« No Water for Two Months in Bed-Stuy Building Crime Down in Fort Greene, Despite Unease »
September 11, 2009
Pratt: Not In Our Front Yard
Yesterday, the Local blog broke the sad news that as of next month Pratt will begin enforcing its longstanding-but-long-ignored rule against loitering by non-school-related people. (Like one of the Brownstoner progeny above shown in happier times on a campus-trashing wilding spree.) Community members will still be able to cut through the campus on foot but they won't be able to sit and admire the sculpture. A spokeswoman for the school said the policy “does not allow the use of the campus grounds as a public park or playground.” Most of the commenters on the Local aren't happy about this and we heard from one community resident that a group called the Clinton Hill Action Committee is forming to try to get Pratt to reconsider its decision; if you are interested you can contact the organizers at clintonhillac@gmail.com.
Pratt Rolls Up the Welcome Mat [NYT/Local]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11365
Comments
the community deserves this. if they can't keep each other in line on basic things like assault, then why should the school endanger its students?
Posted by: chortik at September 11, 2009 10:29 AM
If Pratt wants to be so private, perhaps it should start paying taxes.
Posted by: NOP at September 11, 2009 10:35 AM
oh please. what are they gonna do? ask you for a school ID? then what? arrest you? unenforceable.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 11, 2009 10:40 AM
Exactly Rob - how is this enforceable without profiling, looking for people who 'don't look like Pratt students'
If they want to be so private, build a wall like Fordham.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 11, 2009 10:44 AM
Many college libraries have done this for years, following a trend of people from the community walking in and viewing pornography and harassing female students.
Posted by: infinitejester at September 11, 2009 10:57 AM
Unfortunately its highly enforceable guys, because there are only a few points of entry to the campus and they are manned by security guards who ask for school IDs. Pratt should really re-think this lest their relationship with their neighbors take a real turn for the worse. There has always been such a nice vibe there I can't imagine what happened to change their attitude so drastically.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 10:58 AM
"There has always been such a nice vibe there I can't imagine what happened to change their attitude so drastically."
Think this is in response to that savage beating of the Pratt student?
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 11, 2009 11:03 AM
but the campus will still be open to civilians who just want to pass through, so checking IDs at the gates won't work; as long as they don't 'loiter' once inside they're okay right?
Posted by: Jimmy Legs at September 11, 2009 11:04 AM
"I can't imagine what happened to change their attitude so drastically"
Muggings?
Posted by: northsloperenter at September 11, 2009 11:04 AM
"Think this is in response to that savage beating of the Pratt student?"
I guess, but said beating took place quite a few blocks from campus so hard to know how that really has anything to do with it. If a Pratt student gets assaulted in Williamsburg are they going to shut down the campus?
"as long as they don't 'loiter' once inside they're okay right?"
Yep, but the loitering was kind of the attraction. I used to go there with my daughter and play on the grass and check out the sculpture etc.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 11:07 AM
but the crime isn't happening inside the gates, it's happening on the street. the response doesn't fit the concerns. what would make more sense is to have more campus security presence. i feel terrible for that poor kid who got beaten up but i don't think that disallowing people to enter the main campus area would have stopped it. if i recall correctly, he didn't get beaten up on the actual campus.
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 11:09 AM
Wasder: What happened is that Pratt student who was mugged and so badly beaten recently. The incident may have occurred off-campus, but it was just the kind of incident that sets off alarm bells among college administrators for whom crime (and the perception of crime) is a major "marketing" issue. Better to cordon off the campus and provide the illusion of safety than leave prospective students (or more likely their parents) in fear.
Posted by: NOP at September 11, 2009 11:09 AM
Infinitejester: how did you get from children and community members being prohibitted from playing on the lawn to porno-viewing pervs in the library? Are they really the same in your mind?
Chortik: not sure how a street assault of a Pratt student will be avoided by preventing me and my family from sitting on the grass. And since I will still be allowed to walk through the campus, this doesn't really address safety on campus.
If Pratt were really worried about safety, it would simply close its campus altogether. The problem with that is that Pratt occupies several blocks right in the middle of a neighborhood, including some "demapped" streets. A Fortress Pratt gives an incorrect and hostile impression to Pratt members and neighbors alike. Clinton Hill is not that dangerous, and Pratt should be going in the other direction, inviting the community in rather than turning its back on the neighborhood. What a PR disaster with very little gain. Again, given that the fences will be open (good), but the stays brief (bad?), it is not clear what Pratt gains but a black eye.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at September 11, 2009 11:10 AM
meant to say more campus security in the area. also with students living in off campus housing, it's more difficult to protect them. sad reality. at my school nestled in far edge of harlem, crime was significantly less (practically non-existent) in the on campus housing versus off campus.
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 11:10 AM
True Wasder - but the beating did happen in the Clinton Hill community, the same community that uses the campus to loiter. Not saying I agree with it, or that it will deter anymore muggings from happening. I read this as:
Dear Clinton Hill,
FU - you beat our student now you can't come over to play anymore.
Love,
Pratt
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 11, 2009 11:11 AM
Yeah, I get that but as CGUps so nicely said the response doesn't fit the concern. The mugging happened half a mile from campus. What does shutting the gates down have to do with anything. I mean, the actual campus is one of the safest places in the neighborhood given how few points of entry there are and how well guarded they are. Shutting the gates in response to an off campus mugging just doesn't make sense and will only increase the sense of isolation the students feel and the resentment of the surrounding community. Short sighted to say the least.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 11:12 AM
Maybe they're concerned some irresponsible drunken jackasses will go around banging on campus doors in the middle of the evening. You never know.
