To the Editors of the Crimson:

Some of the statements Albert Hsia made in the article "More Security, Not Vigilance" (Dec. 13) are almost laughable if you look at them closely. As an undergraduate and a Harvard student security guard, I agree that Harvard's security system leaves much to be desired. However, students do indeed bear some of the responsibility for security.

The first issue that I would like to take up is letting people into entryways. Mr. Hsia states that "previously reported intruders have been better dressed than most of us." In the same breath, he states that "most of us already rely on our good sense when we let people into the dorms." He also brings up last October's incident in Hollis, in which a well dressed intruder was let into the entryway, and then entered an unlocked student room.

I question the good sense that is exercised when any well dressed "normal looking" individual is let into entryway. I also question the good sense exercised when freshman women sleep with their doors unlocked. (I was a freshman once also; half the women in my entryway left their doors unlocked at night.)

I understand that no one asks for IDs when letting people into entryways and probably will not, if the status quo is maintained. This also necessarily applies to the guard system in heavily trafficked areas.

Maintaining people in entryways also has limited appeal. The Leverett tower guard has never asked me for my ID before letting me in. I therefore question whether or not there would be any return on the expenditure for such a system.

I also question the "video camera" concept. Unfortunately, the "start up costs" would not be the only costs of such a system. Video cameras break at a finite frequency, and about 150 cameras would have to be functioning for the undergraduate community alone. Furthermore, the cameras are worthless unless they are taping. Harvard would be required to maintain a small army of technicians not only to keep the cameras working, but also to to change and store the tapes.

Their return would also be limited. The pictures are not generally clear. Furthermore, if there was an incident in any house with connecting basements, any person entering any entryway would be suspect.

I thus suggest another system. First of all, we all seem to agree that any undergraduate with ID could reasonably be let into any dorm. Second of all, the reason that students let people in without checking ID is because it is a pain in the butt.

I therefore suggest that all house and freshman entryway doors be keyed the same. This ought to virtually eliminate legitimate requests for entry because all those who ought to have access will have access. This should be coupled with signs, posters and announcements inside dorms that anyone asking to be let in MUST show ID, and that all those with reasonable rights to access HAVE KEYS. This might provide problems with duplication of keys. This problem could be prevented, at a slightly greater expense by using nonduplicatable keys such as those now in use in the Chemistry labs.

Third, I have bones to pick with the 24-hour Science Center guard concept. Because of the volume of daytime traffic, deliveries and classes, a 24-hour guard would be worthless. As an alternate suggestion, I suggest that the guards be posted at about 3:30, when maintenance people generally start to leave and the building becomes quieter.

To solve the stairwell problem (which is indeed generally locked, even if carelessly), I suggest a door on the landing between the first and second floors in the stairwell which only opens from the second floor. This would prevent any problem from broken doors or people wandering the stairwells.

As for the carelessness, I feel confident that this incident has shaken the system sufficiently as to eradicate it with no help from the students. It is an unfortunate commentary that something like this must happen before anything is done.

I would also note that maintenance also has a part to play. In one particular section of the university, I have been noting on my security report (which I leave for the superintendant of the buildings) which doors do not close properly or simply do not latch.

There is an incredible need for improvement in security, particularly in the Science Center. I strongly support the idea of "panic buttons" in the Science Center, and a walking guard who patrols all hallways. I strongly support the idea of one or two 24-hour libraries. However, there is significant need for improvement in student attitudes and actions.

If it is necessary to check ID's to prevent rapes, then we should check all ID's. The Security Office is not sitting on its butt, notwithstanding the remarks that Vice President and General Council Daniel Steiner '54 has made. Constructive suggestions are welcome and absolutely necessary, but no security system can keep out a man who is let into a dorm by students and then walks into an unlocked dorm room. True good sense must be exercised by both students and administrators, and this will only be true when these crimes are prevented. Jeffrey Dorfman '90