As a 2005 grad, I'm sad, but not surprised, to see that DPS and the campus security system hasn't changed in the last three years. Anyone with the slightest experience with any other major university--and many not so major ones--knows what an embarrassment DPS is in comparison to the police departments other schools maintain. I currently attend law school at a university with a full fledged police force, with well-trained, armed officers, with modern equipment and cars, who routinely make traffic stops, visibly patrol buildings and campus 24 hours a day, and respond to calls in cooperation with local police in an efficient manner. While there are understandable differences of scale between a large, public school in a college town environment and a smaller, private, urban campus, there is no excuse for the Keystone Kops-like state of Georgetown's security force. DPS seemed to employ a number of officers who occupied their work day by doing little more than sitting idly in their cars at various locations around campus, breaking only to eat for free at the dining hall (as many of their waistlines illustrate). As any in so many other areas, GU seems simply incapable of providing administrative services to match the quality of the academics and location that have given Georgetown its name.

It's a good thing DC's gun ban is doing such a great job of keeping guns off of our campus.

Re: Dan. Please do not turn this into a debate about gun policy in the district. It's not helpful or productive to distract from the crucial issue of directly improving university security protocol. It's an important discussion, but one for another time and place.

I think that the gun control comment is very relevant considering this board's fawning over DC's gun ban in a recent editorial.

If a recent gun crime isn't a good catalyst for a gun control discussion, what is?

"The horror of the situation does not need to be embellished."

"the state of affairs that allowed this heartbreaking event to occur is utterly inexcusable."

"It is nothing short of a nightmare situation"

"Despicably, this is not the only time"

"Frankly, it’s sickening. "

"so tragically avoidable that we have moved beyond being “let down” and into the realm of horror and disgust."

"so simple as a broken lock fixed is beyond comprehension."

"sleeping security guards are a disgrace."

"This weekend’s nightmare"

"outrage over this incident."

"this isn’t senseless rant against the administration; a student has been assaulted in unimaginable circumstances, and we are angry and frightened."

I understand the anger the author may have and the change the editorial board is seeking, but the language in this editorial is so over the top that it takes away from any valid point you are trying to make.

nightmare twice, indignation twice, anger twice... we get it. who would argue with the premise that the university needs to do more to step up it's efforts against these kinds of crimes? I certainly wouldn't. it is amazing that such a crime could occur in university housing, but next time, even in an editorial, just spend less time on your outrage and more time on your very valid point: we ALL need to do more to prevent this kind of thing from happening again

Jay, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. I am a 2007 grad who is now attending graduate school at a certain private university quite comparable to Georgetown in size and reputation, also in an urban setting (a far smaller city, but with similar crime rates), and the differences in security are night and day. This school has a fully-commissioned police force with almost 70(!) actual police officers and over 80 "security officers" (i.e. guards), all of whom take their jobs extremely seriously and are a truly constant and obvious presence on campus at ALL times (I can't emphasize this enough). They patrol at all hours of day and night on foot and in cars, not only on campus but all throughout the surrounding streets and community. I generally cannot drive to school in the morning without passing at least two or three campus police cars. This is in addition to the regular municipal police force, which also maintains a constant presence immediately surrounding campus. I have seen extremely rapid response times to everything from wallet burglaries in a research building to car accidents.

When I first arrived in August, I was shocked at how seriously campus security was taken, and assumed it to be a special situation, but I have since come to realize that rather Georgetown seems to be the exception. Looking back, I can't for the life of me understand how Georgetown seems to think that it is doing an even remotely mediocre job at maintaining a facade of campus security. When I first read about this nightmare of a situation (my heart goes out to that poor girl), I was shocked, but, as Jay said, most unfortunately not entirely surprised. I intend to make my feelings as an alum very clear in every way I can, and encourage all of my friends and fellow alums to do the same (if we all withhold donations, perhaps this might send a message that even the administration can understand?).

I think the author of the article should try to pull an 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. all-nighter every night to feed her/his family. Then would they be so unfeeling and willing to "fire them" so hastily. There is no way that security guards can keep an entire campus completely crime-free by themselves. If the security guard shifts were more reasonable, they wouldn't be "sleeping," and if the school decided it cared more about its students' well-being than building new doors (SWQ) or buildings, it would spend its money on surveillance. You do not have the right to blame the security guards when you have no idea what they go through. When was the last time you spoke to a guard? There is a serious lack of respect from students for the people who do put in an incredible amount of effort to keep us safe.

