Send Comments to the Editors

U.S. Mail:
The Rice Thresher
6100 Main Street (MS-524)
Houston, TX 77005-1892

In a March 14 Thresher column ("Security should not usurp our freedoms"), Ben Alcala wrote that card readers and limited building access policies are a threat to freedom and that those Rice students who are not outraged by this terrible threat to liberty are naive children who know nothing of "true freedom."

While reading this column, I looked for a definition or example of what this "true freedom" is. As best as I can tell, the main thing Alcala is complaining about is the fact that some buildings are not open to him 24 hours a day and that sometimes the card readers break down.

He also states that when he was here in the 1970s, Rice was an "academic free-fire zone" where ideas were debated, while now, apparently no such academic freedom exists.

He gave no examples to prove that proposition, or how, if true, it is related to increased campus security efforts. I guess he has some evidence that card readers destroy academic freedom or at least that the two are correlated.

Quite frankly, Alcala's criticisms are absurd. To Alcala, any restriction that prohibits him from doing anything he wants, anytime, no matter how trivial, is just an example of "The Man" coming down and oppressing him and everyone else, and anyone who doesn't see this doesn't understand "true freedom," dude. Most people outgrow this adolescent definition of freedom around the age of 17 or so, if they ever had it.

Let's remember why Rice has beefed up its security in recent years. While I was at Rice in the early 1990s, there was a wave of crime which included many thefts, several armed robberies and carjackings on campus and, in the most horrific case, a carjacking in which several Rice students were abducted at gunpoint and one was raped.

Given the gravity of the harm that can occur in the absence of some protections and the trivial amount of hassle involved, Rice's procedures are sensible and quite typical for an urban university.

Admittedly, no amount of security defenses can eliminate the risk of crime. However, to the best of my knowledge, the rate and severity of crime on campus has dropped in recent years.

The increased security precautions (which also include gates, better lighting and more police) must have been more effective. For a very long time, Rice was a soft target and often did exactly the opposite of what most people who study the link between victimization and criminal opportunity would recommend as wise policy. That, thankfully, appears to have changed for the better.

Before complaining about the supposedly oppressive security procedures at Rice and the alleged naiveté and immaturity of the rest of his fellow students, I recommend that Alcala put in a little more thought before putting pen to paper.

Mark R. Yzaguirre

WRC '94

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the March 21, 1997 issue.