Opinion
Pathway unfeasible for safety reasons
By Jon Kirshenbaum ’19
April 6, 2017
Tags opinion
I would like to start by voicing my appreciation for being able to utilize this forum to talk about an important discussion which has been taking place in Student Assembly meetings and in smaller settings throughout campus. I am thrilled to work with my classmate, Yassine Dahlek, to inform and expand the campus dialogue, and I hope that this forum will continue as an avenue for thoughtful discussion. A quick aside: I serve as one of the student representatives for the Class of 2019 delegation to the Student Assembly. The views in this piece are entirely my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Assembly or of its members.
The particular catalyst for writing this article was a conversation first formally introduced on Feb. 20, 2017 regarding the construction of a paved pathway leading from College Hill Road to the sidewalk that services the Days-Massolo Center, the Afro-Latin Cultural Center and the Philosophy Department offices located at 202 College Hill Road. Students initially raised the issue to one of my colleagues on the 2019 class delegation, Adrian Summers, after which he brought it to the attention of the Central Council. Concerned students felt that it was unsafe and unfair to ask them to walk through the snow, mud, dirt, etc. that accumulates there in order for them to reach the treated sidewalk leading up to their destination. Emely Rojas ’20, present at one of our later discussions, remarked “…with the snow and weather it gets kind of dark and you don’t know what you’re walking into. I had new white shoes and they got muddy. It is a hassle” (SA minutes). Hannah Fink ’19 offered an additional comment on her concerns with safety: “…I have had friends who have slipped and fell, and it is a hassle to walk through snow and mud.”
At our next meeting, we were fortunate enough to be joined by Steve Bellona, Associate Vice President of Facilities and Planning to discuss a number of issues, one of which regarded the discussion of the pathway from the previous week. At this second meeting, a number of students expressed feelings that the lack of a pathway between the street and the sidewalk signaled a disrespect on the part of the College towards its cultural centers and the students who utilize them.
The principle element of the exchange centers around a much broader social phenomenon: how we approach organizations that predominantly serve minority student populations (on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, politics, etc). On these grounds, I offer no dispute, nor do I make any attempt to qualify the missions of said organizations and their members—not only is it not my place to do so, but because I lack sufficient background as a member of their focus community, I am also not able to make fully-informed judgements about their validity. In this respect I am in full support of Yassine’s position and of the cause of those students looking to encourage broader interaction with our campus’ cultural organizations, for they offer invaluable resources for mindful expansion. College campuses, especially liberal arts college campuses, are the cradle of formative engagement with identities and opinions other than our own, and regardless of one’s individual beliefs, we all stand to benefit from an exhaustive representation of diverse points of view.
This particular instance is an unsuitable exemplification of that broader objective. To build the sort of footpath that interested parties envision, Physical Plant would have to rip up and resurface an area roughly 12 to 18 feet long and roughly 42 inches wide. In addition to that, they would have to remove the several concrete slabs that currently constitute the curbside in these areas in order to make such a pathway not only feasible, but at least marginally handicapped-accessible.
The fact that this would already be a significant landscaping project, not to mention that nowhere else between the lower limits of Anderson and the upper limits of Griffin Road is there an unmarked pedestrian pathway leading directly into the street on College Hill Road. On the safety note, Bellona had this to say, “My concern is with the safety of the students. Anytime I think about putting a pathway up to College Hill Rd. it implies that we as Hamilton think it is okay to cross here...Personally I would really like to take them out” (SA minutes). If you look at safety through the lens of injury liability, Bellona and the College are rightfully concerned. Conor O’Shea, a member of the Class of the 2018 delegation also pointed out that legal settlements can easily reach 7-8 figures.
Mr. Bellona also advised that in the winter, the proposed pathway would not be treated or plowed because it would exist as an unofficial crossing point. If any of you have ever had to walk over an untreated sidewalk, then you know that it is often no better, or even markedly worse than walking over natural terrain.
Finally, there are conditions that must be met which are out of the College’s control. According to Mr. Bellona, the site of the proposed pathway would need to be extensively surveyed in order to ensure that there would be no compromise to the underground sewer system. Additionally, even if the College were in favor of this project, they have to consult and get zoning permission from the local government public works division before breaking ground on construction work, especially one that affects a public road.
I understand the desire on behalf of the individuals who attended our meeting looking to improve the accessibility of cultural community centers, but upon consultation with the relevant administrative figures and due to the marginal benefit to pedestrian accessibility, I feel it most appropriate not to support this venture.