The Marquette Tribune
Opinions
10 Tuesday, February 15, 2022
PAGE 10
Editorial Board
Alexandra Garner, Executive Opinions Editor Hope Moses, Assistant Opinions Editor Aimee Galaszewski, Executive Director Benjamin Wells, Managing Editor of The Marquette Tribune Skyler Chun, Managing Editor of The Marquette Journal
Megan Woolard, News Executive John Leuzzi, Sports Executive Randi Haseman, A&E Executive Lelah Byron, Projects Editor
Eleanor McCaughey, Copy Chief Grace Pionek, Design Chief Izzy Bonebrake, Executive Photo Editor Nancy Flaherty, Social Media Executive
Andrew Amouzou, Station Manager of MUTV Reese Seberg, Station Manager of MURadio Alex Rivera Grant, Editor of Diversity and Inclusion
STAFF EDITORIAL
Hiring staff to send safety alerts necessary
Silence and delayed responsiveness can be detrimental to the Marquette community’s safety. Marquette University President Michael Lovell shared an announcement Feb. 8 about changes to Marquette University Police Department in response to “higher than usual crime rates” on Marquette’s campus. These changes include launching a task force to assess community safety and developing 30-day, 60-day and longer term plans. Four more MUPD officers will be added to areas of campus where “pass-through” crimes occur and more LIMO drivers will be hired to increase services. Additionally, Lovell said that required MUID swipe access will be added to residence halls, as well as campus buildings after business hours. He shared that he intends to reach out to community partners and law enforcement to learn about ways Marquette can be involved with addressing the roots of crime. Lovell also said MUPD will continue to use the “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” to assess different safety measures
on campus, such as lighting, security cameras and “traffic calming measures.” These changes to campus safety are definitely improvements that can help prevent more crime on campus, especially adding swipe access to campus buildings can add another layer of safety for students. In addition to these changes, the university should also consider hiring a designated MUPD staff member who deals with safety alerts. University spokesperson Lynn Griffith said that the shift supervisor on each shift is currently authorized to write and send out the safety alerts. There is currently no designated MUPD staff member who deals with safety alerts. Rather, the shift supervisor on each shift is authorized to write and send out the safety alerts. There have been consistent and ongoing issues with the timeliness and level of detail of MUPD’s safety alerts. This can lead not only to the possibility of students spreading misinformation but also to the possibility of panic. An incident of student panic occurred Friday, Feb. 4 in the
Alumni Memorial Union Ballrooms, and some students told the Marquette Wire differing stories of what actually happened. MUPD sent an alert at 5:55 p.m.: “Police presence at AMU due to emergency exit door alarm accidental activation. No threat to campus. No shelter in place order.” Some students were texting their friends not to come near the AMU because of what they perceived to be a threatening situation. In a now deleted post, one Instagram account @marquette_ affirmations even posted a photo of the AMU with the words “The AMU is not on lockdown” at 5:50 p.m, which was an entire 5 minutes before MUPD sent out the safety alert. Students shouldn’t have to rely on each other for information because MUPD’s safety alerts are not sent out fast enough. MUPD usually sends a followup email about the incident after sending out a safety alert. However, there was no follow-up email about the Feb. 4 incident. Griffith said that text messages are sent to students, faculty and
staff who opt into text alerts when there is either an active threat to campus or when there is an incident on campus that is not an active threat; this would include information about a police presence on campus or for people to stay away from an investigation area. Griffith also said that the text safety alerts are intended to inform students to avoid specific areas and/or be aware of people who match descriptions that MUPD sends out. Another recent example of slow responsiveness was when MUPD was assisting the Milwaukee Police Department with an investigation regarding the shooting of an MPD officer Jan. 27. The MUPD alert said, “Situation stabilized. No threat to campus.” There was no information about what the situation was, where it was occurring on campus or who was involved. Both the Feb. 4 safety alert and especially the Jan. 27 safety alert provide little detail about each incident. In the Jan. 27 safety alert, students who didn’t know what was happening were left to wonder what and where “situation”
was stabilized. MUPD did send subsequent messages after its initial message, but the separation of information likely led to panic and the spread of more misinformation. The information across the three alerts should have been combined into one message, considering that there were 16 minutes between the second and first, and over an hour between the third and the second message were sent. At the time the first alert was sent Jan. 27, MUPD was already assisting MPD and students; they should have informed students of that from the start. This could have dispelled misinformation and prevented unnecessary panic. Hiring an MUPD staff member who is responsible for sending out safety alerts could improve timeliness, decrease inconsistencies across messages and alleviate responsibilities from shift supervisors who can focus on maintaining campus safety. While the new changes to improve safety are a positive step, prompt and sufficient communication cannot be left out when considering student safety.
identities and sexual orientations in positions of power. An ABC News and Ipsos poll was conducted in January and found that 76% of Americans believe that Biden should “consider all possible nominees” for the Supreme Court position. This opinion is understandable and one that I think many Americans can agree with: However, it isn’t a point that has been raised in the past. The Supreme Court has consistently been made up of white men, lacking both racial and gender diversity. Only about 4% of Supreme Court justices have historically been women. This is a huge discrepancy. Along with that, although nearly four in 10 people in America are not white, only two of nine current Supreme Court justices belong to a racial minority group. The real issue
is that major discussions about diversity have only just begun, and many of these conversations are negative. The upsetting concept is that somehow a Black woman being a Supreme Court justice is questionable because she may not be the best fit or less qualified than other candidates. Yet, this was not something that people in America were outspoken about when time after time white people, mostly men, were chosen as justices. Capitalizing on the prospect of diversity efforts in America is a separate issue, which can manifest into performative activism, in which people will act as allies or join in on a cause for personal gain. This is disingenuous and wrong because it makes a mockery of real issues in America. However, if Biden
were to claim he wanted to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court in his campaign but not follow through, then we could discuss that issue. However, he is actually going to follow through with it and take measures to ensure this intentional practice continues. On his Saturday podcast “Verdict,” Senator Ted Cruz said, “The fact that he’s willing to make a promise at the outset that it must be a Black woman — I gotta say, that’s offensive.” Cruz also said, “Black women are, what, 6% of the U.S. population? He’s saying to 94% of Americans: ‘I don’t give a damn about you. You are ineligible.’” Rather than adopting this perspective, I would encourage everyone to consider this: a Black woman can simultaneously bring much-needed diversity to
the Supreme Court and also be intelligent, qualified and right for the position. There is no reason to suggest that it must be one or the other. Making mindful decisions about diversity and inclusion in powerful positions is important. The Supreme Court should represent all of the people of America, and that should not be a controversial notion. People of different backgrounds, whether it be race, gender or sexuality, each have unique perspectives and experiences that their fellow justices may not; these differences are what make a court more powerful. A court that includes all types of people is a more representative, stronger Supreme Court.
Diversity efforts should be standard in political appointments Grace Cady
Diversity should be a standard when appointing people to positions of power. Justice Stephen Breyer announced he will be retiring from the Supreme Court Oct. 3. With Breyer leaving, President Joe Biden will be left with the decision of who to replace him with, arguably one of the most influential powers of a president. Biden announced Jan. 28 that his selection for Supreme Court justice will be the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. This comes after the pledge he made during his campaign. Still, many Americans struggle with the concept of including people of all races, gender
Grace Cady is a sophomore studying journalism. She can be be reached at grace.cady@marquette.edu
