Security responds to safety threat posed by Noah assault

The assault on a 20-year-old student in Noah Hall Monday not only rallied students and staff around to help their neighbor, but also raised new feelings of insecurity.

After the attack, the atmosphere on campus was thick with fear and uncertainty as word spread quickly of the incident and rumors abounded about the seriousness of the attack and the fact that the attacker was still at large until this morning. In Burton Hall, which is adjacent to Noah, a residence counselor was knocking on students' doors within approximately 20 minutes of the attack, warning students not to travel alone at all that night and to call security for an escort or to travel in groups if they had to go outside. Later that night, all the residents of the hall were gathered together and informed by Residential Life and Services staff of what had occurred earlier in the evening. Similar meetings were held in other dorms. At the same time, off-campus students were not made aware of the assault, except through word-of-mouth.

As confusion about the incident reigned across campus and jittery nerves remained, students received a letter Tuesday afternoon from College president Nancy Dye which officially informed the campus of the attack. The letter was one of many warnings students would receive throughout the week to be vigilant and take precautions for ensuring security.

Tuesday night, an informational meeting led by Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith was held in King 306 to allow members of the campus community to ask questions and express concerns about campus security. The meeting was attended by approximately 80 students, half of whom where RCs. In opening discussion, Goldsmith said, "These are indeed difficult times in a community such as ours."

Much of the discussion centered around what has been done and what could be done to improve security. In addition to Goldsmith, Oberlin Police Chief Bob Jones and Director of Safety and Security Keith James explained their roles in the investigation of the attack as well as keeping the campus safe.

An unwelcome sense of déja vu permeated the campus this week, with the attack serving as an uncomfortable reminder of the assault last September of a first-year resident of Fairchild Hall. Despite the fact that both occurred within residence halls, officials have stressed that the two have no relation. "I don't think we can make any pattern or parallel," said Dye.

There are a number of specific differences between the two incidents as well. First of all, last year's attack occurred early on a weekend morning while many students were sleeping; the attack on Monday happened in the evening around 7:20 p.m., with many students going about their everyday business. Furthermore, a suspect is already in custody and awaiting trial for last year's attack, although he has yet to be proven guilty.

The most striking difference between the two assaults is how the attacker gained access to the building in which this week's incident occurred. Last year's attacker allegedly broke into a window of Fairchild Co-op to enter the building (incidentally, money has been allocated for more secure windows at Fairchild, but more than a year later they have yet to be replaced).

There was no sign of any forced entry reported in the recent attack at Noah, and in fact, multiple sources have explained, off the record, that it is believed the assailant followed, or, as Jones and others described, "tailgated," a student into the building after that student used a validine to open the door. This would explain the strong emphasis placed upon urging students to be vigilant when opening doors to dorms, as many administrators, staff and security officers have reminded students not to let strangers in or prop doors open. Students were also advised to keep dorm exit doors closed, keep room doors and windows locked, and not walk alone at night or in poorly lit areas.

It is clear that a lapse in security systems did not lead to the recent assault. At the meeting, Goldsmith explained that some new door systems could possibly be looked into that could notify a central system if a door was left open, but he said, "Clearly, to me, the incident last night was not a consequence of a lapse in our safety and security system." Later in the meeting, citing idyllic perceptions of Oberlin, he said, "The reality is that as lovely and peaceful as this town is, it is part of the real world and it is impossible to completely prevent incidents such as this."

However, he did cite a campus-wide examination of Safety and Security during the meeting which occurred nearly four years ago and said, "It could well be it's time to do that again."

In an interview Wednesday afternoon, James explained this, as well as other issues regarding his department. He said that just prior to his arrival in 1996, the director of public safety at Arizona State University wrote a consulting report on the state of security at Oberlin. Although the report made some recommendations, particularly regarding the size of Safety and Security's staff and its organizational structure, James said reports such as this simply provide a framework with which the director of security can evaluate and respond to based on the particular resources at hand. He only has a certain amount of staff available, for example, and therefore cannot meet certain recommendations to create new positions. "I now have to be able to adapt the staffing I have to meet these recommendations."

Some changes he has made in staffing affected the response to this week's incident, according to him. "Last time we didn't have as much staff as now because we were filling three or four positions. This time we were up to our full complement," he said. Additionally, the scheduling of officer's shifts is different this year. Last year there had been one supervisor and one officer on duty, while this time there was one supervisor in addition to four officers. However, he explained that both times the responses were similar, and after last year's incident, the department of Safety and Security reviewed its response and felt quite comfortable with it.

In addition to the incident itself, the attention paid to the attack by newspapers and television stations forced many students to deal with the constant presence of camera crews and reporters, which many of them resented. During Tuesday night's meeting, camera crews (which were not allowed inside the building) waited outside, taping students as they walked up the steps of King and stopping them afterwards to ask how it went. Wednesday afternoon they could be seen in Wilder Bowl talking from time to time with random students, and throughout the week they hovered around Noah trying to investigate the incident.

Whatever their intentions, many students felt the camera crews were intrusive. Sophomore Anne Siegler, who lives on the first floor of the building, explained what happened after coming home to her room at 8:30 Tuesday night. She said, "Within five minutes there were cameras and floodlights in my room taping me." Apparently, calls to Security placed by her and others were ineffective, as the cameras remained.

Eventually, she decided to sleep somewhere else just to avoid the bright lights and intrusive cameras. "I was under so much emotional stress that that wasn't helping," she said, "It's insensitive and bad. There are a bunch of kids trying to deal with this reasonless stabbing and make sense of it. [The media presence] doesn't help in the process of heeling."

Noah resident sophomore Devon Gualtieri, who witnessed the attacker being chased by two other residents of the building, said "[The reporters are] not too harassing, but it's geting obnoxious that they're still here. I keep looking out my window and see them."

Molly Findley, another sophomore resident of the building, said, "I personally avoided them, but I know a whole lot of people were harrassed." She did not appear surprised by this, and said, "I don't think they did anything they wouldn't do anywhere else."