Posted by: East New York at September 11, 2009 11:13 AM
wasder,
Campus security guards are unlikely to harass YOU and your kid for loitering, which brings up the matter of profiling, and the resultant poisoning of community relations. A most unfortunate policy choice IMO.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at September 11, 2009 11:13 AM
My cousin and sister-in-law just started at Pratt and I can tell you all parents will be happy to hear this. It is something the school had to do. Even if it does not really address a problem since most issues were off-campus they have to do everything they can to provide the peace of mind that the students are safe and secure.
Posted by: AndYouWillKnowUsbyTheTrailofRenters at September 11, 2009 11:15 AM
Bob--I know firsthand that campus security won't allow me and my charming daughter to hang out on campus the way we used to. I tried to do it the other day and was turned away.
"Chortik: not sure how a street assault of a Pratt student will be avoided by preventing me and my family from sitting on the grass. And since I will still be allowed to walk through the campus, this doesn't really address safety on campus."
DING DING DING--thanks Putnam. So shortsighted.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 11:16 AM
"What does shutting the gates down have to do with anything."
It is what they *can* do. You do what you can.
What is the point of having police search the briefcase of a business person commuting to work on subway?
I have no idea, but they've been doing it for years.
Why?
Because they want to do *something* and give the impression that they are trying.
People don't like to be made to feel helpless.
And I guess it would be politically incorrect to say "suspicious looking males and groups of teenagers will not be allowed to loiter on Pratt grounds, but families and safe looking people are welcome".
Posted by: northsloperenter at September 11, 2009 11:19 AM
it's a false peace of mind then. total bullshit, to be frank. the real problem is that terrible things happen and people need to be careful but sometimes the victim couldn't have done any better. i was the victim of attack by a crazed meth-head in the east village recently and honestly it was just my bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 11:20 AM
7pm, broad daylight, well populated area.
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 11:21 AM
Putnam, no they're not, but they are in your mind apparently. That action was widely viewed as the start of the Closing of the American Campus.
Posted by: infinitejester at September 11, 2009 11:22 AM
northslope--I get what you are saying but I disagree that its the only thing they CAN do. They could do more with community groups surrounding the campus, as that is where the security issue for its students lies.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 11:27 AM
Infinitejester- I still don't get what you meant by linking libraries (interior space) and, er, oublic outdoor space. Your example, not mine. I guess I am not aware of what "the Closing of the American Campus" was/is.
I would hope that a university would be more nuanced than slapping a community in the face merely to give the impression of safety when it is pretty clear it accomplishes no such thing. Again, just a PR disaster with no added safety.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at September 11, 2009 11:35 AM
"oh please. what are they gonna do? ask you for a school ID? then what? arrest you? unenforceable."
Rob, Back in the late 80's, as a student at Pratt (tipping my hand), it was VERY ENFORCIBLE. You got tossed off campus if you had no ID and their were guards at every entrance. Visitors had to be escorted by students to the classrooms/dorms.
I thought it a bit harsh at the time, but after a rape on campus, and the way crime was back in the day, it was understandable.
If the community wants access to a PRIVATE campus there should be ways to accommodate this...perhaps weekend neighborhood days, volunteer clean ups/spruce ups from the community?
You can't have something for nothing...just ask a student the tuition they are paying.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 11:38 AM
What a shame. It's one of my favorite things to do in the area. Love, love love the campus. I hope they reconsider.
Posted by: ClintonHillGal at September 11, 2009 11:40 AM
Putty, I'm done with you. It's not so hard to understand a slippery slope argument but apparently it is for you. If I have to explain things that many times, forget it. I'm too busy.
Posted by: infinitejester at September 11, 2009 11:44 AM
i love the campus as well. i will really miss visiting the sculpture garden. :(
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 11:50 AM
Action Jackson,
As I pointed out yesterday on the NYTimes Local blog, and in support of NOP's early comment above, the community DOES give Pratt something in exchange for access: WE pay real estate taxes so Pratt doesn't have to. Also, streets were demapped, I believe, handing over public thoroughfares to private control. There is a tit-for-tat with all of this which is supposed to amount to some form of Public Benefit. I can understand the security worries...and maybe Pratt hopes to cut security jobs and this is one way to reduce the amount of work the security department can claim toward job slots...who knows...
Tom, the president, has been pretty good at Pratt although he left RISD years ago under a cloud. It would be shame if he louses up his relationship with the community. Would be a real shame.
Posted by: BrooklynGreene at September 11, 2009 11:51 AM
infinite--must confess to not understanding your example either and not having heard of the "closing of the American campus" I wouldn't mind sounding stupid for an explanation.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 12:13 PM
This is the perennial curse of most urban campuses, everywhere. Pratt is one of the smaller campuses around, since its gated main campus really isn't all that big. I'm sure Columbia would sneer in derision. That said, this policy is rather short sighted, though I agree it's being done to assure parents and some students that one, they take security issues seriously, especially in light of recent events, and two, they are vigorously doing something about it. I also agree with Bob that racial profiling is bound to happen in a situation like this, which will do nothing to improve local town/gown relations. That is a shame, as Pratt is a leader in Clinton Hill redevelopment and programs for the common good of the large diversity of peoples, income groups and concerns in the neighborhood. It would be disastrous on many levels for them to retreat behind gated walls.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 11, 2009 12:19 PM
You selfish louts. You have no right to hang out on Pratt's campus. The school extended that privilege kindly. Now, the school is in the middle of a PR nightmare and you're all in high dudgeon that your access to private property is being limited. Where do you get off? The school has an obligation to create a safe environment for its students (many of whom have never lived in a big city in their young lives). One of the ways they can offer at least some additional security is to restrict access to the campus. Can you really blame them for that? They don't owe you overprivileged, over-entitled SOBs anything. And as for being a good neighbor, a healthy Pratt (one in which they can keep enrollment up despite the rash of crime in the area)is good for the neighborhood, too. I bet you far fewer longtime residents of Fort Greene/Clinton Hill rant and while about this.
