UI putting more resources into campus security
URBANA – The University of Illinois is paying overtime to its police officers, while working to hire three more of them. In the meantime, it may also hire a security firm in the wake of a residence hall attack on a young woman and several beatings of lone males in Champaign-Urbana.
The attack on a woman in her Forbes Hall shower room is "the highest priority" case for the UI police right now, UI Chief of Police Barbara O'Connor said Wednesday.
"We are putting as many resources as we can into this case," she said, adding that Champaign and Urbana police have offered help.
No arrest has been made as of Wednesday afternoon, she said.
O'Connor said crime against human beings is "definitely up" in the campus area this fall, "especially aggravated battery and robberies."
"In recent weeks, police have made more than 25 apprehensions surrounding campus assaults and robberies," she said in a Tuesday e-mail to the campus.
The chief said money for hiring additional officers or paying overtime is "always an issue, but the top priority is safety."
Interim Chancellor Robert Easter announced the decision to bulk up the force before Monday's incident.
Associate Chancellor Robin Kaler said the campus is "in the process of hiring three officers, but that takes time."
"So, we also have officers working overtime, and we are exploring hiring a security company to help monitor the residence halls for the remainder of the semester," she said.
The attacker Monday is not believed to be a student. O'Connor said attacks in residence halls by non-members of the UI community are "an anomaly" but do happen "every few years."
"It's unusual, but we have concerns that it could happen again," she said.
O'Connor said UI Housing has been working intensively on increased security for more than a year and recently installed locks on bathrooms at Hopkins Hall, a dorm near Forbes.
But locks and video cameras can be helpful only so long as residents themselves don't try to subvert them.
The UI department is weighing costs and benefits to various technologies to prevent crime, O'Connor said.
"I'm a real believer in technology. I can secure the residence halls; the technology exists. But do we want our students to feel like they're not living in a residence hall?" she asked.
Monday's sexual abuse was reported at 10:55 a.m. in a fourth-floor bathroom. The woman told UI police that a man entered the shower area and sexually abused her, then hit her on the head.
According to a police report, the attacker is a black male more than 40 years old. He is 5 feet 11 inches tall, weighs between 170 and 180 pounds and has salt and pepper hair.
He was last seen wearing a black jacket with red writing, black pants and black shoes.
UI police don't think that man is connected with seven peeping Tom incidents reported in the dorms since Jan. 1.
Lt. Roy Acree said there have been two or three descriptions of the peeping Tom, none matching that of a middle-aged man. The most recent voyeur incident was at Allen Hall on Tuesday.
With all the incidents, the UI has created a call center for concerned parties, 333-0050. The center will be staffed during normal business hours. Overnight callers to the center will be transferred to an emergency dean on call.
In the meantime, campus officials are talking about what it would take to create a safer campus.
"We've taken proactive measures prior to this incident, with discussions about the size of a force sufficient to secure a campus, what should it look like," for 18 months, O'Connor said.
"The campus has been engaged in a very transparent approach to crime," she said, crediting public awareness with keeping community members more alert.
"It does (however) create the sense that there's lot more (crime) happening here. The campus remains very safe despite this egregious incident," O'Connor said.
She said UI students need to be aware that the campus bar district west of Wright Street is a high-incidence area, "especially at 12, 1, 3, 4 a.m."
This is exactly why we need to put a stop to the welfare state. If this guy had to actually get a job and work to feed himself, he wouldn't have time to go predatoring the girls' dorms.
Add to that the fact that the hole University housing is subsidized by tax dollars and you get a double-welfare debacle. If students had to live at home with their parents, then there would probably be alot less victims for these scumbags to prey on.
Well, let's set aside the fact that most students come from outside of Champaign County and can't realistically live at home with their parents and attend class at the same time. From what I've read you've actually hit upon an old housing debate that was waged at U of I in the early 20th century when people accused U of I of being a bunch of commies when it built the dorms. U of I used to be dorm-free but students had a hard time finding housing in town -- and that was when enrollment was about one tenth what it is now. Plus you had landlords crowding students into rat trap houses that could have burned down at any moment. If you think landlords have changed then I have a bridge to sell you. So throwing housing into the hands of local landlords would pose a whole bunch of new problems.
As for making the guy seek employment so he won't jump young ladies in shower stalls, all I can say is I think his issues run a little deeper than lack of a job. Most people who lose their job don't turn around and start lurking around shower stalls. Of course a savvy business person could make some hay off your reasoning: "See what outstanding citizens we are, if we didn't hire Bill here, he'd be preying on women in the dorms at U of I. Would you like to try one of his hamburgers?"
I forgot all about the point of the article! We're also paying for the added security and overtime for these extra cops to patrol the welfare dorms. If people were allowed to protect themselves in this nanny-prison state, we wouldn't need the extra cops, would we smart guy?
That's a triple layer of taxpayer-funded waste just so we can feel good about ourselves when we compare ourselves to Decatur or Danville: "The Glorious and Grand University!" Whoopee. I'd rather have my money back. Thank you very much. I know the real Americans agree with me.
So, now you're claiming I'm not a 'real American'? It's easy to engage in such rhetoric over the internet.
'Welfare dorms'? 'Nanny prison state'? Wow. What about the 'welfare' streets and buses? What about the 'welfare' fire departments? You apparently don't approve of the 'welfare' police or even the 'welfare' university. Is there any public service you support?
