It’s been interesting to see public reaction to an article about incidents in which a Harvard student armed with a stake has come running at unleashed dogs in the Radcliffe Quadrangle. Whether on this site or Facebook, comments have been universally disdainful of the dog owners, with only a portion of one comment acknowledging that “obviously no one wants a college student running and yelling at dogs.”
One of the commenters didn’t even believe the basis for the article, though the conflict was confirmed by various sources, including from within the university. The idea of “fake news” is a hard one to shake, I guess, even when we don’t have a U.S. president promoting it.
The student charging with the stake explained his actions to one of the dog owners by saying he was afraid of the animals, and surely the residents who bring their animals are guests of Harvard and should follow a posted rule that “all dogs must be on a leash.” I’m not a dog owner, but I sympathize a little with people who have an excited, curious creature that must be exercised once or twice daily and find their options limited; they may be coming to the quad because it’s in the middle of a dog park desert. The nearest dog park seems to be on Pemberton Street, a mile away, though from attending a lot of City Council meetings I know requests for more usable spaces are perennial.
So let me stand as the minority – a slightly perplexed one – who will say simply that even if a dog is improperly unleashed, running after it with a stick and a threat of violence is not the right way to go about resolving the issue.
It doesn’t speak well of the Harvard student that this is the first or only solution that occurred to him. (Several times.) It doesn’t speak well of Harvard.
Unfortunately, though engagement with the news is a wonderful thing I’d hate to discourage, I also don’t think it speaks well of commenters to imply that chasing things with a stick is the first or only way to address a disagreement. It’s often also a terrible way to address a fear.
If dogs have been off-leash occasionally in the quad for a long time without incident and with otherwise happy coexistence – and it should be noted that some of the worried pet owners are in the Harvard community, not just neighbors – it’s a shame for one person to harsh everyone else’s mellow. (On the other hand, there may be very good historical reasons for a leash rule there.) I hope the university and dog-owning neighbors can find new common ground, and that the student some day finds that not all dogs have to be feared.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
“It doesn’t speak well of the Harvard student that this is the first or only solution that occurred to him.”
There’s no indication that this is the first time it happened to the student. It certainly isn’t the first time that the dog owners ignored the sign and thought that the rules don’t apply to them.
Obviously those students who would prefer that their campus not be a dog park are disregarded when Harvard policy and city regulations are flouted by people without there being any enforcement consequences. Mr. Levy wrongly assumes that because people aren’t protesting, there must not be a problem.
As a dog owner who lives very near the Radcliffe Quad, no doubt I’m on the minority opinion side of this issue. I often walk our pup through the Quad, always on a leash. We encounter plenty of off-leash dogs, many of which are not nearly as “obedient” as their owners believe them to be. Several times a dog has come charging at our medium size pup while the owner frantically tries to call it off. (Yes, I know the difference between a curious dog checking out a potential new friend and one charging aggressively.)
The Quad is Harvard property, which they generously share with the neighborhood. Although I do not condone the actions of the stick wielding student, neither do I side with the dog owners who ignore the signs and somehow believe it’s within their “rights” to use the Quad as an off-leash park.
Again a “shifting of responsibility”. The stick-wielding student is a symptom of the problem. The resolution to the conflict is to obey the rules of usage.
Dogs in high-density areas are poor choice and it is not responsibility of the non-owner to accommodate such.
I mean…..we all want a pony in our two bed 500 sq ft apartment….but where to water and exercise it?
I guess we can assume the Mr. Levy is not acquainted with the huge dog park called Fresh Pond. Cambridge dog owners drive their dogs to the reservation so they can defecate on the lush green lawns and pee on the trees.
I cringe every time I see little children rolling down the hills at Kingsley Park on the very spot where one of the dogs has just recently pooped.
I have personally had a dog jump on my back while I was sunbathing and the owner thought it was just hilarious.
I contacted the park service and they said to take a picture of the owner and/or the dog to send to them. They said they would be on the lookout for repeat offenders. Let’s take back some of the spaces that have been taken over by those who think rules are for everyone but them and their dog.
Just follow the rules and leash your dog. While Harvard may not always be the best neighbor, and clearly the student wielding a stick was obnoxious, the University is letting neighbors with and without pets use their property. Stick with the rules, or stick to fire hydrants or your own yard, and don’t ruin it for the rest of us who can be neighborly.