Posted by: orestes at September 11, 2009 12:23 PM
"I also agree with Bob that racial profiling is bound to happen in a situation like this, which will do nothing to improve local town/gown relations."
Actually, I assume the reason for a complete and total ban is to avoid profiling of any type.
It is the only way to be "fair".
Posted by: northsloperenter at September 11, 2009 12:29 PM
Taxes aside..."Also, streets were demapped, I believe, handing over public thoroughfares to private control."
BG, Blame the Pratt family empire who used to own most of Clinton Hill back in the day. Demapping of streets, destruction of hundreds of brownstones to create the Willouby Walk coops and Pratt dorms...loss of the shoe factory on Layfayette to private condos in the 80's...etc.
But also remember the Pratt family had a contingency if the school did not work out (as every student knows by the oddness of some of the older buildings), convert the campus into a factory.
I'm not defending the closure of the campus, just realizing there may be a need to refocus when their are concerns about security.
While it may seem silly, perhaps the immediate community could have "Pratt community" IDs, much like alumni do (I don't alas, but that's another story).
And I agree with MM "It would be disastrous on many levels for them to retreat behind gated walls" stepping the neighborhood vibe back to the 80's, in my POV.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 12:33 PM
Compare this to Columbia, which also has only a few points of access, but lets the public wander/loiter year round. There's a lot of crime around that campus (which the university does its best to down play), too.
I think urban campuses should be as open as possible (see Penn, for instance),as it fosters trust between the campus and the neighbors. Pratt, as a pillar of the Brooklyn community, should know this. An "us vs. them" attitude is only going to create antagonism that could spill over into criminal acts.
Posted by: Bolder at September 11, 2009 12:36 PM
OK, wasder, you're not stupid, I may have been unclear. Just the point I was making is that the closing of American campuses have been going on for a LONG time now, most notably starting with the libraries. In college towns there are TONS of amateur scholars who want access to university press titles and whatnot.
Closing the grounds is to me just the next step, regrettable surely though.
Posted by: infinitejester at September 11, 2009 12:37 PM
orestes - well said.
The I "I pay taxes..." argument is ridiculous. Churches dont pay taxes - are they (or their grounds) open to the public?? What about Military Bases? - its Private Property regardless of how much taxes you pay.
And frankly given the litigation exposure it is amazing they even let people walk-through the campus. I have to believe that a fair number of people who are so "outraged" would be the 1st to sue if they were the victim of a crime on Pratt's campus, and certainly would call every media outlet to complain about the lax security....(thereby hurting Pratt's reputation)
In the end - Pratt as an institution has done more for Brooklyn then anyone of your petty tax dollars or even your community activities.
Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2009 12:41 PM
I wonder whether we'll be able to go to Pratt for the New Year's whistles in 2010? I hope so : /
Posted by: Stonergut at September 11, 2009 12:57 PM
well-said? It was a rant that started with insults and went downhill from there.
the tax issue is important. Schools and churches are given special privileges in our society and in return they are supposed to give something back. Some of them give back too much of the wrong thing. But how this closure impacts crime or makes students "safer" is anyone's guess. Unless those security guards are going to be walking students back home to their far flung apartments.
"They don't owe you overprivileged, over-entitled SOBs anything. "- Funny- there are those who would call the students over-privileged and over entitled elitist hipsters.
It's also interesting to think that after managing to maintain a successful school and student population over some of the worst decades this city has gone through, that now, with Clinton Hill and fort Greene much safer and more upscale than they ever used to be, now Pratt is so worried over safety they are shutting out the community? Isn't that a little late? And been proven unnecessary? The mugging- as awful as it was, happened way off campus. There is no evidence the student was stalked. And no evidence a student was targeted, as opposed to anyone else who happened to be in he wrong place at th wrong time.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 11, 2009 12:58 PM
My Brooklyn kid is a student in Boston. She cheerfully takes the subway (I guess it's the T in Boston) anywhere. Other kids in her dorm - actually MOST of the kids in her dorm are terrified of the subway. By and large these are suburban students. The Californians seem to be the most terrified.
Suburban parents are afraid of this environment and Pratt's blocking the campus is probably a step meant solely to assuage worries of the parents. The 80's murder on Hall St. (which partly inspired "Art School Confidential" ) had an effect on enrollment, and I imagine the school is hoping to bypass the same effect. It's worse really, because in the 80's old news was just old news, not something to be blogged and commented about endlessly.
Hope it all works out for all of us.
Posted by: Stonergut at September 11, 2009 1:07 PM
"there are those who would call the students over-privileged and over entitled elitist hipsters."
Hasn't that always been the case? Certainly was when we were there...and I worked my way through Pratt: for the school, bar tending, at The Gap (yech!), etc... What a privilege!
B.S. argument, bxgrl, sorry.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 1:08 PM
I'm not sure if it has changed with this new policy but prior to this you could get access to the Pratt library as a non-student for a membership fee. There was one price to use the library and a another higher price to borrow from it.
Posted by: eh at September 11, 2009 1:13 PM
Bxgirl- surely you are not implying that somehow Pratt owes the general public the right to treat its campus as public space because it is a tax-exempt organization? Your understanding of the tax code is misplaced. Tax exempt status is granted to organizations that provide a public good. What Pratt "gives back" for its tax exempt status is that it educates students. That's the quid pro quo here- not opening its doors to the public because certain people feel they are entitled to enjoy the campus, too. If you want to hang out on campus, matriculate!
With regard to your second point, additional security makes a place safer or at least makes people feel safer. Pratt's constituency is the students and their parents. If closing off the campus creates a greater feeling of security, it's their prerogative to do so. What's so difficult to understand?
