At a town hall-style meeting at the University School of Law on Jan. 29, Department of Public Safety Director Kevin Williams made clear that although he does not have a specific written proposal at this time, his goal in the very near future is to allow DPS officers to carry Tasers on campus. I find this more than troubling, as does the ASUO Executive Staff and many other student organizations.
According to the DPS Web site, their mission is, “… To foster a climate that encourages a free, open, and civil exchange of ideas…” Yet, Director Williams seems convinced deploying Tasers on campus won’t jeopardize this mission, despite evidence from the plethora of videos on the Internet from the infamous John Kerry speech on a Florida campus to the UCLA library incident, where Tasers were used on students trying to express the very “exchange of ideas” that DPS is supposed to protect.
While these may have been isolated cases of improper use, the mere threat of being “Tasered” by DPS would dramatically alter the atmosphere on campus in such a way that students would be fearful to attend rallies, demonstrations, or to speak their mind. What is more alarming is it ignored the fact Tasers have been linked as a contributing factor to more than 200 deaths in the U.S. alone since 2001 according to ACLU and Amnesty International reports. And beyond their potential lethality, many of those who have been Tasered report recurring health problems, though no long-term studies on the effects of Tasers have been conducted, which is troubling itself.
Tasers were originally developed as an alternative to the use of guns in critical situations, but have quickly become more commonly used as a restraining device by over 11,500 police, security and correctional agencies. Williams said Tasers would only be used in the most serious and threatening situations, but one review compiled by media and advocacy groups in Texas found that in 900 Taser use incidents, 350 of those Tasered were not charged with a crime, demonstrating how an un-serious situation may provoke Taser usage.
The lack of accountability and disclosure is also worrisome. Unlike using a gun in the line of duty, most departments deploying Tasers don’t require similar mandatory post-incident reporting, investigation and public disclosure as when a gun is used. Accountability could be improved by using Tasers equipped with audio and video recording devices that are activated when it is deployed, such as the “X26 Taser Cam.” But, when asked whether DPS was considering this model, officers in the audience responded, saying these might be inappropriate because the recordings would only catch the final moments of the interaction and not show the entire circumstances leading up to using the Taser. This same argument was used by Williams’ former colleagues on the LAPD to excuse the Rodney King beatings.
Tasers are also expensive. In addition to the sticker price of nearly $1,000, departments must also pay for training and develop policies, the cost of which the Minneapolis Department has estimated at around $2,666.00 per Taser, after training. Naturally, these costs would ultimately be passed on to students.
It is for these reasons that the ASUO Executive Staff and myself are against any efforts to equip DPS officers with Tasers. They are potentially lethal, inhumane and expensive devices that would only damper the safe and open environment at the University. While Mr. Williams’ proposal is not yet formalized, the time for student involvement is now because unless we speak up, students may return to campus next year to a totally different environment.
Jim Cleavenger serves as Graduate Student Representative on the ASUO Executive Staff