To the editors:

In “First Steps Toward Community” (Editorial, Oct. 12), you stated that 24-hour universal keycard access had in its favor “a powerful argument grounded in student safety,” but this is not necessarily true of completely unrestricted access. In all arguments about access, the access to courtyards and the access to entryways should be differentiated when possible because they in fact have very different implications for safety. As most of the proponents for 24-hour universal access point out, access to a House can mean safe haven for a pursued student and prevent assaults from occurring, and common sense dictates that this access should be given to all students if it has not been granted already. Access to all entryways, however, is quite a different matter and can mean much more than minor theft.

It was only several years ago that a Harvard-affiliated woman was raped in Byerly Hall, and we were reminded that there are indeed sexual predators in Cambridge. Are we ready, then, to increase the chance of assaults occurring within the Houses themselves? If 24-hour universal access goes through, all House areas effectively become accessible not only to other undergraduates but also to whomever has found a lost or stolen keycard that has not yet been deactivated. When I think of the people I know who tape over the locks on their suite doors and how deserted the Kirkland basement is at 5 a.m. when I’m printing out a paper, such an assault would only be a matter of time.

This, of course, is not to say that outside people have not had access to House and dormitory public areas in the past—Matthews thieves catching doors before they swing shut and people swiping unknowns into entryways spring to mind—but giving 24-hour universal access would make it much easier for anyone with even half a mind to get in to do so. This risk of increased access, however small, is too great to take no matter what the community-building benefits may be.

David F. Mihalyfy ’02

Oct. 15, 2001