False sense of security: Everyone is familiar with this phrase, and we know it is a negative thing, yet we accept it. In my hometown, we have a community of townhouses with a security checkpoint at the entrance, where a security guard watches the cars entering the community. The guard is only present for about six hours a day, and when he is there, he serves absolutely no purpose. I have a friend who lives there, but when I visit home, I don’t want to spend time checking in with the security guard, so I coast through the resident gate unscathed. I have no clearance to enter the community, but I am allowed in with no resistance whatsoever. How could the residents possibly condone this practice? My guess is they, like everyone else, are willing to accept anything that includes the word “security” in it, even if it is preceded by the word “false.”

That’s what the university feeds the students who live in the North Campus dorms — a false sense of security. More than 30 new swipe card checkpoints will be installed in a few low-rise dorms on North Campus (“Swipe card checkpoints to increase in Cambridge community dorms,” May 6). This does not address the security problem. The goal of this security upgrade is to prevent more thefts, which have been a problem this semester. The university needs to assess the true root of the problem: tailgating.

I blame the residents, not the tailgaters. There will always be tailgaters, but residents can do something about it. Do not let them in! I know what you are thinking: “Well, I let tailgaters in because they seem nice, and they’re not going to steal anything.” That is what other people have said, including those people who let in tailgaters who stole from residents.

Another issue is the necessity of residents learning to lock their doors at night. Honestly, everyone, is this not basic? I am tempted to say students who don’t lock their doors are asking for their belongings to be stolen. The main point I want to emphasize is dozens of new checkpoints will not suffice; a thousand swipe checkpoints would not solve this problem because residents would allow the tailgaters through every single one.

I do not allow tailgaters into my building, regardless of the situation. I know this may be considered extreme, but nevertheless, I can at least live with a clear conscience knowing I did not allow someone who does not live in my building to enter and steal from my peers. A student attempted to tailgate behind me, and I asked him if he lived in the building. When he said he didn’t, I told him I could not let him in and explained my situation, adding there have been several thefts throughout the semester. I told him I didn’t think he was a thief, but I had to do my duty as a member of a community. What a response I received! As I blocked the door, he physically attempted to remove me and make his own way into the building with an attitude as if he deserved to gain access to my living quarters. Just the way he spoke to me was insulting. Doesn’t this bother anyone else? I decided to avoid a scene and stepped aside, irate.

Tailgating is not permissible. I think it’s even less permissible for residents to allow tailgaters access to their buildings. Every resident has a commitment to every other resident in his or her building to make sure people who do not belong stay out of the building. Perhaps when your money or possessions are stolen, you will be receptive to what I am saying. Wouldn’t you rather be proactive than reactive?

Mike Mastrantuono is a sophomore history and philosophy major. He can be reached at mmastran@umd.edu.