COD’s open door policy is unsafe
February 13, 2020
As we watch more and more mass shootings and random acts of violence we are becoming increasingly concerned that the College of DuPage has an open-door policy, meaning there is no security over who is allowed on campus and who isn’t.
There are various people who have been identified loitering the campus outside and during regular class hours.
One of the largest concerns are the solicitors for a “Christian bible-study.”
This group is not affiliated with any student groups or college organizations., Yet it has been called out by students for harassing students to join, saying that the Bible mentions a “female God” and being invasive about asking students their religious beliefs. These people are often women dressed in business casual attire and approach students, frequently women, to try to meet for a bible study at an off-campus location.
Even though COD is a public institution, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t scrutinize who is here and who isn’t. Some public high schools require visitors to have their ID’s scanned and logged for security. If COD Is a public institution like some high schools, why don’t we implement measures to keep our students, staff and community members safe?
Another group that causes safety concerns is the openly homophobic propaganda group that sets up a table near the Student Life Lounge several times a semester.
The group, called Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (HOME) hand out hateful propaganda to students and campus visitors as well as decorate their table with posters listing health “statistics” about homosexual and bisexual indivudals– the posters have statements such as “the average lifespan of a homoseuxal is significantly shorter than normal.” HOME is set to return to campus Feb. 24 and Feb. 25.
The group has been protested by many students on campus before, yet they are still allowed on. Why is COD allowing a group that spews hate speech to specific members of the student body on our campus? We, as students, pay to attend the school. By allowing hateful people on campus, COD is using our money against us.
It’s not merely offensive, this hate speech is also deragatory to the LGBTQ community. On a public campus, students give up certain rights of theirs to attend class. If they are too disruptive in class or on the grounds, the school has the right to remove the student. If we expect students, who pay to be here, to be held to this standard, a group that isn’t contributing financially in the way students are should be held more strictly.
The security on campus is insufficient for the number of people present every day. Whether it’s by increasing the security personnel or by adding more safety measures to keep the campus secure, COD has a responsibility to keep its students and community members safe.
Luke • Feb 14, 2020 at 12:52 pm
So half of this article is talking about a Christian group on campus that annoys you, and the other half is about an anti-LGBTQ group that annoys you. You don’t really go into the security risks of the campus regarding either of the examples. Expounding past these two however, should we kick all the homeless off campus as well since they aren’t students? Also, should we not allow any and all political tables being set up in the main campus area as to not offend anyone?
Ive experienced both of the examples you talked about in the article in my time at COD. Although they are definitely annoying and partially an eye sore, they are harmless. Im gay. I don’t agree with HOME whatsoever, but they don’t matter in the grand scheme of things since they’re boomers and orthodox religious folk just trying to get a lot of young people to hate on their gay friends. It doesn’t work. Regarding the off-campus religious folk, isn’t their non-permitted outreach technically a form of harassment that can be reported to the on-campus police? Why not do that and fix the issue. If enough do it, they’re gone.
I know this was a short and punchy article, but it leaves a lot of real and applicable questions left on the field that need to be talked about. You only mentioned security strictly in the intro, one paragraph in the center out of nowhere talking about ID scanning, and the conclusion. I wanted to know why we needed security against these two groups, but it sounded like you used security as a platform to complain about things you don’t like.