Posted by: orestes at September 11, 2009 1:15 PM
"additional security makes a place safer or at least makes people feel safer. Pratt's constituency is the students and their parents. If closing off the campus creates a greater feeling of security, it's their prerogative to do so. What's so difficult to understand?"
Well said!
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 1:19 PM
Stonergut, they're afraid of the T? Most of the Boston colleges are on the Green line - that train is so vanilla. Sure, weird homeless people or what have you, but still pretty bland. The Orange line is the only one you need to be super alert on, and even then, not often.
Posted by: infinitejester at September 11, 2009 1:30 PM
like someone else mentioned, columbia's campus is structured similarly to pratt, and is completely open to the public. it's nice. and it's not THAT big, though bigger than pratt. not sure why anyone would think columbia would sneer at a smaller school since its campus is easily the smallest out of the ivy league. most of the on campus crime at columbia was actually committed by students. while closing off the campus might make people feel safer, it is probably not making the campus any safer in actuality. hence a better response to the recent attack on the pratt student would be to do something more productive, not just some b/s thing that isn't really doing anything to make anyone safer. why not establish more student housing closer to campus. or campus / security escorts or shuttles to nearby areas. These are things that would actually DO something rather than let people live in some false sense of safety which is much more dangerous.
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 1:37 PM
i guess what i'm saying is that the school should do other things IN ADDITION to closing off the campus if they are truly serious about improving safety. otherwise the action is just empty and lame.
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 1:42 PM
Bummer. The sculpture garden is one of my favorite places to take out of town guests for a walk. Maybe its just the weather getting me down, but the city seems less and less fun all of the time lately.
Posted by: snowbunny at September 11, 2009 1:42 PM
action- my point was a reply to orestes claiming people here protesting were over privileged, over entitled sobs as opposed to him seeming to claim the students aren't. Just so happens i don't call anyone that (and I was a student in college too at one time) unless I personally know them to be such. I don't like pejoratively labeling any group (very unlike Orestes who revels in it.)
Yes- the illusion of additional security is nice- too bad its not real seeing the facts of the case. Decreasing crime in the area would be more intelligently addressed if Pratt made a better community effort, working with them, not shutting them out. No- I don't expect them to be required to make their campus public space- but if they are so worried about community relations and crime, they certainly need a better approach than this. It;s actually quite funny since they tout their urban planning and community programs. Just not living it, I guess.
But I guess good community relations is too difficult for orestes to understand.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 11, 2009 1:43 PM
If Brownstoner's progeny climbed up on the scuplture and used it as a balance beam and god forbid hurt herself - what would the odds be of Brownstoner NOT suing -
I'd say 30% at best - and the the rest of the "community" - I'd say 10%.
Pratt is being smart - frankly their attorney should have told them to do this a long time ago.
Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2009 1:58 PM
did someone really see a kid peeing/pooping in the bushes? seriously, i can't even imagine someone being that much of a jackass to let their kid do that. nor is hanging off the sculptures or writing on the property with chalk acceptable either. what is wrong with people? yeeps. if that's the case then no wonder they want to close off the campus.
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 1:59 PM
When I was at Columbia during the 1970s, the administration seriously considered moving the entire university out of the city and to Westchester, where the Harriman family had donated an estate. The students wouldn't hear of it. Why come to Columbia in the first place if it weren't in Manhattan? "We're not Dartmouth," we argued.
Not that anything we said determined the final decision to stay in town (although I'm sure there are faculty and admnistrators who'd be happy to split, even now).
But we had a point. City universities are different from ones in the country. City life is tense, sometimes threatening and (occasionally) dangerous and for students who dive into it, exhilerating, enriching and maturing.
Columbia and Pratt contribute to New York. But New York contributes a great deal to them. Herman Wouk (still alive back then, is he now?) told us that what we'd learn outside the Columbia gates would be as important as if not more important than what we learned inside. New York in th 70's also gave us swagger because we'd been tested in one of the toughest urban environments anywhere. And once we graduated, it made us impatient with the "small town" life of Cambridge and Boston where lots of us continued school.
And yes, Columbia's 116th Street gates were always open.
Posted by: NOP at September 11, 2009 1:59 PM
And Montrose, we never looked with "derision" at Pratt.
We never thought of it.
Which is probably worse.
Posted by: NOP at September 11, 2009 2:13 PM
i wish NYU would get the hell out of downtown and move to clinton hill.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 11, 2009 2:16 PM
oh rob, that will never happen. but why would you want NYU to be in brooklyn? would think you'd want them far away? maybe chuck them to the bronx or something?
Posted by: CG_ups at September 11, 2009 2:18 PM
I think rob is referring to the fact that NYU is in downtown brooklyn now - polytechnic is now part of NYU I think...
Posted by: 1842 at September 11, 2009 2:22 PM
NYU had a beautiful campus in the Bronx, CG ups. They moved there in the late 1800s when the Village was becoming crowded and unpleasant and they had the opportunity to move to a pristine palisade above the Harlem River.
Eventually, they moved back. With the Bronx's collapse in the 1970s, they were only to happy to re-consolidate around Washington Square.
Now all the McKim Mead and White buildings belong to a City University division. Definitely worth the trip, but a reminder of false hopes in the bucolic.
Posted by: NOP at September 11, 2009 2:26 PM
I think FSRQ touched on it - but there seems to be a misunderstanding that not-for-profit, tax exempt organizations have some sort of debt they need to fulfill to us people that do pay taxes. Nope - the only obligation they have is to the IRS, which is to meet the critera set for tax exempt status (they educate). Pratt is still a business, they just can't distribute profits to owners/employees, they must be used for operations. So they need to do whatever they can to keep parents/students (many of whom are from out of state and not as street smart as most of us) feeling safe about their several thousand dollar investment.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 11, 2009 2:26 PM
It's all a legal thing to help with prosecution of wrongdoers on campus. Chances are they are not *really* going to enforce this, but it allows "Unlawful Trespass" to be prosecuted if they can't nab the person for what they were actually doing.
