Stranded by the River

We all recognize that we are in a recession. We are prepared to say goodbye to hot breakfast and farewell to the Quad Library. Where unnecessary spending is taking place, we respect the administration’s decision to make cuts. However, the cost of ensuring Harvard students’ safety is not “unnecessary spending.” Student safety should never be a bullet point between “Scan and Deliver Service” and “Telecommunications Management” on a list of “cost saving measures.” While it may seem as though only a portion of students are affected by this cut, the impact on the lives of Quad residents is significant enough to warrant the attention of the Harvard community. This is not an issue of convenience; this is an issue of safety.

To suggest that we stop whining and start walking is fine during daylight hours. But we constantly receive Community Advisories from the Harvard University Police Department that alert us to the rising rates of violent crime against both men and women in the area. Therefore, walking to and from the Quad through Cambridge Common, an area recognized as dangerous, is not a safe option at night. Already, the current nighttime shuttle schedule is less than ideal.

The recently announced budget cuts and shuttle changes raise many issues relating to Quad safety. However, there is a further issue involving the safety of Quad women that is inherently less obvious due to its sensitive and personal nature. Last week, the conversation among many Quad women revolved around this related issue, and, after hearing these similar stories and speaking with the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, we felt compelled to raise this point.

Many of the stories we have heard address similar situations: A woman who lives in the Quad is ready to go home. She has missed the 2:45 a.m. shuttle, and the next does not come until 3:15 a.m. From previous experience, she knows that the evening van service will tell her to wait for the next shuttle. When weighing her options, she cannot just walk home, but among her choices is an offer from a male who says she can wait for the shuttle in his room. The offer is probably innocent, and the woman probably gets on the next shuttle as planned. However, we have been made aware of many situations in which the events that follow are far from harmless. This woman is forced to make a decision she would have never considered if she’d merely lived close enough to just end her night when she wanted.

In no way are we suggesting that every male or every River resident is a sexual predator. Nor do we suggest that these compromising situations only occur by the river and involve women who live in the Quad. But we’ve heard this same story from many different women, all who have felt stranded by the river when they would prefer to go home. Women should be able to end their nights safely whenever they want, not just on the :15 and :45 shuttles.

It’s unfortunate that it took budget cuts to bring these stories to light. But, now that we’ve heard them, we can’t ignore them. We have a responsibility to share this issue on behalf of the women who understandably did not feel comfortable speaking up over their House lists or at the town-hall forums with Dean Evelynn Hammonds.

Reducing shuttle service will only make this worse. The university evening van service is not the answer because it often turns down student requests or offers wait times of over 30 minutes. What we need is a safe, reliable, and free alternative to provide transportation to Quad students at night.

Harvard is full of brilliant minds and creative thinkers. While it would have been preferable for the administration to ask for student feedback before these announced changes, it is still worthwhile to solicit solutions or compromises that will keep students safe within budgetary restrictions. Despite the outcry on campus through private and public e-mails from students, parents, faculty, and alumni, as yet, a week after the announced cuts, we have received no sign that the administration is listening. MIT is leading a similar budget-cut initiative and is trying to incorporate community feedback, even streamlining the process of recognizing the best ideas. Its website asks the MIT community to post suggestions to the “Idea Bank” and allows others to view these responses and rate the ones they find “particularly innovative and practicable.” Harvard should offer a similar forum to encourage the most creative, realistic, and responsible solutions possible.

If given adequate time and a forum for feedback, we do not doubt that the Harvard community could generate less expensive and even safer solutions to the dangers posed by the nighttime commute to the Quad. But to make cuts to an already imperfect shuttle system without having first established a safe alternative is beyond irresponsible. It is a reckless decision that will cut financial costs at the expense of student safety, and this is not a deal that anyone should be willing to accept.


Tessa K. Lyons-Laing ’11, an inactive member of the business staff, is a social studies concentrator in Pforzheimer House and Logan R.  Ury ’10, a magazine writer, is a psychology concentrator in Cabot House.