The University’s Department of Public Safety has recently been pushing to increase its role in order to provide a better and more complete service for students, faculty and the very campus itself. Incidents both local and national have prompted this desire to become more flexible and to give greater powers to DPS officers, such as the ability to detain people suspected of committing petty crimes.
Now DPS and the University are considering proposing another possibility: canvassing to change a statute that would allow for the addition of a fully-sworn campus police force that is trained to carry firearms.
This police force would work in harmony with the Eugene Police Department and as part of the current DPS system. This means that if a situation developed and an unarmed officer wouldn’t prove effective in controlling that situation, the response time for an armed officer would be greatly reduced.
Questions immediately arise when considering armed police protecting the walkways to and from classrooms. Does the University really need its own police force? What is it that the current system of DPS officers isn’t able to provide?
DPS exists to protect and serve the both student population and the campus as a whole. History shows that DPS officers have done an excellent job meeting those expectations so far, without the aid of firearms. What incident has warranted the sudden need to have armed campus security patrolling the University?
This wouldn’t be merely a case of issuing firearms to existing officers. DPS has revealed that the plan would require both the current unarmed public safety officers and sworn University police officers to provide adequate campus protection. What is this going to do to the DPS budget? It’s already doubled since 2004, hitting a record $3.1 million last year. The cost of employing a fully-sworn policeman licensed to carry a firearm range from $85,000-$90,000 per year, while the current public safety officer only costs $65,313 per year to employ.
Most students aren’t particularly threatening and it’s hard to imagine many situations arising that would require the use of deadly force. However, this doesn’t mean dangerous situations aren’t part of a DPS officer’s job description. In 2006, a pair of DPS officers were attacked when confronting a transient near the Eugene MillRace close to campus. In the scuffle, both officers were held underwater and came close to drowning. This incident prompted a request for officers to be issued with Tasers.
In 2008, both an EPD and a DPS officer sustained injuries when issuing a freshman a routine disorderly conduct citation turned into a wild chase. The student turned and fought with the officers until eventually restrained, but not before sparking concerns that DPS officers’ safety was at risk.
But situations like these are few and far between, and shouldn’t be seen as a constant threat that needs addressing.
While it’s true that 74 percent of colleges across the nation have a police force based on-campus, and that the University joins Oregon State University as the only schools in the Pac-10 to buck that trend, we’re not exactly lagging behind security-wise; DPS staffing has risen from 37 employees in 2004 to 46 last fall and still has a close relationship with EPD for situations that require more specialized expertise. But by going that extra yard and allowing fully-sworn officers with firearms on campus, the University would become the first school in Oregon to have an armed police detail.
All in all, the entire proposed change just comes across as an unnecessary expense. The DPS officers used in the current system have meet all of our needs when it comes to providing a safe environment to live and to learn. Given that, it just doesn’t make sense to sink time and resources into changing statutes and disrupting an already functioning system.
The questionable benefits just don’t seem to be worth the additional costs.
[email protected]