In other stories, I've alluded to the day (April 5, 1983, to be precise) when the Princeton University Math Department's external advisory committee gave grad students an opportunity to meet them in a group. I've mentioned that the committee ignored my serious concerns, but got enthusiastic about my joke list.
What were the more serious concerns that I told them about? Here's one.
Some of the backstory is well told in a New York Times article that appeared on November 29, 1981
(http://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/29/nyregion/princeton-uneasy-in-wake-of-rapes.html) under the headline "Princeton uneasy in wake of rapes". Highlights include:
Since the beginning of the fall semester in early September, two teen-agers and a Princeton graduate student have been raped within a mile of the campus.Prospect Avenue, the tree-lined home of the upper-class eating clubs, was the scene of two of the assaults - the rape of the graduate student on Oct. 22 and the attempted rape of a Princeton faculty member on Oct. 14.The graduate student was riding her bicycle along Prospect Avenue shortly after midnight when she was struck by a car, knocking her to the ground. The driver stopped and offered to take her to a hospital, but then forced her into his car at knifepoint, bound her with electrical tape, drove her to a nearby field and raped her.
The article goes on to state that a student proposed that the university create a shuttle bus service.
"We're doing all in our power to make the Princeton campus as safe as it can be," said Alfred Terry, assistant director of security. Others are not so sure. "The university has been dragging its feet about putting locks that work on the women's bathrooms, installing emergency phones and changing the esthetic lighting to effective lighting," said Kathryn Carver, a senior and member of the student-initiated Rape Task Force.
"It's a shame that the university only gets responsive when the body count gets high enough," Miss Carver said.
Two pages later, the New York Times carried a long piece about sexual harassment that didn't show Princeton in a good light (https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/29/nyregion/handling-sexual-harassment.html) and gave the impression that Princeton cared more about its image than its students.
Princeton hated the adverse publicity. At first, I took the University at its word that it wanted to make the campus safer. But everything it did seemed to show that it did indeed care more about its image than its students. Below are some of my attempts to hold Princeton accountable.
The university did indeed create a shuttle bus service. The nearest stop to the math department was on the street near the front entrance to Jadwin Hall, which faced the football stadium. When it rained, the bus was full (of male students) so the driver wouldn't let me on and I had to walk home. More worrisome were that one never knew how long one would have to wait on the street in the dark, and the courtyard I had to walk across to get from Fine Hall to Jadwin Hall was unlit. My complaints about this led to the following:
On April 16, 1982, I paid a $10 deposit to John Gomany, in Room A-17 in the Physics Department in Jadwin Hall, for a key to the front door of Jadwin Hall. I still have the receipt and the key, since he refused to refund me the deposit when I went to return the key before I graduated. Why wouldn't he refund my deposit? He was angry that his power to decide who gets keys had been usurped.
The front door key did not solve all the problems. My requests for a safe way to cross the unlit courtyard led to the convoluted and unsatisfactory solution in the following quaint memo, of which I have a carbon copy:
FROM: V. R. BOSCARINOTo: W. Davall, Security OfficeDATE: 4/20/82Bill-In an effort to help the female students in Mathematics to safely catch the shuttle, I have issued a front door key. This will allow entry into Jadwin after-hours but the assistance of the guard is required to get through the connecting door to the Brush Gallery. Would you speak to the uniformed guards' supervisor to ensure that all guards assist these ladies in getting through?This is the only way that we can accomodate these students. I do not want the door left unlocked nor can I issue keys for that door.ThanksSIGNED: Dick
That summer, the shuttle no longer stopped near Fine or Jadwin Hall. In the below, "proctors" were what Princeton called its campus security personnel. I wrote to the Dean of the Graduate School on June 15, 1982:
Dear Professor Ziolkowski,Last fall the university circulated a letter to female students telling them not to walk, jog, or bicycle after dark. The Security department followed this up with a publicity campaign encouraging students to ask for proctor escorts after dark and admonishing them for failing to do so.For the past six months I have attempted to follow the university's advice. I am a graduate student in the mathematics department, and it is necessary for me to spend my evenings in my office in Fine Hall. When it is time for me to return home to Lawrence Apartments, I'm faced with a dilemma. The area around Fine Hall is unlit and deserted. The walk home is unquestionably unsafe, but so is walking to any of the shuttle stops. So I phone the Security department and ask if I can be walked to a shuttle stop or given a proctor escort home. I am told to wait on Washington Rd. until a car comes. Having done this several times, I know that I'm safer walking home than waiting up to half an hour on dark Washington Rd. at 11 p.m. until an unidentified (hopefully proctor) car stops somewhere nearby and waits for me to get in. The people inside have even refused to show me identification until I got inside the car!I have continually questioned this policy, and have been given ridiculous excuses for why the proctor escort service is conducted in a way so blatantly unsafe