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…
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
perhaps it’s security reasons. perhaps its liability issues. perhaps its the incredible sense of entitlement that comes from some of the parents i’ve seen trashing the grounds. kids scribbling in chalk, climbing on sculpture, going potty in bushes, digging up plants etc. i have seen down right hostile interactions with the parents against the security officers on campus. parents yelling “i don’t have to tell my child NOT to do anything”. what a horrible generation these parents are raising.
maybe if the parents followed rules and paid attention to their kids and their parenting instead of talking on cell phones and chit chatting, pratt would be more accessible. the long time abuse of pratt’s niceness cannot be tolerated anymore. it could be a combination of many reasons, but certainly the parents in the neighborhood and their nasty exterior has played a role.
protesting the access to campus is hilarious. it’s one of the most open campus that i have ever been around. so much so that i think it’s a great idea to have ID checking at all gates. it’s too easy to get on campus as it is and i am glad they are sealing it up a little bit.
a college is for students. not your playdates.
“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!
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?