Where the safety of the university community is concerned, money should be of no concern. But at a time of budget cuts and funding difficulties, discretion also should be of concern when determining just how that money will be spent and if it is necessary to spend the money at all.

Whether students realize it or not, the referendum to be held in conjunction with the spring Student Association elections will decide whether students are going to be responsible for paying a one-time fee for a security phone system.

This is a rather sneaky way of getting students to pay for a large part of the more than $115,000 security system, which would not necessarily be the most effective solution for campus security.

The referendum idea in principle is fair—students voting on how their money will be spent. Unfortunately it becomes a sly way of manipulating the student voice because the number of students who will actually get out and vote is minimal when compared with the number of fee-paying students enrolled at NIU.

All it takes to pass a referendum is a 50 percent plus one majority vote of the number of student votes. And considering the student voting reputation, how can a referendum fail?

Instead, the approval of such a referendum should be based on a 50 percent plus one majority vote of the number of fee-paying students. The chances of students going out en masse to vote “no” to another fee increase is unlikely, but so is the chance of them voting “yes,” unless it is something they really do believe is necessary.

Certainly the safety of people on NIU’s campus is important and the prevention of possible assaults is necessary, but the money spent on such a security phone system could and should be better spent.

Assaults are and should be considered a serious problem, but the majority of such incidents is not caused by people jumping out of bushes or from behind parked cars in remote locations on campus.

And if a security phone system was approved, who is to say an assault would occur in an area near one of the 29 phones planned to be installed? Or even if the victim would be able to get to a phone if it did?

Last semester, University Police Captain James Webster said by installing such a security system, NIU would be “proposing a solution for a problem which doesn’t exist,” and that although such incidents do occur on many college campuses, they are not a large problem at NIU.

Arguments are raised in defense of the need for this security system by pointing out that a majority of such assaults go unreported, and a phone system could help prevent this.

However, statistics show that the largest number of assaults occuring on college campuses are date or aquaintance rapes in residence halls and apartments. Most, if not all, of these places have telephones, yet how many victims use them or even attempt to use them to call for help?

Another point to consider regarding the security phone system is the fact that the possible allocation of student fees for the project would only go toward the installation; such costs do not include additional money needed for further maintenance and repairs.

A more practical way in which students’ money could be spent on security to prevent possible dangers and assaults would be instead to help fund the recently proposed campus lighting renovations. After that, we might be able to see whether there is a need for additional security.