Jessica Lee Associate Editor

Unfortunately, the words "theft" and "university" seem to go hand-in-hand.

With all the computers, projectors, TVs, lab equipment, books and cool gadgets in general, the UA is a gold mine for the five-finger discount.

While it may seem that the university replaces old and stolen equipment quicker than a member of the men's basketball team can sneak out of the U-Mart with some snacks "on the house," it is apparent that the lack of capital security is costing the UA - and the Arizona taxpayer - a good chunk of pocket change.

The annual UAPD Campus Safety and Security Report was released in October, reporting 717 campus thefts. On Monday, more than a month later, the Faculty Senate heard discussion about possible amendments to the UA anti-theft policy. The proposed changes would define which thefts and misuses of university property must be reported to Provost George Davis and Senior Vice President for Business Affairs Joel Valdez.

One proposed change stated that if the value of the "misplaced" good is over $500, all UA employees would be required to file a report. With over $109,000 in missing property last year, the offices of Davis and Valdez could soon be buzzing with more department audits and police reports.

The second proposed amendment to the policy involves the release of public information. If the theft is determined "embarrassing" to the UA or the Arizona Board of Regents, then it must be reported to administrators immediately.

Hmmm. What type of theft might blush the cheeks of administrators and regents?

Is it a missing vial of a microbial pathogen? A ceiling projector taken from the Family and Consumer Sciences building not once, but twice? A misplaced shipment of condoms to Campus Health?

Is it ex-coach John Mackovic taking his favorite desk chair with him? The hundreds of library books that end up unaccounted for each school year? The two Yavapai Hall students who finagled liquid nitrogen and $6,000 in classroom technology? A top researcher "losing" her laptop ... or is that only slightly embarrassing?

The proposed policy is ambiguous at best and laughable at worst. Theft in any form is a crime, and the continual stealing on campus should be extremely embarrassing to the departments, colleges and the entire university. No exceptions.

It shouldn't take a high-profile news event such as the disappearance of liquid nitrogen to raise administrative awareness of on-campus theft. Every day in the Wildcat, "Police Beat" is filled with reports of stolen equipment, bikes, car accessories and silly things like lost straw hats and banana bread. The provost and senior vice president should be concerned and alerted about all theft in general, rather than the items that force the university into an awkward situation.

We should all be thankful for people with common sense. It was Andrew Silverman, professor of law, who finally questioned the degree of mortification that missing objects would demand. Will there be a sliding scale of embarrassment? Who would make the call? Shouldn't every object stolen be shameful to the UA?

To most, the figures released in the Campus Safety and Security Report should be discomforting. In one year, there were 717 reported thefts with only 55 arrests. UAPD reported 524 missing bikes on campus - that is like taking all the bikes locked up along the Mall at noon today and ... poof ... gone!

Silverman's comment inspired President Peter Likins to finally suggest that the embarrassment clause should be dropped from the proposed changes. There is no good reason why this section should contend for actual policy approval.

Come January, the Faculty Senate should officially toss out the embarrassment amendment and instead focus on policy that improves theft prevention.

Jessica Lee is an environmental science senior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.