If they don't at least make the appearance of enforcing the rule, then it wouldn't count.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 11, 2009 2:28 PM
Bxgirl- I used pejorative language because that is what the circumstance called for. It is clearly an overprivileged and over-entitled position to rant against a school because it has decided to use its PRIVATE property for its own use. To complain as if you have some right to the enjoyment of someone else's property is the view of an overprivileged person. I bet you the non-gentrifiers in the neighborhood would give this little consideration- because they would have respected that this is private property from the start.
Your overreaction to this- Pratt is all of a sudden "turning its back on the community" because it's tightening security on its campus- is ridiculous. I would bet you money that Pratt has been busily engaged in crime fighting in the community, working with police, politicians, and neighborhood groups. It is in its best interest to do so. But you couldn't possibly see this because- heaven forfend- I can't prance around the campus like an overaged co-ed, so Pratt is turning its back on the entire community. My language may be strong, but it's a reaction to the sense of entitlement some have expressed in this thread, coupled with a willingness to condemn Pratt because it is not putting MY [commenter] interests first. From the outside, those views are quite offensive.
Posted by: orestes at September 11, 2009 2:30 PM
i go to pratt, aand recently found out that they are closing the campus to the public. i feel that this is unnessacary, i have never heard anyone complain about people from the neighborhood coming here and hanging out with their kids or anything of the sort. they are also going to lose funding as a sculpture park, which will suck. people get mugged all the time in this area of clinton hill because it borders a whole complex of projects on the edge of bedstuy. this particular case took place at least 5 blocks from campus. you have to be aware of your surroundings no matter where you are. pratt punishing the neighborhood because of this is not going to make anything better.
Posted by: ohhaii at September 11, 2009 2:31 PM
Say what you will but this decision is not going to make situations like what happened to Eddie Sanchez any less likely to occur. And with charming people like Action Jackson and Orestes speaking for them I am sure Pratt's public image will emerge from this mess sparkling. Sure they have no official "debt" to the surrounding community but they have provided a very appreciated space to local residents and to change that policy with no commensurate improvement in the safety and security of their students is short sighted. One suspects that when the furor over the Sanchez situation dies down they will revisit this policy. Certainly if parents are letting their children run roughshod over the grounds that needs to stop. I have never witnessed this but it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 2:33 PM
"I think rob is referring to the fact that NYU is in downtown brooklyn now - polytechnic is now part of NYU I think..."
1842, if that's what Rob meant, then I'm Abe Lincoln!
Posted by: jessibaby at September 11, 2009 2:34 PM
"i go to pratt, aand recently found out that they are closing the campus to the public. i feel that this is unnessacary, i have never heard anyone complain about people from the neighborhood coming here and hanging out with their kids or anything of the sort. they are also going to lose funding as a sculpture park, which will suck. people get mugged all the time in this area of clinton hill because it borders a whole complex of projects on the edge of bedstuy. this particular case took place at least 5 blocks from campus. you have to be aware of your surroundings no matter where you are. pratt punishing the neighborhood because of this is not going to make anything better."
You my friend are a Godsend to this thread. Thanks so much for your perspective. Glad to know that you are not burdened by visitations from locals. I would think it would enliven the campus in a positive way but that is just me and my sunny outlook talking.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 2:43 PM
wasder - You assume that Pratt is trying to reduce the number of "Eddie Sanchez situations" with this policy...which ignores the way most people/institutions work.
The policy is designed to do one thing - protect Pratt;
The administrators at Pratt dont want:
1. To be sued for crime, accidents, etc... by people that they have no relationship with
2. To be the subject of some horrible headlines if god forbid something crazy involving a non-student occured - remember Virginia Tech and how much $hit they took and that WAS a student. (can you imagine the NY Post headline if some coed got raped on Pratt's campus by some parolee and they discovered that it was a totally open campus)
3. to be second guessed if inthe event of 1 or 2.
Most decisions in life like this are essentially CYA - and in this case a very ligitimate CYA if you ask me.
Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2009 2:44 PM
fsrq--I was just reacting to people stating that this policy was likely in reaction to the Eddy Sanchez situation. I have not heard of concerns like the ones you have raised. Certainly they are legitimate, as they would be to any campus, and yet this is new information to me.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 2:47 PM
"And with charming people like Action Jackson and Orestes speaking for them I am sure Pratt's public image will emerge from this mess sparkling."
Wasder, How very snarky...and unnecessary...I was just adding my experience and pov to the mix. Shame on me!
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 2:53 PM
"can you imagine the NY Post headline if some coed got raped on Pratt's campus by some parolee and they discovered that it was a totally open campus"
Um, welcome to 1988. That is what happened!
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 2:55 PM
orestes- from your very first line you indulged in hyperbole and insults. Then you want to call my post an overreaction? ROTFL- You missed your calling as a comedian. And thanks- but putting words in other people's mouths is really an indication that you are incapable of understanding or listening to another side of the story.
And for the record I didn't say Pratt turned its back on the community- that's you projecting anything that doesn't agree with your mindset into a platform for more foaming at the mouth ranting. Perhaps if you were capable of presenting your argument without insulting those who take a different viewpoint, we would take you seriously. Even have a real discussion- but sadly you didn't go that route. Your loss- not mine.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 11, 2009 2:56 PM
Sorry---looking back at it I shouldn't have lumped you in with orestes. Although it is a novelty to get called snarky. that never happens to me.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 2:57 PM
NOP, my sneering in derision remark has been taken the wrong way. I was thinking in terms of size, Columbia has a huge main campus enclosure compared to Pratt's, so the sneering was in line with "you can't police your lawn sized campus, while we have a golf course campus in comparison, and we're open to the public" kind of sneer.