Being a university student even YOU should know that Student Housing is an independent, self-financed entity and independent from the finances of the university. Did you know that?
It's rather difficult even for someone as verbose as yourself to label a financially self-sufficient entity as a an agency of the welfare state. And again, I won't charge you for that......but your tab is growing.
I did read the thread through, and the CORRECT response for you to give would have been the one I gave. You proceeded under the assumption that the OP was correct in stating that Student Housing was, in fact, "welfare" dorms. With the CORRECT response you would have put the kabosh on the discussion. I'm actually quite surprised that I had to explain that.
Well, not really. 5uperman does actually hit on a somewhat pertinent point, though his connections are a little stretched. The dorms may run on housing money that's raised independent of state general fund allocations, but it IS university money and university property, with staff who are considered university employees. They don't pay taxes and they don't have to pay some land developer. They don't rent their rooms to non-students. They are very much a university enterprise, and not private. If the university didn't receive housing costs it would require more state appropriations to run the dorms, but at some point someone decided that it was fair to require students to pay extra to receive room and board from the university. The same goes for athletics, by the way. They are completely funded by their own sources but they're still considered part of the university. That's why -- dare I mention His name? -- the Chief issue was decided by university administration instead of, say, the coaching staff of the football team.
First, I've read many posts of John O'Connor. He is sarcastic, mean spirited, and belittling. That offers nothing to productive debate. Heck, I disagree with the idea of "welfare dorms" and would define "real American" differently, but I will at least argue that point or even realize that just maybe the world doesn't see everything my way (or Mr. O'Connor's way, for that matter). Diversity of opinion is good! Mr. O'Connor looks to belittle and then cry foul about all the ad hominem attacks people unwittingly start slinging back in response. I've seen this play out over and over. I take pity on him . . . as I'm sure I will be the brunt of his posts about how stupid and uninformed I am. All in a witty way, I do hope.
Now, I don't think the dorms are welfare based, but certainly they are not totally self-sufficient because they are owned by the state (hence, they are tax free and have university services the private sector couldn't). Still, when I hear nanny state, I am wholeheartedly in agreement that we should be allowed to protect ourselves. 48 other states allow concealed carry, and study after study strongly suggest that crime goes down when perpetrators don't know if criminals are packing their next subsonic lead sandwich. The irony is that you bring up this question about a basic freedom denied on a day to celebrate millions serving in the armed forces to protect our freedoms. I think a real American would understand that liberty is constantly being challenged and can't be taken for granted. [Since I prefaced this with, "I think," I am signaling that this is my opinion. No one is calling anyone anything. If someone takes this as a personal attack, get over yourself. You aren't being made the center of the world. Please spare me any tongue lashings that I probably deserve.]
Can you please provide a quote or quotes of me being "sarcastic, mean spirited, and belittling"?
You 'cry foul' over my comments and then try to preemptively frame any response as me being somehow unfair to you. All this couched in sanctimonious stance of 'tak[ing] pity on me.' Spare us the self righteousness.
Yes, diversity of opinion is a very good thing. But you seem to regard it as an affront when someone airs an opinion you don't agree with or disagrees with an opinion you have stated. You seem to want people who don't agree to just shut up about it.
And, yes, you are implying that people who disagree with you about letting people run around with guns and chips on their shoulders are unamerican. Prefacing it with "I think..." in no way lessens that and it's intellectually dishonest to frame it as such.
I for one am glad to see that a complete and utter lack of knowledge regarding the topic at hand has not prevented Mr. 5uperman from expressing his opinions on this article.
I almost had a car accident this morning after a cheap, beat-down looking car almost ran me off the road. Following your logic, I ought to blame the welfare state. If that man had to get a job (because, remember, nobody on welfare has a job)...then maybe (I'm sorry, not maybe, there's no room for maybes in my or in 5uperman's world, only assertions of immutable fact rooted in nothing but my own generally uninformed opinions) he would have a nicer car and would drive in a less reckless fashion.
Also, university housing being welfare...that's a first. And, I hate to break it to you, but a sizable majority of students going to the U of I do not have parents living anywhere near Champaign-Urbana, or even in the United States for that matter. I have a hard time believing that anyone who lives in Champaign-Urbana would not understand this. I have concluded that you are either not from around here, a clever spammer, or someone from this area who has not stepped foot on campus in decades. I'm not leaving much room for error from my own unresearched, biased conclusions, but I figured that you would appreciate that.
A large percentage of the students who attend the U of I are attending here from Upstate Illinois and have parents who reside in Chicago or more likely a suburb of Chicago. Last time I checked, Chicago and its surrounding suburbs were part of the United States and more importantly our State of Illinois.
ctyboy58
There is quite a large international student population attending at U of I. I myself am an international student at the College of Law. Also, to be perfectly honest, the argument was over whether kids should just live with their parents and commute to school. Also, upstate Illinois and the Chicagoland area are several hours away. That's a bit of a haul to make twice a day for class.
Back on point people. Some of the problem obvioiusly lies in the fact that people are scared anymore to report suspicious things they see because they are afraid of being called a racist. I am positive at least one person saw this guy in the area and either wasn't paying attention or didn't think to call. This cannot be said enough..........security, law enforcement, personal protection, is not about race. It is about recognizing the circumstances and getting that gut feeling that something just isn't right. This has nothing to do with welfare.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.