Guilford was hit with an array of thefts during this semester’s beginning that have brought to light many issues concerning the school’s safety.Two PCs and two flat-screen computers have been stolen from the lower floor of Bauman and three PCs and five flat-screens taken from the Frank Family Science Center. In addition, a $2,500 big-screen television was stolen from the English Hall lounge on Sept. 12. Six more computers were taken from the Early College Office at the beginning of the year.
In the Frank Family Science Center, the culprits forced their way into locked rooms to steal the computers, according to John Jenkins, the Associate Chief Financial Officer for Facilities and Interim Director of Security, , and chemistry chair Anne Glenn.
“They jimmied or picked the lock in the laboratory,” said Glenn. “You can see the gouges on the door.”
Campus Life has issued a $500 reward in hopes of gaining tips that would lead to the apprehension of those responsible for stealing the television. The reward has received some complaint from students.
“The only problem with the reward is that it turns us into narks,” said first-year student Amanda Womack.
These thefts come on the heels of a vast overhaul in Guilford Security, which saw the resignation of the Director of Security Sylvia Chilcott and the hiring of a new security service, Allied Security.
Nobody has been able to pinpoint how the thieves stole the equipment so easily, but according to Assistant Dean for Campus Life James Minton, the problem may be due to a lack of funding for security.
“More funding should go towards [security],” said Minton. “The officers are doing a good job, but there are no funds for more officers.”
The hall director of English Hall, senior Gabe Staub, concurred. “The security system needs to be improved,” he said.
Glenn, a 10-year professor at Guilford, also agreed that more funding should go to security. She noted other problems as well.
“I didn’t feel like they got up here fast enough to respond to the incident,” she said. “I’m concerned about how the whole security picture operated on that day.” It took one hour for security to respond to her call of the thefts, according to Glenn.
Interim Director of Security John Jenkins felt differently. Though he admits to not having such an collection of thefts occur under his watch in 14 years of campus security work, Jenkins said that Allied has done a very good job and that there is enough funding for it. He also pointed to Allied’s past.
“Allied has backgrounds in other campuses,” said Jenkins. “They are a better force (than the last one), they are trained in campus security and they have expertise in crime prevention. They are deterring crime and keeping students safe.”
Dean for Campus Life Anne Lundquist agreed. “Allied Security has done a good job,” she said. “Allied is responsive.”
Lundquist saw the problem more as a community responsibility than as a job only for security.
“Everybody has a responsibility. Faculty, staff and students take responsibility. Students have to be responsible for their guests.”
Lundquist also said that students must be aware of who is on campus and be sure that the strangers they see have a reason to be on campus or to go into the residence halls.
The problem that has been raised the most is one that students can easily take care of: door propping.
“I’m serious; they need to quit propping doors open,” said Glenn, “because that’s how people get in there.” Staub and Lundquist, both of whom feel that door propping is a major reason for strangers getting into residence halls, issued the same concern.
Staub had an interesting suggestion for preventing the thefts.
“Maybe they could get cameras by the doors,” said the two-year Hall Director.
Some find having security cameras on campus to be a resonable proposal. Though cameras could deter crime, however, they present a problem to privacy on campus as well.
“There’s a Big Brother quality to that,” said CCE sophomore Peter Raines. “There has to be a balance [between safety and privacy].”
Lundquist was also skeptical of the cameras. “The problem with security cameras is that they imply a level of security that might not be there. It presumes that you are safe.”
“A camera brings up liability,” said Jenkins. “It could lead to suing. You also are invading privacy with putting up cameras and the perception of the campus becomes negative as well.”
Not everyone disagreesd with the idea of security cameras.
Director of IT&S Leah Kraus, a four-year IT&S employee, admits that the idea of installing security cameras has been brought up.
“We have talked about it internally,” said Kraus. “The problem is where do you put them, how much will they cost, and who is going to monitor the cameras? Do students want them? I think it is an idea that needs to be fleshed out.”
In addition to the reward, the Greensboro Police Department (GPD) has been brought in to aid in the investigation and the crimes have been considered felonies.
Even with the aid of the GPD, both Jenkins and Lundquist were conservative in their hopes of finding the suspects. When asked to rate on a scale of one to ten (with ten being of highest confidence) the likelihood of the suspects being captured, Jenkins gave a six while Lundquist went a notch lower to five.
Guilford continues to search for a new security head, a problem that Glenn feels must be solved quickly.
“Things are more difficult without her[Chilcott],” said Glenn. “My biggest concern is that there is not a Director [of Public Safety].”