Jenkins, Moore and Taplin dorms were the first to test the College's new system. According to then-Chief of Security Gary Berte, the system would improve security measures by quickly alerting security officials when doors were left propped open, an apparently significant problem at the time. The use of the codes also eliminated the hassle of replacing locks after people lost their keys and allowed the College to implement a 24-hour lock-up policy.
In general, students seemed to welcome the idea of this new, hi-tech system with "calculator-like key pads" located at the door of each dorm building. A few students however, worried that "the new system could turn Security into 'Big Brother.'"
On the other hand, as Berte explained, highlighting the numerous advantages of installing the code-access system, it enabled students to "punch numeric codes instead of fiddling with keys."
To allay worries about intrusive monitoring around campus, Berte promised students that the new system would not allow Security "to track an individual student's whereabouts by keeping track of which buildings he or she has accessed." "That [kind of] software could have been ordered, but we thought it would be offensive to our student body," he said.
The use of the security code, as was foreseen, solved current problem but brought a few of its own as well. Nevertheless, the general consensus was that the elimination of propped doors would make up for the occasional leakage of student codes.
However, not everyone agreed. To prevent students giving away their codes, Chet Harding '92, Resident Counselor of Moore at the time, favored a system that would require students to use magnetized cards to gain access to buildings.
Berte, however, firmly defended the advanced code-access system. He concluded confidently, "I don't think students will give their codes to the pizza guy."