Recently, the decision of Residence Life and Education to install security cameras in Dominic Hall has dominated campus-related gossip. Some suggest that these cameras would violate students’ privacy. No one, after all, wants to be watched and examined while in their own home. Students need a safe haven where they can relax, unwind, and escape the constant scrutiny of Saint Anselm College administration. Others, though, point out the gravity of the situation in Dominic: damage-related costs continue to sky-rocket with each new group of freshman boys. Strongly-worded emails and revoking inter-visitation yielded nothing: Residence Life and Education must take a stronger stand, they argue. This author submits that, if used properly, security cameras may prove a valuable tool to prevent residence hall damage without impeding students’ privacy.

Amidst the debate and discussion surrounding the cameras, one fact stands uncontested: Dominic Hall is notorious for property damage. Weekend after weekend, drunken partiers smash the ceiling tiles. Garbage and alcohol paraphernalia litter the hallways. Just recently, someone stole a very expensive wireless router, costing everyone on that floor a large sum of money and disrupting internet access. This problem needs to stop. Innocent Dominic residents should not need to continue paying for others’ stupidity. Saint Anselm College has a right to protect its property. Cameras would perhaps make students think twice before acting destructively. Or, if this goal fails, at least Residence Life and Education can apprehend the perpetrators and force the few guilty parties to pay damage fees instead of the many innocent residents.

With that being said, Dominic Hall is more than Saint Anselm College property. Freshman males call the residence hall home, and as they such have some right to privacy. Though this perhaps goes without saying, the cameras must be placed only in public spaces, away from bedrooms and bathrooms.

Residents must be notified when the cameras would be installed and where they will be placed. Moreover, Residence Life and Education should not use the cameras as an excuse to go on “fishing expeditions.” They should not view every moment of raw footage to actively seek out inter-visitation violations or uncover previously unknown instances of underage drinking. Rather, they should view footage on an as-necessary basis only. Using the cameras as a tool, they should seek out specific perpetrators who damaged specific items. They should view specific segments of footage to investigate specific claims that need addressing.

Though certainly privacy is a concern, my experiences with Residence Life and Education suggests that their office may be trusted to use the cameras prudently and appropriately. Though perhaps others disagree, I feel certain that, if installed, the cameras would not be abused.

Students’ right to privacy and Saint Anselm College’s right to protect its property seem to be at odds in the debate over security cameras in Dominic Hall. However, I certainly see a way to use the cameras as a valuable tool without any privacy violations. As long as Residence Life and Education places the cameras appropriately, notifies students of their location, and uses them only as necessary, the benefits can prove substantial to students and the College alike.

Perhaps the cameras will make students think twice before destroying property. Or, if not, Residence Life and Education will be able to apprehend perpetrators instead of needing to charge an entire residence hall for damage caused by only a few. In essence: the rampant property damage needs to stop, and effective, appropriate use of security cameras can certainly become part of the solution.