for its users. I have also suggested many alternatives. All my suggestions have been rejected, often rudely, and often with no reason given. To give a representative example of my discussions with the Security department, I was told that yes, the Fine Hall area needs more lights, but no, the university cannot add more lighting because floodlights are unsightly.Finally, one proctor informed me that the Security department intentionally conducted the proctor escort service as it did to discourage students from using it. This technique works well---the people I know who have asked for proctor escorts once, never asked again. Many have had worse experiences with the Security department than the frightening ones I've had.I have gone to nearly every administrative department in the university that seemed capable of solving this problem. I've been told by one person after the next that I'm clearly right but that they can't or won't do anything for me. The safety of female students is not a very high priority, they tell me.Could you please help me in solving this problem? I sincerely hope that you will treat this letter with sympathy, concern, and understanding.Yours truly,[signed by me]
On June 21, 1982 he replied (with a cc to the Assistant Dean):
Thank you for your letter of June 15. I very much appreciate your concerns about security.I regret that a few students have been temporarily inconvenienced by the change in the schedule, and scheduled stops, for the Campus Shuttle during the summer. The Fine-Jadwin stop had to be suspended for the summer, in an effort to consolidate service, because so few students needed that stop. It will be reinstated again when normal service begins in the fall.In the meantime you should feel absolutely free to call Campus Security anytime you require transportation back to Lawrence Apartments late at night. We have confirmed this with Security, and they assure me that they are always pleased to oblige. It is absolutely nothing more than rumor that Security tries to discourage students from using the escort service. At the same time, it is of course only reasonable to acknowledge that the proctors cannot always respond instantly when summoned; they may be on an emergency call elsewhere at the time. I would suggest that you inquire, whenever you call, about the approximate time when the car may appear; that way you shouldn't need to wait longer than necessary.For your information, a continuing university committee, including academic deans, meets regularly to discuss security measures. I shall make sure that your letter with its suggestions is brought to their attention.Please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of further service.Sincerely yours,Theodore Ziolkowski
On June 23, 1982 I replied:
Dear Professor Ziolkowski,I'm afraid I did not make myself clear in my letter of June 15. The problem with the Campus Security escort service is not the length of time one must wait.One problem is waiting outside, on a dark deserted street corner.The other is that there is no way to distinguish between a proctor's car and a rapist's car in the dark. It is absurd to expect a woman to walk up to any car that stops, to enquire whether it is a Campus Security car.I can suggest two simple steps that can be taken to help solve this problem.1. I have inquired whenever I call about the approximate waiting time, as you suggested, and I've always been told that the time is unknown and that I must immediately go outside and wait, or the car will leave without me. The problem of standing outside on a dark street could be solved if Security would phone me (at my Centrex number) when the car is about to arrive.2. There should be a way to positively identify the car or the driver without walking up to the car. If it really is impossible to put lights or markings on the outside of the car, then the driver could at least turn on the inside light to make visible a "Princeton Security" sign temporarily placed in the windshield.I have repeatedly made both these suggestions to Security, and they are always refused. I would be interested if you could find out for me why Campus Security will not implement these procedures, and what alternatives you or they can suggest, to make the escort service safe.Thank you.Yours sincerely,[signed by me]
On July 1, 1982 Dean Ziolkowski replied to me:
I have had a long conversation with a representative of Security concerning the questions in your letter of June 23. With specific regard to your two suggestions:1) Security makes every effort to get a car to Fine Hall as promptly as possible following every call. (I know that from my own experience because I frequently have to summon proctors to the Graduate College for one matter or another.) However, delays are sometimes unavoidable--even after the car has been dispatched. For instance, a fire alarm would take precedence over a routine escord (sic) service if the care (sic) were already in transit. Also, the time depends of course on the location of the car when it is dispatched. In general, however, you should be assured that the car is dispatched immediately and proceeds directly to Fine Hall.2) Security has given careful consideration to marking the cars, but the disadvantages seem to outweigh the advantages. Instead they have made what I consider a very sensible suggestion: they are providing you with the license numbers of the three vehicles, all of which are gray Chevrolet Malibus. Any official car will have one of the three followign (sic) numbers: 205 SPI; 204 SPI; or 762 SOG. You should be able to check the identification of the car without danger and be assured that it is an official vehicle; you may then take the further precaution of asking the driver for identification once you are satisfied that the car is an official vehicle.I hope that this procedure will give you a bit more peace of mind when you call for the escort service.
