Safety First

On Oct. 18, the University introduced a text messaging system designed to notify students immediately of campus emergencies and weather-related closures. Given rising concerns about the safety of college campuses and the limited capacity of large institutions to advertise immediate danger through traditional means, Columbia was wise to implement such a system. But the fact that the program is limited only to Columbia affiliates is troubling, as it excludes students’ family members and neighbors of the University who are so often affected by what occurs on and around campus. It is crucial that the system be extended not only to students and university personnel, but to those whose lives are intimately—if not officially—tied to Columbia.

Columbia’s text messaging program, along with other safety initiatives, could go a long way to preventing chaos, injury, or loss of life in the event of a campus-wide emergency. Like many of its peer institutions, the University has rightly recognized that cell phones are a ubiquitous feature on college campuses and, as such, the most effective way to transmit information in the event of such a catastrophe or weather-related scheduling change. The greater the reach of such a system, however, the more effective it will be, and limiting enrollment exclusively to Columbia affiliates is at odds with that purpose.

Initially, the program was so narrow as to include only Columbia College and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences students, but it has now been extended to Barnard College and Teachers College and will expand to include faculty and other support staff next semester. This is a positive step, especially if personnel and staff are ever called upon to organize or direct students in a crisis situation. Still, the University’s ultimate goal should be to make the system open to the general public so that Morningside Heights residents, family members of Columbia affiliates, and anyone else with a stake in what occurs at the University will also be notified in the event of an emergency. If a major crisis develops on or around campus, it is no great stretch to think that members of the surrounding community could be affected. Likewise, little harm can come from notifying those closest to affiliates of the University who chose to be included in the program, as they may be able to reach loved ones on campus through secondary means and close any potential holes in the communication net. If ever there were a time to ignore bureaucratic distinctions, a crisis situation is it.

Similarly, while administrators should be commended for implementing this program in a timely fashion, they should make an added effort to educate students on the system and on broader emergency contingencies, perhaps by holding an informational forum or setting up a booth in Lerner. Such a program can only succeed if a large network of students, faculty, and support staff are aware of how and when the system will be used and familiar with the relevant parts of Columbia’s emergency management plan that may be difficult to convey in 160-character text messages. It seems unlikely that the University will have to use this system with any frequency, but it is nevertheless crucial that as many members of the community are keyed in as possible. Columbia should be willing to make the lesser mistake of being overcautious rather than the bigger one of being caught off guard.