The Illusion of Safety
by Harry Hudesman
Like many other outsiders, members of the law school community move to the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington D.C. not just for its proximity to the beautiful George Washington University but because of the desire for safety. Unfortunately, as a student, I receive more emails from GW about robberies by knifepoint and gun crimes than I do Facebook notifications.
It’s hard to believe that GW is so vulnerable to this type of crime, especially considering the position of the University near the White House, and many other well secured federal and international government buildings. With the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, D.C. Metro, D.C. Protective Services, FBI Uniformed Division, and other law enforcement agencies all within a matter of blocks from campus, it is puzzling to many why there have been so many incidents near GW.
The reason for the high crime rate is simple: we live in a community filled with relatively wealthy university students who live under the illusion of safety, when in reality we’re all being “protected” by a largely inefficent university police force. Thieves know that they can come to campus, snatch a wallet, iPhone, laptop or bicycle and get away without any real difficulty. Although we’re literally surrounded by law enforcement, the aforementioned agencies pay little to no attention to university affairs (unless the President or other VIP decide to visit campus). What is the solution? Arm the University Police Department (UPD).
Concerned alumnus and GW Law student, Alex Weinstein (B.A ‘10) noted in a letter to President Knapp and Dean Berman that “George Washington University remains one of the only locations in the District of Columbia that is unsecured by an armed police department.” Students come from around the world to study at this superior academic institution, yet they have a false sense of security.
The university has hidden behind the illusory protection of the surrounding law enforcement agencies as evidenced by its support for the ill trained UPD. Giving proper training to UPD officers to carry and operate firearms would allow for effective GW-specific patrolling, instead of mere after-the-fact responses from already overworked agencies.
While there is a concern about releasing dangerous firearms to a group of undertrained officers, that doesn’t have to be the reality. By investing in training courses for officers, the school would be investing in GW’s safety and security, and consequently in the University’s well-being and scholarship. Arming the UPD officers would allow for recruitment of more qualified officers because many trained officers will not take a job that pays less and requires less skill. While there remains a threat that firearms may be wrested from their persons, perhaps in dormitories, that same threat exists with the other agencies that may get involved on campus. Well-trained officers would have the ability to retain their firearms as professionally as other agencies yet focus purely on the University. GW will grow as a more respected place to learn and settle when it can exist without the lingering fear that resides in the minds of many GW students. The current inability of UPD to deter criminals is simply unacceptable. Criminals have become keenly aware of the lack of security around the campus and that is why the targeting of students has persisted.
Until the demand for security actually strikes a chord with University administration, it is crucial that students remain cognizant of the ever-present threat. It is easy to forget that there is substandard protection in such a beautiful D.C. environment. With an endowment far surpassing $1 billion, it’s hardly outlandish to ask that a fraction of that be used to protect the students that make GW the vibrant university it has become. Hopefully it won’t take a tragedy worse than mere theft to make proper safety in Foggy Bottom a reality instead of a mere illusion.
The Illusion of Safety,
8 Comments »
Leave a comment!
I don’t believe you. Arming university police would change the relationship between the students and their nominal protectors. It will increase the likelihood of an accident or mistake, and raise the consequences thereof. And I don’t believe that it would lead to a significant increase in safety.
But I’m interested in data. Does Georgetown need armed police? What about Columbia University? Boston U? Are there any urban private universities with their own armed police? Have they noticed any diminution in violence relative to the their neighbors as a result of arming their police? If so, was the difference worth the cost? Is arming university police the most efficient use of my tuition?
You can’t rely on a single law student’s letter. Go, research. Come back when you have actual information to support your argument.
I attended UPenn undergrad and, like virtually every other major university in Philly, it had a highly trained, armed police force. The crime situation there was admittedly worse than in our neck of the woods, and the Penn Police (justifiable) shot and killed a number of armed criminals every year. Students felt much safer with an armed police force – particularly with the Virginia Tech tragedy occurring in our midst. And the police had a strong working relationship with the university community.
Another way to increase security: arm yourself. You can’t carry concealed in DC, but you can at least protect yourself with a legal firearm in your off-campus residence.
There are large amounts of armed university police departments in both urban and rural areas throughout the nation. Among the armed police departments at private universities in urban environments you have, University of the District of Columbia Police, Howard University Police Department, Boston University Police Department, University of Chicago Police Department, Yale University Police Department, Harvard University Police Department, and University of Miami Police Department to name a few. Most of these universities have their officers commissioned as full law enforcement officers within their territory. They have full power of arrest both on and off duty throughout their jurisdiction. As for Georgetown and Columbia, they are a closed off campuses (traditional college campuses). This is the same for American and Catholic University. The problems that those universities face is quite different than a university—like GW—that is located within the center of a populated city free to be traversed by a number of people.
