WHEN RICHARD P. White '74 answered a knock on his Eliot House door at 11 p.m. on January 22 and told the three youths who appeared that he did not know anyone named "John Simmons," they produced a gun and forced their way into the room. After robbing him of $26 in cash and a face mask valued at $10, the assailants bound White's hands and feet, placed a pistol next to his head and fired a shot into the ceiling.

The incident was the second armed robbery and the third attempt in less than two weeks. On January 13 University Police arrested two armed men in Dunster House and on January 16 four thieves forced their way into a Mather House suite, stole $750 worth of merchandise and pistol-whipped the two occupants.

Since that time several more reported armed robberies and assaults have occurred in University residential areas. As of June 1, the University Police had received reports of at least 12. Total figures were not kept before this year, but this number of "violent crimes" represents a sizeable increase over previous years.

Although the incidence of petty thefts of personal and University property remains high, Stephen S. J. Hall, vice president for Administration, says that the steady upsurge in thefts over the last few years seems to have levelled off in the second half of this year to about $1200 to $1500 per week. Hall says that this is at least partially due to increased awareness and security precautions on the part of students, administrators and police, especially since the January rash of armed robberies.

Hall and University Police Chief Robert Tonis have worked with Masters and concerned students in instituting many new University-wide security measures. A few of these include: the installation of fish-eye peepholes in the doors of all undergraduate rooms; adding and replacing locks and lighting throughout the University; locking the entryways to several of the River Houses; an experimental electronic security door to Eliot House which can only be opened with a special coded magnetic card; an increased student watchman force; and a campaign to increase student and administration awareness and cooperation in reporting crimes and suspicious happenings.

STUDENTS are unimpressed with either Hall's security mechanisms or his student police force. They realize that the student watchmen are no substitute for trained patrolmen, and that in a time of real emergency the baby police force will be not only useless but inhibiting.

The new security measures only serve to heighten a growing sense of frustration with city life at Harvard. Students were always aware of Harvard's proximity to Cambridge's dirty streets and smelly air, but somehow crime and violence appeared only in newspapers.

So while the Harvard student may feel safer these days, that feeling is accompanied by a sense of isolation and restriction. No longer can a Mather House resident receive a surprise call from a friend; no longer can an Eliot House resident throw open house parties.

For some, being safe is just too much trouble. It is too much trouble to remember the bursar's card, and the card with the magnetic stripe on the back, and the key to the entry, and the key to the door. For some, it is better to be sorry than safe.

Part of the new security measures was the installation of peepholes which were first installed in Leverett House last year. However, several Masters who requested them earlier this year were told that there was not enough money to put peepholes in all rooms. Zeph Stewart, Master of Lowell House, was originally told that the peepholes, which cost the University between $7 and $10 apiece, could be installed only in women's rooms. But after the outbreak of armed robberies, the Administration decided that it had enough money to go ahead and install the peepholes in all of the rooms--and with the mass installation the costs were reduced.

Harvard has spent well over $150,000 this year just adding lighting to many areas considered "target" places for crime and in replacing or adding locks to many doors. All Mather House entry ways are now locked, as are all of the doors to the Yard dorms. Mather residents must use a key to operate the elevator in the high rise section. However, Masters and students have resisted any moves to lock entries in many of the other Houses. Hall says that he hopes that all of the Houses will eventually follow suit, but that it is not up to the Administration to force them to do so.

F. Skiddy von Stade '38, Master of Mather House and dean of Freshmen, says that the locking of Yard and Mather House entries has lowered crime in these areas. "We've only had one serious rip-off in Mather since we locked the entries, and that was the day before we installed locks on the elevators," von Stade said. He added that locking up of the Yard dorms and five of the eight gates to the Yard at night has substantially decreased the traffic from "off of the streets." Several times before the doors were locked non-student heroin users were discovered using Yard dorm bathrooms as "shooting galleries."

In March, the new electronic security door at the main entry to the Eliot House courtyard--which gives access to 12 of the 15 Eliot entry ways--was installed as part of a pilot project to determine whether electronic access systems were feasible. Although some students felt that the new door was a nuisance and discouraged visitors from other Houses, Master Alan E. Heimert '49, assistant Senior Tutor Lawrence B. Stevens '65--who has helped coordinate the project--and many Eliot residents greeted the new system as a necessary step.

Each Eliot resident was issued a magnetically coded card. When the card is placed in the reader located next to the door, the magnetic code is signaled to a computer memory unit in the chilled water plant north of the Yard. If the card's code matches one on record in the memory unit, the door is automatically unlocked. If a card is lost, its code can simply be erased from the memory unit and it will no longer open the door.

"It's my impression that we've had a real downturn in thefts as a result of the 'magic door,'" Stevens said, "but if everyone's not careful they're going to get ripped off anyway; propping the door open or allowing strangers to follow you in just negates the system."