Cornell recently released a report completed by three professors on the suicide barriers. Some key points that stand out:
– The report concludes that had Cornell not taken preventative measures in March, the string of suicides would have continued unabated.
– The fact that journalists are persistent in asserting that public suicides are newsworthy may contribute to the process by which a site “attains iconic status as a place from which to jump.”
– The report also notes that “the available scientific data regarding suicide deaths and attempts related to jumping from bridges strongly suggests that most individuals who jump from iconic sites are ambivalent, act impulsively, choose a specific site, and if thwarted from an attempt at that site at a particular time, will survive.”
Now, the actual policy recommendation with respect to the suicide barriers:
We see no alterative but to promote safety and caring for vulnerable persons as the central driving elements of this discussion. It is our recommendation that temporary barriers that meet standards of effectiveness remain in place, until permanent safety measures can be built. There are many approaches to such measures, and the expertise regarding what will work best for the different bridges – in a fashion that is respectful of the glorious beauty of the settings – is beyond our skills.
But it’s still not clear to me whether the report is supporting the current temporary barriers that are in place. Earlier in the report the authors say that effective barriers need to take a number of considerations into account, and the current barriers fail to meet the following criteria: effective deterrents that impede individuals from jumping from the bridges (see here), minimal visual and aesthetic impact on the bridges and their surroundings, structural and aerodynamical soundness. So at the very least let’s hope that the administration takes down the ugly, chain-linked fences that we know before students start returning to campus in August.
The full report can be found here.
