Ever since the first dorm JumboFob system was implemented at South Hall in the 2001-2002 school year, Tufts students have been faced with a flawed security system that not only acts as a barrier to smooth social interaction, but also puts students at a greater risk for criminal activity.
At present, the campus-wide JumboFob system allows Tufts students to access only the common rooms of Carmichael and South, and the aerobics room of Hill, in addition to one's own dorm. So, what happens if, say, I have friends living in dorms other than my own? I must call up my friends to open up the door for me, or I can wait outside the door (and thanks to New England, this usually involves standing in horrible weather), hoping some student notices me and lets me "piggyback."
But why does such a clearly flawed system continue to exist? Aren't the social ramifications of such a decision obvious to the administration? Do they not realize that as a security measure the JumboFob system fails miserably? The fact that "piggybacking" is an accepted way of entering others' dorms is evidence of the system's failings.
While it may seem counterintuitive, universal JumboFobs would actually improve dorm security. Currently, it is a common occurrence for Tufts students to open the door for a person who cannot enter the dorm. This practice of piggybacking poses a large security threat, as people from outside the campus can easily enter student dorms. The whole point of the dorm fob system, no doubt, is to prevent non-students from entering Tufts dorms. Thanks to the non-universal fobs and the resulting widespread piggybacking practice, the fob system has been rendered absolutely useless.
If a universal fob system was put into effect, every Tufts student on campus could access every dorm. Piggybacking would be vastly reduced and students would be more suspicious and cautious of visitors who need entry into a student dorm. If someone is having trouble getting into a dorm, then this person must obviously not be a Tufts student. If anything, universal dorm fobs take a failed system and give it a new lease on life.
In addition to its inherent security flaws, the current JumboFob system also hampers social interaction among Tufts students. Restricting students from entering dorms freely works against the university's goal of fostering a close-knit undergraduate community. The simple act of visiting friends in other dorms has been laden with an unnecessary tediousness. This sort of social "red-tape" has no place on a vibrant college campus.
A quick glance at other schools shows that their students enjoy greater residential access than students at Tufts. Harvard University, located in a far more urban environment than Tufts, gives all undergraduates access to every freshman dorm on campus. The University of Pennsylvania, located in the heart of West Philadelphia, allows all students full access to every dorm until 2:30 a.m., after which they must be signed in by a student who lives in the dorm. So, essentially, Penn's "limited" after-hours policy is Tufts' 24/7 policy. And let us consider that Tufts isn't exactly located in the heart of urban Boston. We're in the middle of suburban Medford, and though it may not be the safest suburb in America, it certainly must be less dangerous than Penn's neighborhood. Yet we enjoy fewer access privileges than students at Penn? Why?
Tufts students certainly see the current system's flaws and are statistically in favor of change. According to the 2005 Tufts Community Union (TCU) survey, 96 percent of respondents favored universal dorm fobs.
For three years Tufts students have fought for universal dorm access with the JumboFob. We must make it known to the administrators that this curtailing of basic access privileges has gone on long enough.
Tarun Sridharan is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