Forgive me, not enough sleep this week.
I do agree with what you said about the urban campus. Well said.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 11, 2009 2:58 PM
As for community people climbing the sculpture and getting hurt, then suing- and what about the students who climb that sculpture? Because in my experience students are the ones who usually do that sort of thing and I saw them doing it at least once when I was in the area. Maybe they should just get rid of the sculptures? Problem solved. Badly.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 11, 2009 3:00 PM
From a Pratt handbook:
"Three years prior, in 1987, Pratt had already formed the
Security Concerns Committee, whose responsibility it is
to keep the campus community informed about security
matters and to heighten security awareness. In order to
address the sexual assault aspect of the Education Law
amendment, the Committee formed a subcommittee
in 1991 to plan and develop programs that focus more
attention on sexual assault awareness and prevention.
This pamphlet is one way of informing you about sexual
assault--for what you don't know can hurt you."
And the second assault (after I graduated) from the NY Times in '92: http://tinyurl.com/ko7ty6
Long history of this folks and good reason fro Pratt to continually updates its policies as they see fit.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 3:04 PM
"As for community people climbing the sculpture and getting hurt, then suing- and what about the students who climb that sculpture?"
In your hypothetical - the student pays tuition which covers the liability insurance, whereas "the public" would be "free-riders"; 2 - The students can be asked to sign releases that could limit liability in the case of such missuse of the outdoor sculptures and/or require arbitration - both of which help reduce liability costs.
Essentially - the more people who have access to a space (sculptures or not) the higher the liability risk...reducing access reduces risk - simple as that.
Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2009 3:08 PM
Wasder- try to put yourself in Pratt's shoes, instead of thinking only of your own loss. When parents ask the administrators, what are you doing to ensure my child is safe? would you have Pratt respond, nothing because that incident (and others) happened off campus. That would be suicide. Furthermore, if something did happen on campus, Pratt would have an even larger PR nightmare on its hands than it presently does. Instead of being angry at Pratt for this decision, how about you feel some gratitude for all of the time you were able to enjoy their property?
Posted by: orestes at September 11, 2009 3:09 PM
Action--you saw my mea culpa above?
Yes, they should tweak their security policies as necessary. However, given the security stations at the very few points of access to the campus, this campus feels very secure. It is when the students wander into the surrounding communities that the problems seem to arise. Perhaps I am wrong about this but that feels like a pretty secure campus as it is. Action, how was it in your day? And what do you think of on campus security now? I am genuinely interested to see whether you agree with the current Pratt student above.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 3:09 PM
orestes--fair enough to a point. I am appreciative of the many pleasant hours I have spent on the gorgeous campus of Pratt with my family. I am not angry at them for trying to keep their students safe. I don't think I am angry period. I think that I am sad for both myself and for the students who will feel like they are attending a fortress rather than a campus happily integrated into a community. If somebody would show me that keeping the public off the campus makes the students safer or show me how this concern has been long term and not in relation to the Eddy Sanchez situation I would be more inclined to support their decision. As it is it looks like a silly and ineffective over-reaction to a highly unfortunate off campus event.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 3:32 PM
"As it is it looks like a silly and ineffective over-reaction to a highly unfortunate off campus event."
To be honest, it looks to me like a fairly reasonable security measure.
When a house 4 blocks away gets robbed, do you say "whew! fortunately I don't have to worry about that because it wasn't my block" or do you check to make sure your home is secure before it is too late?
If Pratt wants to secure their campus, they really only have 3 options:
1. Check everyone who comes on campus and turn them away if they don't have i.d.
2. Check anyone who looks like they might cause a problem who comes on campus and turn them away if they don't have i.d.
3. Randomly ignore some people and check other people who come on campus and turn them away if they don't have i.d.
Option 1 is what they have chosen.
Option 2 would allow you and your family to keep using the grounds, but it is political suicide in NYC, so Pratt won't do it.
Option 2 is, in fact, the one used by many many places around the country as it allows the maximum combination of security and openness.
Option 3 is idiotic and is the approach used on the subways.
Posted by: northsloperenter at September 11, 2009 3:55 PM
I just posted about my experience with Pratt as of last April. They sent me a "Cease and Desist" letter that I couldn't mention them on my site, including as a place to visit. Pratt has been working on this issue for awhile.
Here is the link to what my experience with them was!
http://www.achildgrowsinbrooklyn.com/2009/09/11/pratt-closes-their-campus/
Posted by: achildgrows at September 11, 2009 3:57 PM
"But I guess good community relations is too difficult for orestes to understand."
bg, I think there's an element of PR for prospective parents and students here... must be some culture shock when buffy and mom come from East Cupcake OH. At least Pratt can assure them that the campus is 'secure'. Other good points made as well about liability.
The comparos with Columbia are off base imp. I grew up around there... There was never a reason to hang out on Columbia's campus as Riverside Park is only a block away. Pratt doesn't have a similar situation, unless you consider FG park a real green space, so I can see residents being unhappy about it.
Posted by: denton at September 11, 2009 4:03 PM
Option 4: Pratt does something like what they do for gym membership (I'm not a Pratt kid but used to work out in their gym), and create some sort of ID system for community members to use if they want to access the campus. Perhaps Leticia James or another elected official could fund some sort of program like this with their discretionary member item funds. It would allow members of the community access to the beautiful grounds, allay security concerns, and somewhat restrict access.
Posted by: BrooklynZoo at September 11, 2009 4:13 PM
northsloper - actually you are wrong they chose none of the above - you DO NOT need an id to walk on the campus - you can, you just cannot loiter on campus - i.e. you can walk-through. Even a looser policy than your #1.
