EDITORIAL – For Pitt, safety first

The perks of going to college on an urban campus are numerous, with concerts, museums,… The perks of going to college on an urban campus are numerous, with concerts, museums, shopping, access to public transportation and 24-hour restaurants keeping students busy. But Pitt’s urban location has its drawbacks as well, with the increased instances of crime and violence that come hand in hand with city living chief among them.

While Pitt offers several services that work to keep students safe, like the emergency alert system, campus blue lights, a shuttle system and SafeRider, the reports of crime and violence we see in the Police Blotter from week to week offer proof that students are in no way immune to the dangers of life in a city. No policy Pitt makes can remove the inevitable dangers of living in an urban area. What the University can do, though, is continue to work toward keeping students safe.

And that may mean allocating more University funds toward programs like SafeRider, which is often plagued with calls on weekends. The late-night shuttle service only serves within strict boundaries, leaving students who live in popular off-campus neighborhoods like Shadyside and Squirrel Hill left without a ride.

Student complaints concerning SafeRider prompted members of Student Government Board to look into the costs and feasibility of expanding the service earlier this year. Board member Nila Devanath said discussions with transportation officials had led her to understand that the $185,000 needed to expand SafeRider would have to come from the Student Activities Fund, which SGB chiefly uses to provide allocations for student groups. The board announced Tuesday that it would not be able to finance additional phone lines or vehicles for SafeRider using the fund.

Devanath’s argument of “there’s not much [the board] can do with the money aspect” is justified. The Student Activities Fund shouldn’t be used to pay for the SafeRider system, particularly if that spending would limit allocations for student organizations. SafeRider is not a student organization. It’s a service funded by the transportation fee and should remain funded by the transportation fee and the University, not the Student Activities Fee.

Expanding SafeRider would be mutually beneficial for both the students and the University administrators. Pitt prides itself on maintaining a safe campus; it’s a value that the University emphasizes in frequently published safety brochures, likely seen by many prospective students and their parents. If consistent student feedback kin to SGB’s concern expresses the idea that students don’t feel safe walking home at night, the University should do everything in its power to offer more services that can get students home, whether that means expanding shuttle routes or expanding SafeRider’s phone lines.

That’s not to say that SGB should discontinue its efforts to improve the SafeRider service. They might not be able to pay for SafeRider improvements, but our board members should continue to lobby University administrators to expand and improve the system. SGB is the student liaison to the administration, and the student body has elected them trusting that they would do their best to achieve their campaign goals. We appreciate what SGB has done so far, but we hope that the University will listen to them and make the necessary improvements to the SafeRider program that are out of SGB’s control.