Simply by looking at the academic attire one can tell the degree, area of study, and the university that a particular professor graduated from. Looking into the crowd of black, blue, and yellow robes, faculty members enter with the dean of each school holding a banner with its name on top. The ceremony concludes with Doctor Shirley Malcom speaking about the struggles she overcame as a black woman, growing up in the south, during the time of the civil rights movement.

Looking back at the convocation ceremony it seemed like a complete waste of time. However, thinking beyond the two hours spent sitting in a hot, crowded auditorium I realize why the annual ceremony is so cherished and exalted. Convocation is an event that defines the success of Drexel University, and even more so, the freedom of education, that we are fortunate enough to posses. Dr Shirley Malcolm’s speech makes one realize how fortunate we are to be able to attain an education. The definition of personal freedom spans far beyond the right to speech, press, to keep and bare arms, because it also encompasses the right of every person to attain the required knowledge necessary to become prosperous, through education. What makes America so different from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other oppressive countries, is that Americans are entitled to education and self enlightenment. Education is an extremely powerful force that is feared for a particular reason. With knowledge, comes the desire for progress and change. For this particular reason education is not permitted in many dictatorial countries. By banning education, governments are able to suppress their citizens by hiding the truth without fear that someone will decipher the lies. Therefore, convocation is commended because it is symbolic of the freedoms that Americans are able to posses. With education there is no limit to what one can achieve, as seen in Dr. Shirley Malcom’s experiences.

Beyond the symbolic aspect of freedom that convocation indirectly conveys, the overheard conversations are also symbolic of another type of freedom. The fact that the university did not thoroughly plan the seating arrangements is a fault that disserved criticism. However, the fact that the students, guests, and even faculty were able to voice their dissatisfaction is another example of just how much freedom Americans posses. In many countries people are jailed or even killed for speaking against institutions, especially ones that are as large as Drexel University. The ability to complain and even receive and e-mail from the Dean of the Pennoni Honors College apologizing for the lack of planning is an extraordinary freedom that should not be overlooked.

Convocation, although a minor event, in essence is symbolic of the freedoms that Drexel University is able to display, teach, and practice to its students. It inspired me to continue my studies and try to attain a doctorate degree because seeing my professors achieve such success makes my dream of becoming a doctor a bit more tangible. Seeing a great number of successful people is an extremely motivating force that encourages students to desire the freedom of education as much as Dr. Malcom desires it. Sometimes the minor things in life help people realize the significance of the bigger things. In this case, convocation was able to make me appreciate the personal freedoms that I, as an American, am fortunate enough to posses.