Benjamin Franklin once said, “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
Stuyvesant might now be headed for such a trade. Stuyvesant’s repeated bike thefts and the recent assault on a Stuyvesant student have highlighted the need to secure our student body. But administrators must find a way to do this without jeopardizing freedom or infringing upon student rights.
The administration, as it should, has made the student body’s safety one of its priorities. According to Dean Robert Rosen, the amount of locker thefts has decreased since the implementation of the locker policy. But Stuyvesant is now faced with similarly preventable, yet even more serious, safety concerns.
One such concern is the attack on a Stuyvesant student. While this is currently an isolated incident, if similar episodes occur again, a camera or uniformed presence is needed to secure Stuyvesant’s immediate vicinity. The administration has cited a Department of Education (DOE) regulation preventing School Safety Agency (SSA) officers from monitoring the area outside the building. But the New York City Police Department, not the DOE, oversees SSA officers.
SSA officers also regularly patrol the grounds outside other public schools. While Teitel’s proposition for a safe corridor along Chambers Street from 3:30 to 5 p.m. is well- intended, it does not protect students who leave the building later in the day. If regularly stationing an officer is not possible, a noticeable camera can also be effective in preventing crime. While these measures require modest funding, it is not too much to ask if assaults continue to occur.
A less pressing concern is the theft of student bicycles locked under the bridge. To deter potential thieves, Stuyvesant should consider installing a camera near the bike rack. The school could also provide students with a bike storage room, which would eliminate robberies outside of school. Students who would utilize the room understand that absolute security is not guaranteed.
The administration’s solution to reduce bike thefts is to discourage bicycling. Part of Teitel’s reasoning is that he does not want the school held responsible for any biking accidents. Yet for some, biking is the most efficient mode of transportation. The administration should accommodate that.
In providing a safer environment, cameras or officers outside the building must not infringe upon individual freedoms—they should only help prevent illegal and unsafe actions outside the building.
The administration’s current policy cultivates a false perception of security. Administrators need to reconsider their approach and find solutions that will truly keep students safe while maintaining Stuyvesant’s unique atmosphere of respect and freedom.