BETTER STRANGERS: The Guest Policy, Part Two

We finally have a firm grasp of how our chancellor views us: children. John Silber’s opinion of the student body was made abundantly clear on Monday when his letter in The Daily Free Press stated, “If students wish to be adults.”

If we “wish” to be adults. Apparently, we don’t even have the choice; we can only hope that someday we attain this magical state of wisdom and responsibility that will let us have a friend come over at 12:01 a.m. on a Wednesday. Of course, until that day comes, we can fight and die for our country, and we can vote for our nation’s leaders. However, despite the fact that I could be drafted into the army and die in a foreign country away from all of my loved ones, I cannot have those loved ones visit me after designated visiting hours.

Before reading the chancellor’s letter, I had immense confidence in the Union’s odds of changing the Guest Policy. I actually assumed there was no way the administration could turn them down, since their proposal is so meticulously planned, prepared and presented. After reading the chancellor’s letter, however, I have the suspicion — no, I downright expect — that not a single change will come about.

Last week, I asked for suggestions about how to change the Guest Policy. One of the first emails I received was not even a suggestion, but a simple question: “Does the administration actually know what we are asking for?” John Silber gave us our answer.

Although many of us do not care for Chancellor Silber, we can grudgingly agree he is a bright man. After all, he must be extremely intelligent, based on his position in the University and city and his many accomplishments. Therefore, I cannot believe that he is simply too naïve to believe that students want to completely abolish the Guest Policy.

The Union’s proposal is far from that, indeed. In fact, the changes they are proposing are not all that radical in the first place:

1. All BU students may be signed into any BU dorm from 12 a.m. until 8 a.m. and may swipe in during the remaining hours.

2. Fifteen visitor passes per semester (the current is only five).

3. The 15 visitor passes may go toward signing in a non-BU individual from 12 a.m. until 8 a.m. (with direct roommate consent).

4. Seventy-two-hour visitor passes only need 24-hour notification (currently it is 48 hours). Each of these would count as one of the 15 visitor passes.

The only major shakeup there is signing in a non-BU individual between midnight and 8 a.m. However, that needs direct roommate approval, so it would not put a roommate in the voyeuristic position Mr. Silber is concerned with. Signing BU students into a dorm after midnight already happens. It’s called a study extension, Mr. Silber, and they don’t even require a roommate’s approval.

So, the Union’s proposal is actually rather mundane. If it were put into place right now, the majority of students wouldn’t even realize it because the changes are so small.

However, Chancellor Silber acknowledges none of the proposed changes in his letter. Amazing, since these changes were discussed in the Free Press article on March 12, “Guest Policy proposal revealed,” which Chancellor Silber read carefully enough to disagree with and respond to. It’s unfathomable to think that our chancellor managed to miss the body of the article, if not the entire message. If he had read more carefully, he would have also noticed that the majority of students want a Guest Policy. We don’t want bedlam; we want reason.

Furthermore, if it really came down to it, the student body would settle for just being able to sign BU students in from midnight until 8 a.m. It would be nice to get 15 visitor passes, but it’s not crucial. Does it get less unreasonable than that? One simple change — and not even a change — is just getting rid of that mass hoax called “study extensions” and letting students sign in without all the paperwork.

It’s not possible for the chancellor to be as ignorant as he came across in his letter. In fact, it’s downright impossible. Mr. Silber knows exactly what it is that the Union is proposing; he just can’t mention it, because the moment he publicly recognizes the students’ proposal, he will have no way to defend himself. It would be impossible to give reasons not to accept the Union’s plans, because the plan is too good. Open discussion on the matter would force the chancellor to publicly admit the current policy does not achieve its stated purpose, and certain facts might surface, such as the fact that Kristin Roslonski was allegedly raped in her own dorm by another student who lived there, not some random thug who did not attend BU (No, that only happened at Loretto).

So, instead of walking into that mess, he just dismisses the students as wanting no Guest Policy. Publicly, he only talks about either/or: either there is or is not a Guest Policy. He strategically avoids the clear and present fact that we DO want a Guest Policy — just one that doesn’t treat us like children.

Allow me to throw down the gauntlet to you, Chancellor Silber. I challenge you — or, to use the fourth-grade slang you brandished about in your letter, I dare you — to answer the following questions, directly and without skirting the issues.

1. Why should BU students not be allowed to sign into a dorm between the hours of 12 a.m. and 8 a.m. (keeping in mind that students can presently be signed in by study extension during those same times)?

2. If you are concerned about voyeurism and invasion of privacy due to sexual acts, why does the Student Village residence at 10 Buick St., which is comprised completely of single bedrooms, have the same strict policy as Warren Towers?

3. If you are concerned about voyeurism and invasion of privacy due to sexual acts, why do none of the brownstone residences, which are predominately doubles and triples, have any Guest Policy whatsoever?

I’d love to think there will be an answer to these questions tomorrow in the Free Press. But, I’m realistic. I know there is no way you would ever answer these, because it would be hard to defend your position.

The real tragedy of this situation is the students do not want to be against you. We would rather have a chancellor who sides with us, who champions student causes. In a day when legitimate role models are scarce, we would be overjoyed to have you step in and be our friend. However, that can only happen if you recognize us as what we are. We do not wish to be adults; we are adults. Please treat us as such.