Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

· Registered
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How interesting that the University vehemently denies, and refuses to acknowledge crime of any magnitude let alone rapes and lesser assaults on their campus. They want you and prospective students and parents to believe the campus is an oasis of security surrounded by the crime occurring in the city all around them. They would have you believe that this bucolic environment is due their "rules" which forbid bad behavior.

The editorial below is from the Daily Chronicle (The Chrony) and shows how the U's administration continues to bury its head in the sand. Must we actually resort to a volunteer group of concerned folks to identify dimly lighted areas?

It begs the questions, what other areas of this administration's safety and security policy for students, staff and visitor's need to have light shed on them?

They have used the denial of crime of campus as a premise for the continued enforcing of a "No firearm" policy. This policy is a de-facto ban only on CCW holders as they are the only ones inclined to follow such a policy. The University admits it only has enforcement over students, staff, and faculty, which by the way are the ones they should have the biggest duty, if not moral responsibility, to protect.

This editorial shows that
1. Not only do they fail to protect the students,
2. They fail to mitigate the "criminal friendly environment" by illuminating all areas of the campus.
3. U administration does not stop there, they then take affirmative action to prohibit students, staff and faculty from an effective means of self-defense.

W. Clark Aposhian
I have underlined, for quicker reading, some of the telling statements in this editorial.

The Chronicle's View: Take back the night with more light

Members of the U community will gather Thursday night at 7 in the Union's Women's Resource Center to participate in Take Back the Night.

This yearly activity consists of people wandering the campus to take note of poorly lit areas where acts of violence would be likely to occur. Many people are on campus late at night and for their protection, especially for that of female students, it is important to assess where light bulbs need to be replaced or new lights installed.

Many hands make light work, and anyone who can participate should. Other than being fun, Take Back the Night is an excellent service activity that significantly improves the safety of campus.

Campus has not been a stranger to rape incidents in the last few years. Improved visibility will reduce the likelihood of such violent attacks.

There are many things that need to be done to improve campus security.

Take Back the Night is something small that can be done in a short amount of time to make a difference.

But students, faculty and staff can only do so much to improve security. Better visibility may reduce the likelihood of attacks, but is no substitute for good security.

Compared to other universities, this campus does little to protect people at night. Even after dark areas are identified Thursday evening, many will likely remain. There are many schools better lit at night than the U.

It's good to fix broken light bulbs, but the administration should also invest in more and brighter lighting.

There is also much to be desired from campus police. The average response time to a call made on one of the emergency phone poles scattered around campus is 15 minutes. A victim could go into shock in less time and than a perpetrator could run across the entire length of the campus.
Other schools can afford to have police patrol the campus at night, making response to emergencies virtually instant.

If someone were attacked, despite the current lighting, it would be a miserable experience trying to get help.
Until funding for these larger improvements are made, efforts such as Take Back the Night should be fully supported.

But no one should kid himself or herself about campus safety-there is still room for improvement.

Being aware that there's a problem is the first step to protecting oneself.


· Premium Member
5,591 Posts
That is truly pathetic.

I'll not forget how sarcastic and rude so many of the U professors were when the new preemption bill was debated in committee over a year ago. They snorted loudly and derisively when the statement was made that crime did happen on campus. I remember meeting you at that committee meeting, so you may remember that as well. Yet this editorial makes a lie of their denials.

· Registered
3,180 Posts
AMEN! Thank you W. Clark Aphosian for the info. I read that article a while back myself & felt as you do about it. Yes the Board of Regents are DIM!
As for Jake Garn, as an ex-elected official & a member of "good standing" within his political party, you would expect better behaviour from him. The last time I attended a county delegates convention I was told of his behavior towards another candidate from the republican party. I was told straight up that he had hit this candidate from behind & ran away, when he had lost a debate over a firearms related issue. If the make up of the Utah Board of Regents is filled with men like this, it is no wonder they abuse their power so much! Personally I feel that this Board ought to be disbanded as I find them to be utterly useless, and highly overpaid bigots who use this power to enhance themselves & thrust their values, such as they are, on the rest of us.
Being an employee of the U of U, I know of what I speak.
Throw the bulbs out & maybe we will see better in the daylight!

1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.