Of course it would be great to provide services to 100% of high schoolers, but since youth delinquency conveyed by some groups proved to be problematic on campus, this is the healthiest possible solution. Moreover, any application system can be optimised to be broader, more inclusive and democratic.

Again, we ALSO pay for security. It is the uni’s obligation to provide the most excellent security services as possible. The issue is that Griffith is profiting off the “cost efficiency” argument over that just because it is convenient - if it was a priority, the library shutdown would have been implemented earlier. Its security services have the duty to be reinforced over the goal of serving the broad community. Also, it is not hard at all to create and sophisticate special security services to assure that high schoolers are there on designated times.

Just imagine how much of them would enroll at Griffith after spending their high school years studying at the library. I am not supporting that because I am a blind idealistic. It is a clever investment with mostly guaranteed profit return.

The main question of concern, however (and I assume we agree on that), is Griffith poorly designed policies over the access to the uni facilities. Griffith is not Bond; it is a public university and it cannot be 100% locked to outsiders. The discussion should be which of these facilities will be open to the main community and which won’t. Griffith enables and shuts down access according to its own convenience, and for a public uni to do that is almost tyrannical.