Julia, I don't mean to be rude, but it is their job to keep campus safe. I agree with you that guards can't keep campus safe by themselves, and that it takes a vigilant community to stay safe, but their 8 hour, not 12 hour shifts, are a standard shift (11p.m. - 7a.m. the night of the assault) and when it's your job you shouldn't be asleep. I can't count how many times I have seen drunken individuals just walk past the guards like they are nothing. And they really are not. I have never once seen a guard move from their desk to question a person who didn't swipe a GoCard. The guards who fall asleep on a regular basis ought to be fired, as this article suggests. The only time I have ever had trouble getting into a building on campus was the night after the assault when the DPS guard on duty, not the Securitas guard, made me turn around after not swiping into LXR.
I do agree that GU needs to spend more money on surveillance, but at the same time, more officers who actually do their job could get the same result.

Julia, as much sympathy as you may feel for the security guards and their circumstances, it is important to realise that they are getting paid to ensure the safety of other people. Even if the shifts were twelve hours long (They are, in fact, a normal eight), that is what they are being paid to willingly undertake. Not a lot is being asked of them except their vigilance. Their lack of it landed a student in grave danger and their continued complacency may very well do so again. If not as an example to their colleauges, then as a way to purge the inadequate, firing of guards and DPS officers who routinely fall asleep on the job or neglect their duties is not just necessary, its a responsibility. In the end, you and I and every other Hoya is paying a lot of money to get a good education in a secure environment; perhaps you are okay with that money being wasted (whether on new doors or bad guards), but I'm sure many of us are not.

Regarding the occurance of crime in Georgetown, it is not surprising not simply because of the poor campus security but also because it is DC, one of the most violent and crime-ridden cities in America. People living here forget that there are no military checkpoints or twenty foot barriers preventing entry into Georgetown--what, did you think the bubble would be impenatrable forever?

And to the alumni who think witholding donations to Georgetown is an effective way of pressuring the administration into action: Yes, because the last million attempts to starve them of alumni donations worked too. The problem is you give so little to begin with that the administration doesn't really care what you think. You are not even a blip on their radar. Notice how poor alumni-administration relations are? Think it's a coincidence? Maybe, just maybe, what Georgetown's security needs in order to augment itself is more money, not less. But what do I know. I'm just a lowly undergraduate.

Julia:

I appreciate your willingness to empathize with the DPS staff but your perspective is fairly skewed. Twelve hour shifts for law enforcement personel is really no big deal -- and frankly most Georgetown grads will be working 12 hour days for much of their careers. (The Georgetown grads will be working those hours to feed their familes too.)

In fact, professional police and fireman often choose to work 24 hour shifts to load their schedules early or late in the week.

Finally, most law enforcement roles are heavily compensated in the form of overtime hours. The best cops -- and ultimately the best paid cops -- arrange their schedule to build up the overtime shifts. Thats not oppression, thats opportunity.

In both law enforcement and the in the work more often doled out to Hoya-alums, if you (1) choose to not work the hours required or (2) fail to provide conscientious service, your ass is grass.

I'm not saying that should be the case here. I actually think most DPS officers are pretty solid guys, but lets not cloud the issue with saccarine and condescending sentiments about how hard it must be to work a 12 hour day. You'll find out soon enough.

I've got to get back to work myself.

The issue here is clearly that of the security of the GU campus and residences and, more generally, the problem of violent crime in and around GU. It's worth emphasizing, I think, that the responsibility for the rape of last week and for the multitude of recent crimes like it is shared by the administration and the student body alike. Much of the discussion on these threads seems rather to assume that it's somehow mostly one parties fault or the other's. This isn't the case.

I'm sick of receiving the weekly email from DeGioia announcing the latest armed robbery, burglary, gay bashing, attempted (recently successful) sexual assault, etc. -- all with the same helpful advice about how important it is to be "mindful" and to report "suspicious activity" to the demonstrably ineffectual campus security.

The respects in which campus security is a joke are many, clear, and have been enumerated time and again in the recent discussion surrounding this incident: functional door locks and GOCard swipe machines; adequately paid, trained, and equipped DPS and other security officers patrolling in sufficient number; widespread, operational electronic surveillance; and so on.

But, to be fair, the responsibility is also ours as GU students and community members to ensure that we're not the easy targets we're clearly perceived as being by the degenerates who are out to rob and assault us -- and who have had a field day doing precisely that with impunity in recent years. Here our vaunted administrative "protectors" are at least not lying when they dispatch the tedious emails advising us against going out alone, especially at night, and when their alcohol policies carry penalties for behavior stemming from overconsumption, for distributing it to minors, and so on.

I'm not the first in the discussion in these threads to observe that drunk students do more than embody an often sadly judicious stereotype: still worse, they're more prone to leave their doors and windows unlocked, to wander off alone, to expose others to unnecessary risks in a host of familiar ways, and to generally make themselves far more visibly obvious potential victims for would-be predators.

