Following stricter implementation of security policies on campus over the past two weeks, many students turned to social media forums to express their opinions and concerns. Posts in the NYUAD Forum Facebook group gathered hundreds of comments and likes both for and against the heightened security measures. The debate was continued at an off-the-record discussion on Sept. 27 between roughly 175 students and various administrative bodies, including the Associate Director of the Office of Public Safety Robert Titus and Dean of Students Kyle Farley.

Following last weekend’s social media activity, members of the Campus Life Policy Advisory Committee Nela Noll and Chris Wheeler, both Class of 2019, and Student Government President Kelly Murphy, Class of 2018, met with members of the administration to discuss the issue.

“Nela [Noll] set up a meeting on [Sept. 24] with Dean Farley, Chris O’Connell and Robert Titus … where we just gave the student feedback from the past weekend where it was kind of exploding,” said Murphy.

“[We discussed questions] concerning, what does underlying suspicion mean? What are these things? Why is it happening? Why is it being implemented?” added Noll.

Some students objected to Public Safety’s broad and unclear definition of underlying suspicion.

“From [a legal] perspective the reason they have a right to search you, and the reason they have a right to punish you if you don’t accept the search is that they have to have individualized suspicion so there has to be reasonable basis for you individually to be pursued. And I don’t think that me saying no to a bag check because I’m carrying a heavy bag, I don’t think that’s individualized suspicion for carrying [banned items],” said Patrick Reid, Class of 2018.

At this meeting, Noll, Wheeler and Murphy learned that the concept of underlying suspicion needs to be ambiguous for the policy to be effective.

“Underlying suspicion can’t necessarily be defined because otherwise you know exactly what to avoid,” said Noll.

This ambiguity extended to the administration’s decision not to inform students of the new policy implementation. In response, students raised concerns that the manner in which the changes were made was abrupt and unclear.

“I find it really sad that the first time I heard about this enforcement or other people heard about this enforcement was the moment the security guard asked to search a bag. I think that’s just really sad because, what do you do in that moment if you have never heard about it? Maybe you feel like you have to say yes, maybe you don’t know that you can say no. And maybe you don’t know that if you say no there are consequences,” said Nathalie Kozak, Class of 2018.

Last week, students were concerned regarding the broad range of student property that were being searched as well as students reporting other uncomfortable situations with Public Safety guards.

One student with such an experience was Myera Rashid, Class of 2018, who had her room searched by five Public Safety guards and Robert Titus after the fire alarm went off during a student gathering.

“My problem was when they made me open my roommate’s underwear drawer without my roommates in the room … That’s a violation of someone else’s privacy, who can’t give them permission at the time,” said Rashid. She also added that she didn’t feel like she was in a position to refuse the searching of her roommate’s personal items.

Murphy noted that there was a disconnect between Public Safety’s new safety measures and the actual implementation by individual security guards.

“It appeared that there may have been some miscommunication in how the searches were supposed to be conducted and what the students’ experiences were in those searches,” said Murphy.

Because of students’ vocal complaints, the new security measures were clarified to security guards, resulting in a reduction in the number of bag searches over the last week.

Nonetheless, students remain split on the increase in searches of students’ rooms and property as an invasion of privacy.

“It just becomes a problem where more and more of our space becomes [public] where we can’t have anything in our room that can’t be searched. I think it is a fundamental problem [to go] through people’s underwear drawers looking for [banned items],” said Patrick Reid, Class of 2018.

James Pearce, Class of 2020, echoed Reid’s sentiments.

“And I think all you’re going to see from a larger crackdown, in terms of searches, is more Public Safety officers in students’ rooms and a sort of heightened fear, or a heightened sense of anxiety among students,” said Pearce.

However, Fatima Al Romaitha, Class of 2020, disagrees that these heightened security measures are an unnecessary invasion on students’ privacy.

“Honestly I think it’s better safe than sorry … With the heightened security measures, we should understand that the university is just trying to create an environment that feels like home since so many students live on campus. So I think that being slightly invasive of our privacy doesn’t outweigh the benefits of our safety,” said Al Romaithi.

Other students feel that stricter security is a necessary measure to prevent excessive high-risk behavior among students.

“The impact that those people who have been [acting] irresponsibly have had on other people, and on themselves was too bad to be neglected … it got too out of hand. And I think … that, you know, just inspecting bags is not [as] big of a deal [as] putting one’s life at risk,” said Sarah Kay, Class of 2020. “This isn’t a matter of privacy — it's a matter of people's wellbeing and people's safety.”