<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Notice that I acknowledged “it’s not likely at USC either.” What I said was certainly not an attack, and I’m not going to omit a crucial fact simply because it’s an ugly reality. Guess what? Grad student housing was partly blamed from the very beginning of the ordeal - by many USC students and alumni as well. USC cannot house all its students, and many are forced to live farther away and in seedy areas. The higher crime rates of these areas are incontrovertible. So I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t relevant when discussing whether USC could do better to house its students on or very near campus. It was not an “attack regarding the deaths” and it wasn’t an attack on USC: it’s a pure and simple recognition of reality. If you don’t like it, tough - that’s how reality is.</p>
<p>Now of course, as I noted, it’s still not likely, and you’re right, menloparkmom, that other universities also have to contend with seedy neighborhoods that their students may live in. But that’s irrelevant: regardless of how common it is, wouldn’t it be better if USC could house all of its students? Wouldn’t that make them less likely to have to traverse a seedy area? That would be a better situation, as far as I can see.</p>