Editorial: A more rational lockout policy

The University’s primary rationale for the new policy is that dealing with lockouts is a heavy burden for Public Safety and that a fine would deter students from forgetting their keys. This reasoning is questionable. First, the fine will only act as a deterrent insofar as students will think harder about not leaving their keys if they know they will have to pay a fine. But students rarely, if ever, mean to get locked out, and a fine is unlikely to change their behavior. Going through the hassle of regaining entry is already enough of a disincentive. Instead of cutting down on the number of lockouts, the proposed fee schedule will merely serve to nickel-and-dime students. Moreover, the new policy may even act as an incentive for students to leave their doors unlocked or propped open to avoid the fee. By trying to mitigate what is at worst an inconvenience, Public Safety may be saddled with a serious safety issue.

A secondary rationale for the policy might be that the fee is needed to offset the cost of hiring students to unlock doors. While there is doubt as to the wisdom of such a petty nuisance fee, it is certainly true that these costs will add up in the long term. But if the University wants to charge a nominal fee to send someone to unlock rooms, this fee should reflect only the cost of the task instead of serving as a punishment. In particular, students should not be charged for walking to the housing office to collect a loaner key themselves.

Ultimately, neither rationale for the new lockout policy is particularly convincing. The University has stated, however, that the fee schedule is still under consideration and will not be implemented until next semester. If the Undergraduate Housing Office insists on fining students for lockouts, the fine should be implemented for the sake of recouping actual costs rather than in an ill-conceived attempt to disincentivize something that is already undesirable.