On July 5, increasingly frustrated, I wrote:
Dear Mr. Terry [the assistant director of security who was quoted in the NY Times article],I filed a complaint about the escort service with Thea Pignataro of the C.P.U.C., and she was told by Sinclair Hill that I should write to you about the problem.On May 30 at 11:55 pm I phoned Security and asked to be taken from Fine Hall to Lawrence Apartments, where I live. We agreed that I would wait inside the Washington Road (main) entrance to Fine Hall. When no one showed up, I phoned again, three more times, from the elevator phone in full view of the entrance. Each time I verified where I should wait, and was told someone would come. When it approached 1 am, I phoned for the fifth time and was told that someone had come for me, but I "hadn't been there" so they left. I asked for the car to be sent again, again being assured it would come to Washington Road. Eventually I saw headlights on the opposite (Jadwin Hall) side of the courtyard, so I went out on the off chance that it was a proctor's car. It was.Proctor Jacobs had twice come to the wrong place. He was not concerned when he hadn't found me the first time, and did not look for me where I had told Security I would be waiting -- he simply drove off and forgot about me. He claimed Security had told him to go to Jadwin, not to Washington Road. Had I not been so persistent in phoning Security, I would have waited for him all night.It doesn't matter to me who was responsible for the mistake. What is important is that this should not be allowed to happen again. The incident above is typical of experiences several Fine Hall women have had in the past dealing with Security and the escort service.In the past year, at various times:1) we were told when we phoned Security that "the escort service doesn't exist".2) we were told the proctors "aren't allowed to leave their cars", so we must wait outside in the dark on Washington Road for the (unmarked) car, which would come anytime between 2 minutes and one hour from our request (if it came at all -- one several occasions the desk forgot to relay the message to a proctor), and if we were (safely) inside waiting when they arrived, the car would leave without us.3) proctors refused to show identification until we were actually inside the car.I hope that some of these problems can be solved, as at the moment women cannot safely go to or come from Fine Hall at night.Sincerely yours,Alice Silverberg(graduate student)
My strongest memory of the proctor who most often picked me up is not mentioned in these letters, perhaps because it happened later, or perhaps because I didn't think I would be believed. That proctor eventually told me that he delighted in scaring female students. He thought that they shouldn't be out after dark, and they were asking for it. He showed me how he would pull his hat brim down below his eyes and make snarling, aggressive remarks, to try to frighten female students he saw around campus. Since he didn't wear a uniform and he drove an unmarked car, they didn't realize that he worked for Princeton.
On December 14, 1981, I had submitted a letter to the editors of the campus newspaper, in response to a series of articles that encouraged students to use the proctor "Escort Service" and quoted university security staff who bemoaned that the service was underutilized. I made many of the above points, explained why some female students felt it was more dangerous to use the Escort Service than to walk alone, and asked them to investigate further. They didn't publish it.
The above is the backstory to one of the concerns I brought up at the April 1983 meeting of the department's advisory committee. My notes to remind me what to say at the meeting include:
#4. security: A grad student was raped a block away from the math department. Security department had a big publicity campaign telling students, faculty, staff, etc. to use their (non-existent) Escort service. Fine/Jadwin courtyard is pitch black at night --- it's impossible to walk safely to Fine at night, and Security will not escort women to or from Fine. Grad students have asked for:
(1) lights in the courtyard - university agrees they're needed, but can't do it because "floodlights are unsightly",(2) escorts - this was refused (each time a different excuse - e.g., proctors aren't supposed to get out of their cars).
Approaching university directly accomplished nothing. We approached department and were told it was up to Security, and the department couldn't do anything to help.Suggested solution: insist, rather than request, that university provide appropriate security measures for students and staff (including faculty).This [along with my other suggestions to the committee] would (hopefully) encourage women to apply to Princeton and to come here, by making it a more desirable and attractive place for women mathematicians.
This was one of my concerns that the advisory committee did not find particularly compelling.