This year, the Oregon Legislature will be deciding whether to pass two bills of serious importance in regards to the University: SB 116 and SB 405. The bills, if passed, would give colleges in Oregon, including the University, the option of maintaining a fully sworn police force for campus safety. The bills themselves do not create police forces, but rather give universities the option to maintain one.
The University has made clear its desire to move in that direction should the bills pass.
Last Wednesday, there was a town hall meeting led by Paul Shang, the dean of students, Frances Dyke, vice president for finance and administration, and Doug Tripp, chief of the Department of Public Safety. Each individual made some remarks, all in favor of the bills, with Tripp doing most of the explaining.
In addition to the talks given, members of DPS handed out a sheet of frequently asked questions, and a glossy flier titled “The Future of Campus Safety.” These two documents highlighted Captain Tripp’s (I’m allowed one “The Stand” reference) talking points throughout his presentation. The main thrust of his argument was as follows:
Everyone else has a police force. The University is big, and it needs full-time police representation, mainly because the Eugene Police Department simply can’t handle it. A University-based police force would be “culturally aligned and sensitive to … the community.” And, finally, it would save money.
Sprinkled in with the presentation was some data about crime on campus. When Tripp commented that suspicious persons were reported to DPS roughly 184 times per month last year (isn’t at least half the population of Eugene suspicious?), the elderly woman sitting next to me gasped. When he said that 28 warrant arrests were made, she threatened to suck the oxygen clear out of the room.
If DPS would transition to a police force, Tripp said, the men and women who protect us would be better trained to deal with situations on campus. The most compelling argument, however, is that it saves money. Anything that helps lower tuition costs has potential in my book.
With that said, Tripp, as well as the rest of the supporters of the bills, attempted to divert the single most important question for students regarding this proposed transition:
Will the policemen be armed?
Should the bills pass, and should the University choose to maintain a police force, the police would be able to wield guns and Tasers. The glossy flier that was handed out claimed, “Arming with handguns or Tasers isn’t part of this discussion. That would be a decision down the road …” I’m not sure if the people who put the flier together really believed their preemptive strike on that question would work, but it didn’t.
A question-and-answer session began after Tripp finished his presentation. The first questioner was quite possibly a plant who simply stated what a good idea it was. Question number three was the golden ticket: What about guns and Tasers?
As far as Tasers go, Tripp claimed, “We already can use them. We just choose not to.”
Gee, thanks? I’m not sure that was the confidence boost students were looking for.
As far as guns go, that would be “a question for later down the road” if the bills are passed. Tripp then made his own position relatively clear on the matter, relating a story from last year when DPS officers found two men on campus with guns — no shots were fired and the men were apprehended. Tripp made it clear, however, that he believed certain situations called for armed policemen.
I’m relatively unsure about that assertion. It seems DPS officers who were present for the incident did a great job of security without needing guns themselves. I’m unclear how armed security in that situation would have made anything better. As a matter of fact, I think the outcome was about as perfect as it could have been given the circumstances.
Is it fair that security guards had to face two armed gunmen while they themselves were unarmed? No. But that is the type of situation they are trained for, and those DPS officers responded perfectly. Adding guns to any equation tends to come out negatively.
Guns are the main issue with a transition to a police force maintained by the University. On most other fronts, the transition makes clear sense, especially when it comes to saving money. But if they are allowed to carry guns, then it shouldn’t happen.
This issue needs to be discussed and decided now before the bills are even passed. I don’t think it is fair to the students to try and push that debate for a time “further down the road,” when any say or leverage the students might have had would largely be gone.
Armed policemen need to be talked about now, and we need to be promised that the discussion won’t happen “down the road.”
[email protected]