Lastly, I disagree with Jimbo's remark that the tone of this editorial was counter-productive and relied excessively on expressions of sentiments like fear, anger, and outrage.

Of course we require constructive and thoughtful proposals for how to proceed, and we need to be even-handed in laying the blame for this incident and for the trend of which it's a part. However, part of what's involved in responsibly handling this situation is to give voice to the indignation necessarily felt by anyone who's paying attention at all to what has been going on. Being less than infuriated at this catastrophic, and ongoing, failure on the part of so many of us to take seriously the potential for victimization under the presently deplorable circumstances is indecent.

In short, then, I would amend not the tone of the editorial but its content by including many in the student body and other members of the GU community in the number of those who deserve reproach. GU students certainly must demand more of the administration, but they need to demand more of themselves as well.

Editors of the Hoya - glad to know something finally made you "mad as hell and you're not gonna take it anymore"; too bad you're still totally silent about the Philip Cooney debacle and you have nothing to say about the travesty of justice there. Where's the op-ed criticizing the police for arresting Philip without questioning him in an abuse of power on the word of one person with no corroborating evidence, the questioning as to why the University really failed to investigate anything related to the incident, and why the D.A. took nine months to drop the charges? Do you have any response to the most recent post by "Clay" on that subject - why the Hoya story announcing the dropped charges was so lame? Oh - not a politically correct cause, I guess. The Hoya - curiously silent. I thought one of the posters had a great idea - why don't you do a story on what it was like to be Philip Cooney for the last nine months.

Julia, while I understand that the guards may be working long shifts, the fact is a job is a job -- it's an obligation you undertake, and it's your responsibility to fulfill that obligation. So the guards have taken on the responsibility of securing the campus, and they have done so voluntarily. Therefore, they should be DOING that. I can't even keep track of how many times I've walked back into my dorm late at night with the guard at the desk fast asleep, and waking up only when I swipe my card (sometimes not even then).
Yes, the university needs to do more about security on campus, but the employed personnel need to at least do their jobs. Some of them are just not doing them.

Shiela, I don't see what the Philip Cooney incident has to do with this, other than the fact that the incident that started the case was also probably thanks to inefficient security measures (though that was technically off campus).

Julia,

As the other posters so intelligently pointed out, securing a building is not rocket science, nor is it a heavily mentally draining endeavor (like Georgetown coursework). The task is quite menial, having individuals sign a book and swipe a card. Most of the time the security guards watch dvds anyway. Therefore, why should we sympathize when our lofty tuition is paying for them to do their job? While there may be a great socioeconomic divide between the students and those hired to protect them, we are not criticizing or maligning their plight or job. Rather, we are criticizing their failure to uphold the responsibilities entrusted to them as it caused one student to suffer greatly.

The anger felt by the University is justified and, if anything, it will show DeGioia that this problem with Securitas has gone on far too long. The issues of sleeping guards was present back in 2005 and probably before that. Sadly, it took an incident like this to induce change in the campus security.

And let us remember, these sleeping guards are the ones who had the audacity to demand $15/hr or some other sky high wage? I'd sure as heck like to be paid that to sleep on the job...where are signups?

I'm never giving Georgetown a dime for their clear and repeated indifference to the safety of the student body.

Ever read the DPS Blotter. Check it out this week....

"Door Damaged,Suspect identified and barred from campus"

Now that is real law enforcement. So who pays for the damage, and how soon will the suspect return to campus to do more damage or assault and rob a student.I'm sure the suspect was shaking in his boots as soon as he heard he was barred from the hilltop......

What a joke.

What Philip Cooney has to do with the case is the hypocrisy of the Hoya on choosing which causes it will and will not take up. Of course the security breaches are outrageous and so easy to fix - it is vital to everyone's security that they improve these measures immediately. But the editorial board's "mad as hell" comment just emphasizes that they are capable of moral outrage, but only for politically correct causes. The editorial specifically states "Rarely do things occur at Georgetown that truly warrant outrage."

Really? Don't you think a false arrest and being taken out of one's dorm in handcuffs, based on one person's i.d. with no corroborating evidence, without even questioning the 19-year old in question who has no prior record, truly warrants outrage? I sure do, and a lot of others do, too. I bet if the Hoya were to do "man on the street" interviews on campus, they would find a lot of people who are extremely outraged at the treatment and press coverage of Philip Cooney, but the Hoya is choosing to remain silent on the subject, for reasons only they know. There are plenty of people who are extremely outraged that one person's account of what occurred that evening in September, was accepted hook, line and sinker by the powers that be, while the accused was not even given a chance to say where he was that night before being arrested. Never mind the outrageous and totally suspicious Facebook i.d. The "victim" never came forward with an alternative explanation as to how Cooney came to be identified, since the "hearsay in the classroom" story was widely contradicted.

