Editorial | A proactive approach

If the revelation this week that a suspect in a murder investigation is employed by Au Bon Pain teaches the University anything, it should be that reactive approaches to campus safety are failing to make the campus safer.

A review of ABP and other on-campus vendors' hiring practices is no doubt in order in light of this most recent incident. However, this is not the first time this year that Penn has only been aware of flaws in its security policies after the fact.

Earlier in the year, Penn admitted that it was unaware that a current student was serving time in a county jail. It also was caught unawares when other sources revealed that the University was employing two convicted sex offenders.

These incidents, along with the ABP affair, raise the question of where else Penn is failing to adequately protect members of its community.

To its credit, the University took a bold, necessary step by forming a committee to review its hiring practices; this committee will hopefully also review whether security policies in other areas throughout the campus are sufficient.

One such area is campus residential spaces. Unlike many other schools, Penn has a College House system, where faculty live side-by-side with students. While Penn does not require background checks for faculty, the University should know about a faculty member's background if they are going to be responsible for the residential safety of students.

The incidents involving Tracy McIntosh and Scott Ward prove that being an academic doesn't preclude criminal behavior. Requiring background checks for any employee living with students would cover the University's bases in this respect.

Penn's job is not to be a policeman for the area. However, the University should be aware of the pros and cons of existing policies with relation to security and be equipped to fix problem areas before another incident occurs.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.