Denton - you can try to demean everyone from Ohio (or everyone who has a Mom and a Dad) (or everyone who goes to college) as being a bunch of scared puppies in need of imaginary security measures - but I got to tell you, I know plenty of Brooklyn bred (orphans) who would sue, complain and protest if they were attacked, hurt or otherwise injured while on the Pratt campus.
Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2009 4:15 PM
"When a house 4 blocks away gets robbed, do you say "whew! fortunately I don't have to worry about that because it wasn't my block" or do you check to make sure your home is secure before it is too late?"
if a house 4 blocks from mine is robbed I don't say "whew" but I don't also install a new lock on my car, which about as relevant a response as Pratt's to their situation. Again, I have not heard about on-campus security problems. there may be some that I am not aware of and therefore my points are off base. But it looks like a reaction to off campus matters and that is what I am reacting to.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 4:15 PM
I am deeply disappointed about this. As noted above, streets were demapped to create the Pratt Campus—that is, public way (and parking spaces) were sacrificed by the nabe so the school could create a coherent campus. I appreciate Pratt very much for the stability it brings to the area, and I appreciate its need to protect students. But I think this is a mistake, both for community relations AND security. With adequate guards walking around and removing anybody who's drinking, hassling people, etc., it REDUCES the security of students to forbid stable, civic-minded residents from hanging around on campus.
Now, what does this mean for the annual New Years Eve whistle blow? Glad I saw that a couple times before the lawyers got busy. Bummer.
Posted by: Rehab at September 11, 2009 4:17 PM
wasder -- I disagree that there isn't a connection. I think they are saying "Hey, look at these off campus problems our students are running into! Let's make sure they STAY off campus."
Posted by: northsloperenter at September 11, 2009 4:18 PM
i wish NYU would get the hell out of downtown and move to clinton hill.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 11, 2009 2:16 PM
Rob, I was reading along this thread in dead seriousness (not good :-), then your post appeared and has me LOL.
If anyone hasn't realized this by now, Rob is a genius at turning things around. Maybe could get a job writing for late-night tv. This meaning is subtle and almost indescribable which is part of its genius. I cannot explain it anyway, why this is so funny. Something about the Clinton Hill gentrification conflict, etc., (?) a very in-house thing at Brownstoner for many reasons. Really effective comedy is unexplainable, I have read.
Oy, everyone here has a valid point of view here.
Posted by: BklynSoFar at September 11, 2009 4:24 PM
Please!!! Those streets were demapped - FIFTY years ago!
You know at one time that land belonged to the Indians too.
Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2009 4:28 PM
Wow--achildgrows--thanks so much for your link. Pretty amazing that they would go to all that trouble to harass you.
That being said it does show that they were concerned about this previous to the Eddy Sanchez assault....perhaps they just need to do a bit of community outreach/PR to explain what's going on so that they don't come across the way they are now.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 4:28 PM
northsloperenter- be that as it may, but since their students live off campus, and that's where they were attacked, how does this solve anything or fix anything?
Posted by: bxgrl at September 11, 2009 4:37 PM
“The wonderful sculpture that has become an important part of our campus enriches the lives of our students and provides an oasis for the general public and the Brooklyn community,” Pratt President Thomas F. Schutte says on the school’s Web site.
Best part of the Local coverage....An oasis for the general public, huh? Hopefully as people say elsewhere, they make a noise about it for a little while and then ease up.
Posted by: wasder at September 11, 2009 4:45 PM
"how does this solve anything or fix anything?"
has anyone said this will solve anything? this is a PR, cover their own asses, make mommy and daddy who sign tuition checks feel better.
when parents ask the school what they are doing to protect their students due to the uptick in incidents - "nothing, they all happened off campus" is not an acceptable response. Mommy and daddy will probably respond by not sending their child there.
instead of being outraged at pratt - why not be outraged at the thugs who are using these kids as walking ATM machines?
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 11, 2009 4:46 PM
"instead of being outraged at pratt - why not be outraged at the thugs who are using these kids as walking ATM machines?"
Indeed. Almost every 'crime' related discussion on Brownstoner seems to touch on every single issue related to the subject except "dammit! who are these people doing this stuff in our neighborhood and what do we have to do to stop them!"
More often it's like "well, if it rains, take an umbrella -- if there are street criminals in your neighborhood, don't use your iPhone."
Posted by: northsloperenter at September 11, 2009 5:25 PM
What makes you so sure people aren't enraged at the thugs? That's an assumption you two are making - erroneously as it were.
But if Pratt is serious about making things safer, there are far better, much more pro-active ways to do it that don't involve cutting themselves off from the community it resides in.
The conversation here is about Pratt's response to an awful crime. It goes without saying the criminals are the scum of the earth and the other reality is, this response will have as much effect on making students safer as sticking a band aid on your knee when you've been shot in the arm.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 11, 2009 5:59 PM
"Action, how was it in your day? And what do you think of on campus security now?"
Well, it has been a few years since I lived in the 'nabe, after being there almost 20 years. I too used to walk the campus (hell jog at times) after I graduated with my better half and explore the campus to tell her about "those days."
I thought the security guards were overzealous dicks at times, but I also know when I was a student there, I felt safe.
I came to Pratt, rather than going to SVA, Parsons, Maryland Art Institute or Chicago Art Institute (yes, smugly, I was that good...though not for Cooper Union!), because A. it was in NYC (and more over Bklyn) and B. it had a closed campus, unlike the city-schools I had looked at with no central meeting place (my pov).
I had a great experience, during and after, but never felt has safe as I did on-campus (heck, we used to have to go in groups of 4 or 5 folks to hang out at the Alibi on Dekalb Ave...let alone heading to the G into the city).
Now, the area has changes, crime has drooped, gentrification happened (in all colors and shades) and I left Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill to go farther South (Bklyn).