The GW University Police are currently considered Special Police Officer’s—a special designation for armable officers within the District of Columbia. There is a baseline of training necessary, and the power only extends to the time that you are on duty and within your jurisdiction. The university has considered arming UPD in the past. In response to my letter, President Knapp did say that he is continually re-evaluating the idea of arming UPD. The violence present in 2008—when the University last considered arming UPD—was not anything like it is today. While the data is not readily available, having been a student during that time, and currently being a student, I am well aware of the crime that did exist.
As for the rest of the crime data, it is also not readily available. It is definitely something that the university will have to consider should they take up this issue again. The reality is that most university police departments have always been armed. The police have always been commissioned as state peace officers. Therefore differential data would be hard to come by.
One thing we can all agree to: whatever UPD is doing right now is not working and needs to change. It is only a matter of time before one of the armed robberies goes terribly wrong and a student ends up in the hospital or the morgue.
i know UPD officers. they are not the brighest bulbs in the tool shed. i am ok with them not having firearms. petty theft is mostly due to careless rich student.
tis better to have your itouch snatched than your snatch itouched.
This article fails to prove a connection between armed officers and lower crime rates. I don’t really understand the point of the argument. Where is the data? Also, the arrogance of connecting wealth to crime is similarly illogical. There is reference to students having wallets, ipods, etc. stolen, but this is frequently due to carelessness. Arming officers would do what? Give them the ability to shoot at suspects? Or would criminal stay away because of the fear of being shot? Again, where is the data to support the assertion that the crime rate will go down? This is more like an argument for arming people generally than really protecting students. Why not arm the students? (Why are you scared to address your real concern?) Even an opinion piece should be backed up with logic. This one is not. If you are that afraid for your “wealth” and don’t want to take steps to protect your belongings on campus, change schools and stop fear-mongering.
The person who wrote this is entirely unfamiliar with those who might apply for a job as university security. He is overestimating their skill and training. I do not mean for this to be insulting to the officers but we are not talking about NYPD here. This is not a career most work on attaining. No one is saying “Oh! And I’m going to learn how to use a gun and get a really good job in security.” The author needs to take on the responsibility of protecting himself rather than creating his own “illusion of security” by arming UPD. Truth is, the mere appearance of UPD is supposed to be protection enough. Perhaps more officers, rather than ARMED officers, is the answer. This, in conjunction with not leaving your wallet lieing around, would put a large dent in the crime rate on campus. Personally, though, I feel quite safe already.
I have been avoiding responding to any more comments as the article was posted nearly two months ago, but I do feel the need to say a few things about the last comment.
You are correct we are not talking about NYPD. And you are correct that UPD is not a job that most people aspire to as a full career. Instead UPD often serves as a stepping stone for these officers to go on to other police departments around the nation. GW gives incredible incentives to the officers. There is a significant discount on graduate school that most of the officers are taking advantage of. This is the reason that most of the officers choose UPD over another department. I considered doing this myself, but unfortunately the discount on tuition does not apply to law school or medical school.
That being said, you have mischaracterized the department as security guards. GW does have security guards under the UPD hierarchy. There are security officers (generally seen only with a baton and with a red patch on their arm), and there are officers (the people with a badge and police patch on their arm that carry normal police gear aside from a firearm). They are completely different in the eyes of the university, and serve different roles. The author was only speaking to the police officers, not the security guards. GW police officers are commission police in DC. They are categorized as special police because of the limited jurisdiction. Nonetheless, because of their status, they are permitted if trained to be armed. I do agree that they would need significantly more training, and the standards would need to be higher than they currently are. This is an attainable goal, and really something that should be expected now, even without arming the officers.
As for the claims of careless students from the past two posts, I do not think it is as simple as hiding your valuables better. The hard truth is that a laptop is required to be a student. If I am held up at gunpoint on a street, it does not matter if my computer is out or in a bag; I plan to give it up. Criminals know where the good places to target people are.
What I will say is there are many options for increased safety, only one of which is arming UPD. The author never mentioned that this is the end all be all solution. It is just one. The university could put up more police cameras on the street with a strobe light to call attention to it (as seen in many cities). The unfortunate truth about UPD being unarmed still remains true: When dealing with an armed subject, our first line of defense cannot take action. They are forced to call MPD and wait. Not only does this make it easy for criminals to get away, it also makes our first responders useless when a criminal has anything more than a knife. Anyone is free to disagree, but I find that troublesome.
Thanks Alex. Your response explains alot about this article. Your personal interest in the article is commendable, particularly considering you weren’t even a coauthor. It’s nice that you’ve taken such an interest in it, as this is an important topic on our campus.