OneCard: Swipe Left

By this point, anyone who has had a prolonged conversation with me has heard my complaints about the changes to the OneCard and the related student code of conduct update. So far, I have yet to hear someone express support for any of these changes. In fact, I’ve had even more complaints pointed out to me that I hadn’t even thought of. It has caused me to examine why these changes have been implemented and who it benefits. 

First, a brief summary of the changes, most of which you probably know already. 

1. New OneCards have your legal name on them, and if you are not a first year and thus not automatically issued a new card, you are “encouraged” to visit the OneCard office to replace your old one. 
2. You can have your OneCard activated either physically or electronically, but not concurrently.
3. You are now subject to fines and/or “a referral to the student conduct process” if you lend your OneCard to others … Not to mention, if you do lend it and you’re found out, your OneCard will be confiscated and you will only get it back “on application to the Student Life Division.”

The first complaint I have is about the legal name requirement. As a junior with different legal and preferred names, I have two OneCards — one with my legal name on it, which does not grant entry into buildings, and the other with my preferred name, which does. I have yet to actually use the one with my legal name on it, given that in any situations where I need a legal ID I just use my state ID. And, while not everyone has a driver’s license or state ID, I am unclear on the situations in which you would need a OneCard with your legal name … to drive? A student ID isn’t going to cut it. To vote? Chances are you either have another form of legal identification or you’re undocumented, in which case having a OneCard with your legal name on it isn’t going to let you vote. To fly? Once again, a student ID won’t be what gets you on the plane. 

Perhaps I am wrong. In that case, I would like to bring us back to the point about the absurdity of having both one’s legal and preferred names on their OneCard (even when they’re the same, which seems redundant). I wanted a OneCard without my legal name because people don’t need to know it. I don’t use my legal name, it’s not what I respond to outside of medical contexts, and I simply do not need to hear it or see it in my everyday life. My quality of life and gender dysphoria will not improve every time I use my OneCard to scan into a building, get into my room, or get something to eat … 

Not to mention, even if you have legally changed your name, the process of getting that reflected at Swarthmore can take ages. Perhaps it’s not always the case, but one friend of mine started the process at the beginning of the last academic year and it only was fully resolved right before this one began. Regardless — while I am sure that if I were to think more I could find more complaints with this new feature, this only the start of my emerging frustrations. 

Now, onto the other OneCard update. You can now only have your OneCard active either on your phone or as a physical card. My main issue ties into the next point, but one frustration I’ve heard from other students is that, yes it’s convenient to have it on your phone, but say you’re going for a run or to work out. In that instance, it is far more convenient to be able to just tuck your card into the waistband of your pants, shoe, or wherever. Perhaps a smaller complaint in the grand scheme of things, but inconvenient nonetheless. The person who expressed frustration about this point revealed that they had had to buy a new pair of workout pants so that they could have their phone when they worked out. 

As I said, this ties into the third point: you can be punished if you lend your OneCard to someone else — which was much easier to do, especially long term, when you could have both a physical and digital OneCard. At first glance, it was perhaps related to the administration’s feelings about the sit-in and encampment last year. I assumed it was just a punishment for human decency, for the people in Parrish who let other protesting students in to take a shower or use the restroom more conveniently. Since I have started writing this article, I have heard several people point out the likely connection to Swarthmore’s disciplinary actions towards some of the protestors and I’ve heard speculations that it’s harder to punish people for unauthorized access into buildings (say, stepping away from an encampment to take a shower in a residential wing of Parrish). If the same OneCard is being scanned at a residential Parrish door and then five minutes later gets scanned at a different campus location, which use is by a person who shouldn’t be there? Can it be part of someone’s list of transgressions? Just because someone was somewhat inconvenienced by the sit-in and didn’t like having to see the encampment doesn’t mean that everyone should be inconvenienced.

Also, how is Swat supposed to keep our “one in six Swatties get married to each other” statistic if it’s more difficult for couples to spend time together in each other’s dorms? How would you feel if the only way you could get into your home was when your spouse or loved one was home? Or if you’d left something in their room and they’re away and busy because, well, Swarthmore, but you needed your laptop charger or a textbook? What, should you call PubSafe to get into their dorm room? Not that that would work anyways. And it’s not as if the solution is couples living together … everyone knows that’s too risky. 

Now, if it’s the second case — I get some need for security, but I didn’t realize that part of agreeing to come to Swarthmore was agreeing to be a part of a surveillance state. Not to mention how you’re obligated to hand over your OneCard (with your legal name present on it!) over to PubSafe because they need “accurate identification” whenever they want to see it.

The aforementioned changes and decisions here at Swarthmore are absurd, unnecessary, and convenient to nobody other than those in power, with the purpose of better punishing students. My hope is that this article, if you weren’t aware of some of these policies before or hadn’t had the chance to think about the implications and consequences, puts them on your radar. For the members of the administration that read The Phoenix — I don’t have the numbers, but trust in the college and the administration is undoubtedly low. I encourage the administration to closely consider the implications these policies can have to our diverse campus community in terms of support, logistics, and overall safety.