Fountain fences will promote safety

Purdue officials announced Monday their decision to construct fences around the Purdue fountains. The Exponent has received an overwhelming number of calls and letters from students, faculty and alumni. We received our first letter roughly a half-hour after the story was posted on our Web site and we received the maximum of 10 letters to the editor on this subject within hours of publication. We continue to receive letters although we are not accepting any more. Purdue officials, too, have received a great deal of feedback expressing disappointment with the decision.

Kenneth Burns, Purdue executive vice president and treasurer, attempts to answer questions about the decision in the following conversation.

Exponent: Please explain why Purdue officials think fences need to be placed around the fountains.

Burns: Well, we've looked at this problem for a long, long time and have actually worried about the potential for injury, particularly among smaller adults and children over the years. We have had many injuries reported since both fountains were first constructed. For example, the fountain in front of Hovde Hall, we altered the water pressure in hopes that that would minimize any injury a child might sustain running through that water. We did those kind of things, but last summer we had a very serious injury occur and that was really a wake-up call for the University that we could not let those fountains go any longer without creating some kind of way to prevent children from entering the fountains. A young girl broke her arm after being thrown into one of the concrete structures by the water pressure and that was really the wake-up call that we had to take some kind of action to prevent further injuries.

Exponent: Did you consider placing warning signs around the fountains?

Burns: We really looked and thought about many different ways to try to deal with the problem. First of all, there's the issue of signage; could signage really make a difference? First of all, it doesn't work with children. You can’t expect small children to respond to signs. So, that would not prevent a small child from wandering in and out of the fountains. These are all hard surfaces. They're not designed for recreation and play. You could never build a public swimming facility using the kinds of materials that we've used for those fountains for vertical and horizontal structures. So, they never were designed for the play that's taking place in these fountains. Signage simply doesn't work. It doesn't prevent children from entering and it doesn't relieve the University of any liability for the consequences of a child becoming injured in a place like that. So, unfortunately, signage may make us all feel better, but it doesn't prevent the injury and it doesn't, in any way, diminish our liability that we would have for injuries to people playing in those areas. Now, everyone is very disappointed that we have to take this action. We understand that college-aged students and adults can play in those fountains safely and it wasn't our goal to prevent that from happening. The problem is we can't satisfy that and, at the same time, prevent injury to children.

Exponent: Some students say they are being penalized because some parents fail to supervise small children around the fountains. How do you respond to those comments?

Burns: Yea, I certainly agree that parents should assume some responsibility for the safety of their children. But, the fact of the matter is, these fountains are very inviting. We've not prohibited people from playing in the fountains. The University, in fact, has done other things that make it seem like it's OK to play in the fountains. So, there's an expectation on the part of parents that it's OK, even though each parent certainly has the responsibility to size up the activities their children participate in. There's no way to shed the University's liability simply because the parents should be a little more attentive. And our goal is prevent injury; it's not to penalize people, take away things that are enjoyable. But, the first order of business is to make certain we don't have a hazardous situation that puts children at risk.

Exponent: I've heard some students say that the fences are a punishment for the destructive disturbances that followed the women's championship basketball game. What would you say to those people?

Burns: There's absolutely no connection. The timing may be very unfortunate regarding these two events. But the concern over the fountain and the decision to install fences has absolutely nothing to do with the occurrences of a couple weeks ago.

Exponent: What role did President Martin Jischke have in making the decision?

Burns: First of all, the problem was here long before the president arrived. In fact, we were hard at work in looking at options and really dealing with this issue before the president even arrived in September. He's not a part of these kinds of decisions. The president isn't expected to be the one who makes all of the risk management calls on campus. Much of that ends up falling to me in my job, to make those kinds of decisions. So, I'll take responsibility for the decision.

Exponent: A lot of students are circulating petitions opposing the fences around the fountain. Is there a chance the University will change its mind about the fences or amend its plans about the fences?

Burns: We can't make decisions on an assessment of risk and injury to other people based on petitions. That's not how a problem like this can be addressed. The only compromise that could be discussed is what other forms of barriers could be constructed that accomplish the same thing. And what needs to be accomplished is preventing children from entering the fountain. There's no compromise on that point. Absolutely no compromise.

Exponent: What do you say to all the disappointed people who say it's a tradition for freshmen to run through the fountain?

Burns: It's just unfortunate. We're very sorry and we know how much that is and it has been very enjoyable. But, we have to weigh that tradition against the clearer risks and hazards that exist with those fountains and there are, indeed, very clear risks and hazards. And I don't want to be sitting in this position some day knowing that we could have taken action to prevent a serious head injury, a spinal cord injury. That is clearly what could happen in this kind of an area that was never designed for the kind of recreation that takes place.

Exponent: There are other places on campus where people could get hurt. Do you think the University might make more changes to reduce its liability? For Example, people sled on the hill at Slayter Center. Has the University considered banning that?

Burns: Quite frankly, we're always evaluating all physical facilities on campus to try to minimize any kind of injury. We inspect tens of miles of sidewalks routinely to look for trip hazards. We try to be as vigilant as we can to take appropriate steps when we identify potential hazards. We have done a lot of things, as you are probably aware, over the years to try to prevent injuries (at Slayter Center); creating barriers at the roadway; barriers around the band shell. Some of those have succeeded and in some cases there have still been examples where students have been injured.

Exponent: Have you receive much feedback from alumni about Purdue's plans to place the fences around the fountains?

Burns: Oh yes. Hundreds of e-mails.

Exponent: Are the decisions primarily for or against the decision?

Burns: They're almost entirely expressions of disappointment.

Exponent: A lot of people seem to be focusing on criticism about the plans. Have you received any positive feedback about the fences?

Burns: If I could only recall one, I would sleep better at night. No, I have not received any positive feedback on the plan. But, I still believe that the reaction has been one of people not considering what the alternative action is for the University. Some of the responses have been, 'so what if kids get hurt? So long as we can enjoy the fountain, we don't care if others get hurt.' There have been e-mails to that effect and that's just irresponsible. Certainly the University can't act that irresponsibly.

Exponent: Is there anything else you would like the Purdue community to know about the plans?

Burns: All of us at Purdue share kind of the common sadness that this has to change, that these fountains and their use must change. But, we really don't see any other responsible alternative but to do the things necessary to prevent access to the fountains.

Fountain fences will promote safety

Police use ineffective methods

Chalkings disgrace, litter campus

Hockey offers exciting experience

Intolerance should target actions

Hockey requires superior abilities

University policies generate confusion

Reward offer concerns student

OPINIONS DESK PHONE:
(765) 743-1111 ext. 256

Opinions editor:
Tom McHenry

Online Columnist Archive