Faulty Reasoning on Key Cards Province of Lewis, Not Students

I suspect I was not the only student Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 offended with his letter to The Crimson (Nov. 24). Not only are Lewis' arguments faulty, they reek of condescension. He argues that should a student be followed from a party "back to Kirkland, or back to the Yard...universal access would become a threat, not a protection."

Essentially, Lewis' argument is this: if a student is being followed by another (a peer, for example), universal key-card access will only serve to increase the risk of intrusion since the "stalker" can just whip out his universal access ID card. The problem with this argument? If a student is being stalked, there is no doubt that his or her being indoors is safer than being out; therefore, if universal key-card access were in place, the possible victim could escape indoors. There, he or she could reach out for help.

If the stalker were a Harvard student, he would either have to use his own card to enter the building or catch the door before it closed behind the person he was stalking. If there were no key-card access, then the victim would be forced to confront his or her stalker outside, probably at night. If he or she had universal key-card access, at least he or she could get indoors.

Lewis also argues that the Yard dorms comprise a "microcosm" where universal key-card access has failed to guard first-years from intruders; therefore, having universal access would in fact not resolve the issue of "strangers" intruding. But Lewis fails to see that if universal key-card access were implemented, the question we'd ask would no longer be "How do I know you go to Harvard?"

Having universal key-card access allows us to conclude rather safely that the individual in question is not a Harvard student. The difference may appear minor but in practice it is vast. Think about it. I admit the issues are complicated, and often times, figuring out what's best can be an exhausting mental exercise. I think the Undergraduate Council is doing a great job in working with house masters in this respect, and I hope this auspicious beginning will be matched by the administrators' consideration. Contrary to what Lewis claims, I don't think we students are engaged in "dubious reasoning." It offends me to no end to see that we are still regarded as infantile and inflamed tongues gushing words with few "well-reasoned" sentences to show for it. Take another look, Dean Lewis. You'll be surprised how thoughtful Harvard students can be. --Chris H. Kwak '97-'98