For now, the fires seem to have ceased.

The pandemonium of the incessant evacuations has died down, fire trucks are no longer a daily fixture at our school and classes have begun to pass by without interruption. What’s left is a police presence throughout our hallways, as well as a general sense of unease amongst the Stuyvesant community. On our minds now is the question of whether more fires are in our future, and if so, what the fallout of those fires will be.

On Thursday, November 19, the alleged first arsonist was apprehended, but in the following days multiple fires sprang up throughout school, the work of a copy-cat artist or artists. Whatever enjoyment students found from the brisk walk and missed classes of the first evacuation disappeared rather quickly. Many members of the Stuyvesant community began to fret over the dangers of recurring fires, as well as the unstable environment fostered by the frequent evacuations and the constant threat of fire.

Over the past few weeks, the evacuations have become smoother and somewhat less chaotic. However, when looking to the future, and the possibility of future fires, improvements must still be made. Though these fires were somewhat limited in scope, if one had expanded and spread, better communication would have been necessary. If students were to remain quiet during the evacuations, it would be easier for school officials or firemen to determine if the building had been fully evacuated. However, teachers should also keep in mind that abrasive attitudes and yelling at students neither helps calm nerves nor speeds the evacuation process.

Tired of the arson spree, students have expressed their distaste via verbal disgust and angry Facebook groups. The arsonists may have ridden a wave of initial student support—or at least indifference—but that died down quickly. With the continuing threat of a reduction of their privileges, students will hopefully come forward in the event of future fires.

In response to the fires, the administration strongly considered imposing a “lockdown.” This proposal consisted of quarantining students into the Murray Kahn Theater during their free periods, and requiring students to sign out of classes when they use the bathroom. Principal Stanley Teitel also planned to decide separately on banning all extracurricular activities within the building. These proposed policies were unpopular but not unnecessary. The lockdown would have been both a means of halting future fires by clearing hallways and making sure students are accounted for, as well as an incentive for knowledgeable students to reveal the arsonists’ identities.

Teitel planned on putting the lockdown into effect on Monday, November 29, and stated that he would continue the policy until the arsonists were caught. This action has since been postponed, but while we have avoided a lockdown for now, we must recognize that more copy-cat arsonists are still a looming threat and that we are not completely in the clear.

While the Editorial Board would have reluctantly endorsed the lockdown (and will do so in the future), we would have done so on the condition that it was temporary and discontinued either when the fires stopped or when the identities of the arsonists were discovered. In the years since the September 11, 2001 attacks, citing safety as the reason, the administration has continually imposed further restrictions on the student body. They have forced us to scan out to lunch, requiring that we remain in the building during free periods and have installed security cameras throughout the school building. The trend seems to be that the administration almost never restores privileges once relative safety and calm return. However, the postponement of the lockdown should be applauded. We encourage the administration to keep its word with regard to proper discipline and restrictions on the student body. The entire student body should not be punished for the obscene actions of an individual or small group of individuals.

If a lockdown were ever put into effect, the administration might also consider granting students the alternate choice of leaving the building during free periods, requiring that students leave only at the very beginning and return at the very end of the period. School officials would still know which students were in the building should there be an evacuation. The privilege to go outside during frees would also elicit the trust, and thereby the cooperation, of the student body—a tremendous resource in the search for the arsonist and a positive means to achieve the same goal of retrieving information.

While the arsonists’ actions may have reflected personal issues rather than a political statement, we also question whether Stuyvesant’s increasingly stressful environment played a role in inspiring the series of arsons. The administration is right in making its first priority the students’ safety and the apprehension of those responsible, but it also needs to examine if students’ high stress levels may lead to similar events in the future. When students are given such limited space in which to congregate during their free periods—a time set aside for them to relax and enjoy friends’ company—they may attempt to vent through dangerous means.

Historically, great fires have been associated with decaying societies, like Rome in its last days or Moscow after Napoleon’s invasion. In the long run, stress alleviation through more student space and privileges may help to diminish this dangerous symptom of a school teetering from students’ grievances. On the whole, the relationship between the students and the administration has become increasingly antagonistic. Since the immediate threat of fire seems to have passed, the school should work on repairing that ailing relationship, which will hopefully help to lessen stress and halt the deterioration of our school environment.