The Hoya's editorial board should demonstrate moral outrage for a false arrest and the outrageous treatment of one of Georgetown's own - Philip Cooney - by the D.C. police, the U.S. Attorney's office, the University, and the vicious treatment he endured in the blogging community. I just find it outrageous that they don't have a problem with the total miscarriage of justice and they have nothing to say about an innocent Georgetown student's name being dragged through the mud on every major local t.v. station and newspaper. This is a Georgetown student - could be anyone - arrested in their dorm without even knowing why. Why aren't they asking why Cooney was arrested without being questioned in the first place, or why the U.S. Attorney dragged the case out for so long, or why some of the gay-interest blogs ridiculed him so viciously? Instead they issue a pathetic story, towing the U.S. Attorney's line, and doing no original reporting whatsoever. It seems like they are still afraid that saying anything defending Cooney is somehow an affront to the Gay and Lesbian community. Again - the Hoya, curiously silent.

Sheila.

(1) Getting the charges dropped doesn't mean Philip did nothing. It means they couldn't prove it.
(2) The Hoya's coverage of the whole situation was incredibly balanced. It reported when the kid was arrested. It reported when the charges were dropped. There ya go.
(3) There's a difference between one person being mistreated by METRO (the DC police who actually decided to arrest him) and the entire student body's safety being neglected by the UNIVERSITY. If the Hoya is outraged at Metro for arresting the kid, that means very little. The Hoya's focus is on campus issues, and how Georgetown secures its campus is more a "campus issue" than whether Metro arrests a student.

What did you want Georgetown or The Hoya to do for poor, poor Philip? The police decided to arrest him. They had probable cause. Get over it. As long as you're on campus, the University still isn't protecting you. At the moment THAT'S the serious problem.

Charges dropped. He didn't do it - if you have any evidence to the contrary you should go to the police rather than suggesting he may still be guilty - more irresponsible innuendo. The coverage was not balanced. The Hoya failed to ask obvious questions or investigate inconsistencies even when it was clear that things weren't adding up. The police did not have probable cause - they had one person saying one thing with no evidence and another person saying something else. One person pointing a finger with no evidence is not probable cause - it's an abuse of power. It is unheard of for someone to be arrested in this manner. If you don't understand why it should frighten everyone that someone could be arrested on the word of one person without even questioning the accused, you have a serious lapse either in your judgment or your education. I wonder if you could "get over it" if it happened to you. The Hoya should take a stand that this was wrong, and they should have asked the hard questions from Day One; they chose not to. Poor, poor, bitter you - too limited in your myopic view to understand the greater issues at play here. They treated this case differently over a cause - that is a fundamental problem. While you may not care about it, I guarantee there are a lot of students who are very upset and outraged about what happened in this case. Don't tell other people to "go home" just because your sympathies lie elsewhere.

Campus security?
How secure are you from random arrest based on a hearsay conversation, with no investigation and an assumption of guilt
unless you can prove your own innocence?
The prosecutor's office could have decided this in five minutes, not 9 months. The delay was to put pressure on the defendant to plead.
It was a misuse of the justice system from the start.
Don't worry, though. It can't happen to you...

Another social experiment. Let's arrest your Mother for a hate crime without even questioning her to find out if she had an alibi, take her out of your house in handcuffs in front of your neighbors, let her suffer and spend probably close to $100,000 on legal fees for nine months and have her name dragged through the papers and t.v., and see if you still think it's hunky dory. Doesn't that sound like a real hoot? Oh, by the way, people like you would still say that just because they dropped the charges doesn't prove she didn't do it. Then you could tell her to get over it and you could all have a big laugh over it at a family barbecue. Sound like a plan?

Although I have been studying abroad in Latin America for the past year, I am as outraged as any student on campus when I read about the current state of campus security. I studied in Mexico during the Fall and the level security in my dorm was superior to what we receive at Georgetown. The ten story dorm building was guarded day and night by up to five, but at least three guards, who were vigilant at all times. Every floor, entrance, and elevator was surveilled through CCTV and all the exits to the rest of the residences where controlled by fingerprint readers. If that wasn't enough, the same guards that were there when I began the semester were there at the end and they knew most, if not all, of the residents. They also routinely stopped students who did not live in the building and asked them to furnish university ID. Even though cleaning personnel entered my room daily, none of my belongings were ever stolen and I never heard of anyone else in the building being robbed.
Given my experience in Mexico, I don't think Georgetown has any excuse when it comes to student safety. I am simply saddened that it takes such an incident for us to stand up and demand that the University provide the most basic of student needs, security.