So, while times change, things always stay the same. There will always be bad apples that ruin the pie...or campus for that matter. Ultimately it is the school's MO as to what they want to do and how they do it.
When they feel their students/faculty are at risk (real or imagined), they'll tighten the rules...under a different school administration, they may loosen them.
It has been done before (as far back as the 1940's if you research online), and it will happen again, depending on what the issues are.
But that's Brooklyn. My 2 cents.
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 6:37 PM
Geeze, sorry for the typos...
"Now, the area has changes, crime has drooped"
"changed" and "dropped"
Enough for tonight...where's my drink!
Posted by: Action Jackson at September 11, 2009 6:42 PM
barbaralahabara, what do you have against children and their parents? geez, so much vitriol! yes, a college campus is for the students, but it's also very much a part of a community, as all local organizations/businesses/institutions are part of a community. pratt students participate in the community surrounding their college (sometimes in a way that's very offensive to the permanent residents), and community members should also participate in the life of pratt. it is not an island. if pratt has a problem with parents allowing their children to draw with sidewalk chalk, then address it with the community. don't unilaterally close off the campus with zero explanation. don't send threatening letters to community members who deign to list pratt as a beautiful destination for families. i went to grad school at columbia and always appreciated how open the campus was to the community. i never imagined that a college would consider closing their campus to the general public! i am truly outraged by this decision.
Posted by: jxc187 at September 11, 2009 7:13 PM
"pratt students participate in the community surrounding their college (sometimes in a way that's very offensive to the permanent residents)"
what do you mean by this, jxc187? I'm a Pratt student and to the best of my knowledge I have never offended any of the permanent residents in the community. Did someone do something to you?
Posted by: ohheythere at September 11, 2009 8:32 PM
@bxgirl - what should pratt do, then, that's far better? if this is a reaction to a need for increased safety, then the only place that such a change is going to be apparent is on pratt grounds - security has no jurisdiction outside the campus.
@jxc187 - "pratt students participate in the community surrounding their college (sometimes in a way that's very offensive to the permanent residents)" care to clarify? most of the students ARE permanent residents. are they loud & disruptive? do they get drunk? if this is the problem, the few that are truly disruptive hardly compete with the many "permanent residents" that do so on an almost-24/7 basis.
pratt has spent years giving back to this community, & by closing its campus to the public, it does not cease to do so. the gym is stilled rented out for community events & regional testing, PICCED is one of the most active & forward-thinking groups in nyc, the students & graduates in the neighborhood have brought in & kept open a lot of great businesses, etc, etc. you all make this out to be the end-all-be-all, when really, all it's preventing you from doing is sitting your asses down. do you pay over 50k a year to go to pratt? no, you don't - there is no outstanding 'right' to use of the campus by the public, it is a privilege.
Posted by: jgabrils at September 11, 2009 9:01 PM
From Pratt's website:
"Visitors are welcome to tour the campus and Pratt's contemporary sculpture park."
Oh really?
Posted by: jxc187 at September 11, 2009 9:50 PM
Umm, am I missing something? I really don't understand why people feel they have a right to use a private campus. What about use of LIC's facility's down off Willoughby? What about St. Joe's? Do I get to use their facilities and hang out in their manicured yards off Clinton? If anything I would think people would lobby for use of shut off city high school fields, tracks, courts, etc. that are truly funded with public money. I really don't see a problem with a private school saying "sorry, time to tighten things up, we just got some BAD PR and students willing to cough up $50k/per are not growing on trees anymore." Maybe it's window dressing for Pratt, but window dressing is how we react to violent crimes around here (e.g., foot patrols seem to only appear in FG/CH in response to NY Post featured crimes).
Posted by: davide5 at September 11, 2009 10:33 PM
davide5- I think the issue is that it feels arrogant and jackass-y, whether it's their legal right or not. It's _lame_, even if it's well within their rights.
It's also an example of the school taking an antagonistic position toward the neighborhood, which also causes a negative reaction, even if it's completely legal.
Sure, they have the right to cut off access. It's just a jerky, us-vs-them kinda action, and seems to be (whether or not this is their thinking) coddling the students and implying that they need to be kept in a cage for their own protection.
I went to a school that had a really antagonistic relationship with the city around it, and an excess of security/gates/checkpoints/etc. I thought it was bullshit then, and i think it's bullshit now.
Posted by: bfarwell at September 11, 2009 11:10 PM
Hey, I live in Willoughby Walk and I figure that if Pratt students are such danger magnets, why would we want them crossing through our property? If we can't use Pratt, then make the Pratt students walk either through dog poo in the darkness on Hall Street or in the Classon Avenue "Danger Zone."
Frankly, some (very few) of them already treat our property poorly by littering, tagging dumpsters and sitting on our benches drinking 40s out of paper bags like they're in the "ghetto," probably thinking they're keeping it real.
Aaah, the irony and beauty of Clinton Hill middle class mostly black folks telling scruffy mostly white kids to stop drinking in front of our building.
Posted by: FtGreeneNY at September 13, 2009 4:38 PM
I am Pratt Alumni and I find this plain weird, when the neighborhood was not as good it was open to everyone during the day and closed at night to only students. Pratt has worked hard with the community and the city to improve the area and make better connections with everyone living around the campus. This is not going to help that relationship at all. It is not like the Neighborhood is not banning drunk art students from wandering the streets at night disturbing the peace and vandalizing! I am not saying that Pratt Students are horrible people, but it is college in the middle of the neighborhood, and there always will be the occasional over served Freshmen walking home from the bar being stupid!
I think Pratt should keep the campus open to the community, that has accepted Pratt for the good and the bad that comes out of it!
Posted by: Pragonetti at September 14, 2009 3:18 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.