In the annals of the past at Goucher College, I was free to roam the open pastures of every dorm building. Living in Trustees, I could not only access Trustees, but also Heubeck from dawn to dusk, permitted to graze the grasses with my fellow students. Now, in the year 2024, we are sectioned off and isolated from one another and our community is dying. Let us take a tour, a glance into the past, to see why things changed, and how they could be different.
I have conducted several interviews surrounding the topic of locked doors on campus. First, let’s focus on one I conducted with our Director of Campus Safety, Tiffany Justice. She has been at Goucher since 2017. The policy regarding locked doors in dorm buildings was updated in 2018, so she was quite knowledgeable on this topic. She states that what influenced the change was a “Bias Incident” happening in 2018.
Prying into this further, our Campus Climate Education Team (CCET) has listed as an example for Hate Crimes, a Goucher incident in 2018 that aligns with the “Bias Incident” Tiffany described, and she has confirmed that this was the incident. Whatever it was, it’s clear that hatred was spread in a dorm building, and Goucher’s response was to only allow students access to the dorm building in which they live.
Their logic follows like this: If someone writes slurs on the walls of Fireside hall, the most likely suspects are those 50 students who live in Fireside. If access were granted to the entire campus, that number would jump from 50 to 1000.
There are some flaws in this logic. The most blatant one is that not allowing someone into a dorm building does not actually stop them from getting in. We all know how it goes down– if I want to visit my friend in Alcock, I just sit outside like a lost puppy and wait for some foot traffic to come by and open the door. If someone is going to commit a hate crime, they will surely break lesser rules to do so. Onecard access does not stop the motivated hater.
Another flaw lies in the “most likely suspects” aspect. Whether or not someone has access to a dorm, the most likely culprit for a hate crime committed in P. Selz is still a student living in P. Selz. Studies analyzing and connecting where criminals commit crimes and where they live (Routine Activities Theory and Crime Pattern Theory) find that most criminals will commit crimes in the spheres they frequent the most. In the places the vandal knows the most about, they are more confident and capable to commit crimes there. Allowing non-residents access to these spaces does not stop this from being true. If someone lives in Jeffrey, they know when no one is roaming the halls, who lives there and how best to spread hate.
The most glaring problem, however, is that limited access to dorm buildings does not combat hate crimes in any real way. Limiting access inhibits and worsens our relations with each other. We get less opportunities to meet people who would broaden our horizons and challenge our views. The inability to mingle with strangers on campus who could change our perspectives makes people more likely to make false and hurtful assumptions about people. This is how hatred is born.
A real way to combat hate crimes is to foster a community where people hold each other accountable and where dialogue is encouraged and allowed. Not allowing us to interact with students living in different dorms stops these developments in their tracks. Students in Welsh and students in Sondheim are not that different, but this severance imposes an identity onto the students living there, further rupturing our relations to one another. Enforcing isolation does nothing to stop the hatred found in one’s heart. Building a community where hate is discouraged and destabilized is something that does effectively combat hate crimes.
I am not saying that allowing dorms to be open to all students will magically stop hate crimes on campus. I am saying that allowing students to easily visit their friends and meet strangers that will challenge their biases will create a community where hate crimes are not accepted nor entertained. In a community where everyone knows one another, where ignorance must be actively strived for and knowledge is given out like free candy, hate crimes will actually be combatted at Goucher College.
Attached is an ancient scroll from Goucher’s past. From the bygone year of 2000, this was a posting found in Hooper that described the functionality of the new Onecard system. You can make out very little, but one part reads: “All residential houses will be under “closed access” [by default.] Houses can vote to “open” their house, however, status [will only be kept] until the end of this semester following the vote.” It also appears residential houses would have been able to choose what hours they wanted their doors open, and that the most likely time would be 7AM – 11PM, following Goucher’s quiet hours schedule.
A more recent interview I conducted with our new Residential Life Director, Dr. Terrance Turner, regarding such a policy, echoes similar views to Tiffany’s. The following interview and dialogue over email could shed some light onto how the administration sees these problems.
I asked Dr. Turner the following: “If the determining factor is safety concerns, what do you have to say to the fact that other students not being able to get into other dorms leads to doors being propped open all the time, which is a much greater security risk than just having students being allowed into a dorm building?”
Dr. Turner’s response was this: “The foot traffic of guests in the open-door vs. guests through propped doors is something that’s difficult to track. Doors being propped open falls on the responsibility of those members in the community. We communicate that expectation and warn students of the potential risks. That is us addressing it.”
This response avoids the question I asked and puts responsibility upon the students. The students are willing to take on this responsibility. If students were informed of the potential risks of voting to have their dorm be an open dorm, it would be a better and safer way for ResLife to communicate and address this.
I asked Dr. Turner: “What are your thoughts on how separating us in our dorms actually provide no protection from the things they say they do? Locking doors doesn’t stop a student from committing a hate crime. Locked doors do not stop someone, who is already breaking the rules, from getting into the building.”
Dr. Turner responded: “Controlling access to residential spaces serves as a key preventative measure in our comprehensive safety strategy. While it’s true that no system is foolproof, these measures act as a significant deterrent, making it harder for individuals who might intend harm to enter our buildings or residence hall rooms without detection. Limiting access helps ensure that only authorized individuals—those with legitimate reasons for being in the building—can gain entry, which in turn reduces opportunities for crime, including hate crimes.”
Is it right to assume that every student on campus is an “individual who might intend to do harm” by default? Community on campus is struggling because of a perceived divide– that some students are against others. This is simply not the case. A perspective that assumes some students are risks to other students villainizes the student body. Assuming most students are hooligans who wish to do harm creates antagonism detrimental to the campus environment. These measures are intended to add roadblocks to those who do intend to do harm, but in practice they are more like pebbles. But for those wanting to bridge connections between the student population, this is a permanent road closure. The community will never thrive if students are not allowed to feel like they are here together.
Upon further dialog, Dr. Turner responded:
“I want to be clear that safety concerns, particularly those related to residence hall access, are not up for a vote. The administration sets these policies to ensure the safety and well-being of all students, which is a responsibility I am not willing to compromise on. While voting on residence hall access is not an option, I would like to challenge and encourage you, as a student leader, to collaborate with your peers to find creative ways to enhance community building within the framework of our communicated policies. Opportunities for connection and interaction across campus must support both security and community goals that don’t compromise safety. While I appreciate your passion and engagement on this topic, I will not be responding further on this particular issue.”
This voting policy that gives autonomy to the students speaks to me in two parts. First, it gives us a view of the past and how much freedom we as students used to have over the place we call home for four years. Second, it provides us with hope for the future. A plausible experiment is presented here– how would we, 24 years later, fare with this kind of policy? This kind of policy requires the administration to trust us with a responsibility, but how can we ever prove that we are responsible enough if we are never given the chances needed to prove ourselves?
Onecard poster from 2000 found in Hooper.
By Jimy Kuhn, ’27
