opinion_
Questions remain in latest rape on campus
The lackadaisical University physical plant
and housing department probably could have
prevented the latest campus rape.
Lisa Chase, the resident assistant of Walton
Adams dormitory, says the physical plant failed to
respond to her requests, eight times since Sep
tember, to fix the window latch on a second-floor
room.
Police believe a man climbed through the
window early Saturday morning and raped the
occupant. The latch was fixed Saturday.
The physical plant's lock-the-barn-door
after-the-cow-gets-loose mentality is unforgiva
ble. We agree with Chase: "I hope to God
someone sues their butts off.”
And if her story is correct, the physical plant is
no less responsible than the housing department,
which should have continued leaning on the
physical plant until the window was fixed.
Housing department officials have offered a
rather measly defense of themselves and the
physical plant, claiming records show the window
was fixed Sept. 29. That point has been disputed
by Chase and other residents of the dorm, along
with David Clarke, chair of the Carson and Earl
Halls president’s council. Clarke bluntly says the
rape occured because of an “incompetent and
negligent housing department.”
But even if the window was fixed in Sep
tember, nobody denies it was broken Saturday
morning, and Chase is adamant in her claim that
the physical plant delayed more than a reasonable
amount of time in repairing the broken latch.
“The physical plant is famous for not doing
what they’re supposed to do,” she says.
If housing department officials are correct — if
the latch was fixed in September — then the
questions are “how long was the window broken
prior to Saturday morning’s crime?” and “how
many requests to fix the window did the physical
plant ignore?”
So far, the evidence indicates the physical
plant and housing department will have to do most
of the answering.
If, on the other hand, the claim made by
Clarke and Chase that the window remained
broken until Saturday is correct, both depart
ments are probably negligent and responsible for
the third campus rape in five months.
In addition, there will be serious questions
about the work order in housing department
records that maintains the job was completed in
September. Chase’s story implies that record is
incorrect — either by accident or design.
Police Sgt. Rick Allison said Tuesday that
because they are so small, it is easy to make
dormitory rooms safe. His words are gaining a
tragic irony.
Fishbowl smoke
I am truly delighted that the nasty
traffic-flow problem in the Fishbowl has
been cleared up. When I want something
to eat these days I can get in and out of
there in about half the time it used to
take. This means I only inhale about half
as much cigarette smoke.
The conclusion I have come to in
recent days is that $167,000 was spend
on remodeling the Fishbowl for the sole
benefit of those I will call primary and
secondary smokers; in other words,
those who actually do the smoking and
those who are willing to sit in the same
poorly ventilated room with the smokers
and inhale their exhaust fumes.
How about some consideration for the
true non-smoker? Common sense sug
gests that even if the Fishbowl had a
designated non-smoking area, which it
does not, the smoking section would
have to be postioned along a wall with
open windows and/or beneath efficient
exhaust fans Otherwise, the act of de
signating a non-smoking area would be
sheer tokenism Cigarette smoke does
not stay on one side of an imaginary line
just because some wishful thinker places
a sign on a post.
While the new and improved Fishbowl
is being made accessible to hand
icapped people, why not make it ac
cessible to non-smokers, too? A concern
for the environment could start right here
in front of our very eyes and under our
very noses if you get my drift I've been
told I can keep my lungs for another six
or seven decades if I take good care of
them. I must admit the idea appeals to
me.
Yvonne Vowels
Senior, Asian religious studies
Little-fellow reply
At the invitation of Jean Lorraine in her
letter of Jan. 12 entitled “Feminists Will
Win”, I’d like to do a little “cringing,
whining, and carping ” It's true that the
things I value in women are “big tits, a
tight ass, and bubble-headed giggles”.
However, I don’t drink until I barf; I don’t
paw myself on campus; and I do value
intelligence in a woman occasionally. I
hope that I still qualify as one of her “little
fellows” so that my whining is justified.
Miss Lorraine defined the word,
Feminist, by listing the things a Feminist
finds boring and repulsive. This was to
clear up the fog that supposedly bothers
us “little fellows.” It seems instead that
she merely reinforced the stereo-type of
a Feminist as a “frustrated female in
heat." As an example, I cite her descrip
tion of typical male/female roles as dis
gusting. Clearly, social roles are not so
important to anyone (male or female)
who is secure and confident in their own
self-worth. Also I do not find passive
women to be necessarily unfeminist as
suggested by her definition. I feel that
passiveness can be a virtue in any per
son; even a Feminist. In fact, I would like
to propose my own “foggy” definition of
a Feminist as one who believes that the
personal value and importance of
someone is independent of sex. Admit
tedly this definition is simplistic but at
least it avoids all of the negative exag
gerations that seem to flow from frus
trated minds.
Furthermore, I find Miss Lorraine's
attitudes and definitions damaging to her
own supposed cause. By using bubble
headed cliches and ranting and raving
about irrelevant personal pet peeves,
one can only draw ranks and solidify
closed minds. If one seriously wishes
that social values be changed, he or she
should concentrate on winning allies
rather than declaring enemies. What
does the statement, “Feminists will win”
mean anyway? It seems to imply that
someone must lose something. I cer
tainly hope that its not big tits and tight
asses. In conclusion, I’d like to say that
I'm seriously in favor of equality of the
sexes and I just wish the same thing were
true of more Feminists.
Bob Johnson
Graduate student, physics
Dormscam?
Perhaps it's something we can call
DORMSCAM, but no matter what we call
it, it's a coverup. In the Tuesday's Emer
ald article “Police request 'lock-in' at
University dorms” by Bill Manny, the
news is very informative, and gives ex
cellent suggestions concerning rape and
theft prevention, however it fails to report
the whole story, or rather...the real story.
The Emerald’s editors must have cut
the part of the story that tells just why the
rapist was able to gain entry so easily into
the Adams coed’s room. The article im
plies that the window was left unlatched.
This is a false implication.
Sources within the Housing Dept., who
asked not to be identified for fear of
losing their jobs, have revealed that the
latch on the woman’s window was not
unlatched, but altogether missing, and
had been since September.
The missing latch was reported four or
five times throughout fall term by the
resident assistant, but only in vain. How
ever, the morning following the rape the
missing latch was replaced. But now it’s
too late — a woman has been raped due
to an incompetent and negligent Hous
ing Dept.
There have also been reports by
residents in Walton Hall that some exter
ior doors don’t close tight enough to
lock. Others have said gaps between
doors and jambs are wide enough for an
amateur to ’’card.” Still others complain
of pest and rodent problems (also
common to Carson and Earl Halls).
I requested to be President of my hall
to do my part to improve residence hall
life, and I will not stand for another rape
or assault or infection due to pests
caused by negligence.
I encourage residents to contact their
parents concerning the matter, and ask
them to write to the Housing Dept, pro
testing the lack of decent safety in the
halls.
My apologies to Dan Williams, Dick
Romm and Larry Spencer of the Housing
Dept., but somebody had to tell.
David Clarke
Chairman, president’s council
of Carson and Earl Halls
fetters policy
The Emerald will accept and try to print all letters
containing fair comment on ideas and topics or
interest to the University community Letters must be
typewritten, using 65-character margins and should be
triple spaced
Letters must be signed, the author's field of study (or
faculty status) noted and should include address and
phone number where possible