In Defence of Redeemer Security

Ok, I’ll first admit that Redeemer Security can sometimes be sketchy, but I think it gets more of a bad reputation than it deserves. I’m going to speak out on behalf of Redeemer Security, partly because I worked on it for three years and understand some of their struggles, but also because I believe Redeemer is better off with it than without it.

First, we need to separate Redeemer Security from administration (or more specifically Ancillary Services). Security has always been an "add on" job with Redeemer. There was Maintenance and Security (when headed by Al de Roo), Ancillary Services and Security (when headed by . . . lets just say it begins with “D” and ends with “oreen”) and there was Physical Plant and Maintenance and Security (when headed by the notorious what’s-his-name). Redeemer always tacked it on to something else, and was headed by somebody that had no experience in security whatsoever. And the dreaded speed-mountain was an act of Physical Plant and Maintenance, not Security.

The Commissionaires has greatly helped because they’ve been doing contract security for many years, and on sites far more difficult than Redeemer. The downside is the loss of the student “Chief;” I think this made security more approachable and down to earth with the students. It was easier to effect change when the person in charge was directly involved. The Commissionaires have provided some much needed training to the student officers and have provided important professional support to the student officers. Also, they have given the officers a stronger voice to Redeemer administration than any student could. We all know how well Redeemer listens to its students.

And to the Security Officers themselves (formerly called Guards and was changed because of some legal technicality). Most of us are generally good guys, and not as stupid as we’re made out to be. We made it through University just like the rest of you. We’re charged with the task of enforcing Redeemer’s rules, whether we agree with them or not. If you were given a ticket because you parked in a fire zone, who’s fault is that really? If you were reprimanded because you blew right through a stop sign, is it really security’s fault? Generally stop signs are put in place for a reason and expected to be followed. Parking guidelines are laid out in the Student handbook (which we all signed acknowledging we had read and understood it). And for visitors passes, they’re readily available. I had even hand delivered them to the visitor saving them a trip to the office.

One downside has always been summer security. This position used to be headed by the student Chief and supplemented by other student officers that had worked during the year. With the elimination of the student head, this policy fell by the side. Consequently it is often staffed by students that are unaware of Redeemer policy and really have not had sufficient training to do the job properly.

We’re really not a bunch of bad guys, and as probably as much as you don’t like getting a ticket, we don’t like being yelled at for simply doing our job. If you have an issue with something, make sure your complaint is directed to the person that can effect change. Redeemer Security is not responsibly for the policy of all dorm doors having to be self locking. Redeemer Security is also not responsible for the speed-mountain.

So lets work together on this and approach our difficulties with an attitude of understanding. If you’ve had a problem with security, approach the officer or the commissionaire calmly and express your opinion. Getting angry and worked up serves no ones interests; do not make it an emotional issue. You’ll likely find that you’re able openly express your opinion and either come to a common solution, or at least understand why Security has taken the action it has. This would be better for all parties involved, and more likely to effect change.