Law & order: can IHEs keep campus violence at bay? Our 'virtual roundtable' panelists--police chiefs and directors grappling with the issues at ground level--weigh in. (Crime On Campus).

It's August of 2000, and a graduate student at the University of Arkansas dismissed from the doctoral program charges into a university office with a .38 caliber revolver, shoots and kills his advisor, then turns the gun on himself. May 2001 arrives, and with it, another murder: A gunman with no affiliation to Pacific Lutheran University (WA) shoots a music professor in a bizarre, random killing related to a university employee. He, too, kills himself. A year later, in January 2002, a student placed on academic suspension from the Appalachian School of Law (VA) opens fire in the school's offices and a stairwell, killing a dean, a teacher, and a fellow student, and wounding three other students. Then, in October of the same year, a struggling nursing student at the University of Arizona guns down three nursing college professors, and, again, commits suicide in the wake of the devastation he has wrought.

Could these events have been prevented?

The University of Arizona, for one, has formed a special task force (apart from its Crisis Response team, in place since the 1980s) to address the issues raised by the shootings in the College of Nursing. Comprising nine smaller teams, it reports directly to the president of the university, and is reviewing whether the school could have done something differently to prevent the crime; whether its campus security policies are effective in crime prevention; and whether it needs to improve communications between students, faculty, and campus police to encourage timely reports of suspicious behavior, threats, and concerns.

Still, the randomly surfacing acts of violence have college and university administrators across the U.S. wondering if their own security plans are capable of thwarting such incidents on their campuses. Our "virtual roundtable" panelists--two representing IHEs that have suffered shooting incidents in the past; one representing a school that would like to aggressively prevent such tragedies--speak frankly about precisely how they are trying to keep violence in check in their own back yards.

University Business: How relevant to your own campus is what happened at the University of Arizona, for instance?

Megerson: It's relevant to all of us in that it could happen anywhere. At almost any college or university in the country, just as in any work environment, someone can go off the deep end and do something foolish. But we're not trying to react very quickly because it has happened somewhere else; we're already in tune with the possibilities. Still, when someone makes a threat, they're going to have to take some kind of step toward carrying out that threat before the police can do anything. So, even though this person at the University of Arizona may have been overheard making threats, it could've taken weeks for the police to be able to do anything with that--unless the threat itself was a violation of law or institutional policy. What's more, you can't possibly write a policy statement that will take every conceivable threat into account. If a student gets mad at his professor and says something like, "I wish someone would blow up that building," is that a threat? And if it is a threat, what would one expect the police or the institution to do? The institution cannot--except in the most extreme circumstances--require counseling for a student who makes an off-handed stress-related remark. That student has rights too, and the police and the institution must be very careful not to overstep their bounds by triggering an action that further jeopardizes the student. It's a tough line to walk.

Riseling: But you have to be aware that these kinds of things are going on, and take into consideration what led to the situation at the University of Arizona. If it could happen anywhere in America, it could happen on our campus. In fact, we had a shooting here in the '80s. A psychiatrist's client killed her and then turned the gun on himself. All right, Columbine certainly had not happened yet. But now, unfortunately, it happens more often than it used to.

Why is that?

Riseling: In my 20 years as a campus police chief, I've noticed that because of pharmaceuticals and treatment, we have more people in universities with severe mental illness problems. As long as they're medicated and they're doing what their therapists or doctors instruct, they can attend classes. But if they come off their meds and something happens to them that's more stressful than maybe their parents or classmates realize, you're moving toward a potentially threatening situation.

Slamons: At the University of Arkansas, we've learned that we needed to communicate better with the outside world. The press was here while our incident was still going on. They were there as the police arrived, and we hadn't even had a chance to put together any information. Our communications had broken down with regard to the ability to receive all the calls that were coming in. We were wiped out: out of a hundred calls coming in, only one got through. Now if an incident occurs, calls come into the switchboard and then go directly to a pretaped message that says there has been an incident, and it's under control. The message might also direct callers to our Web site for more information, or suggest calling back for updates. It can be set up in five minutes through our communications network; a number is immediately assigned and broadcast over TV, radio, and our Web site. We learned that you have to let people know the university is doing something proactive. You have to reassure parents; you've got to have that calming effect.

How important is it to have a policy in place that details how the campus deals with workplace violence, and instructs students, faculty, and administrators to deal with threatening situations or report threatening behavior?

Lowell: People don't tend to think about what happened at the University of Arizona as workplace violence, but it is. And in a traditional workplace, there is a workplace violence prevention program that includes training people to recognize signs of employees in distress. Then there is a mechanism for reporting those folks and getting them help. A college campus is no different; if you have a campus policy that works to prevent violent acts, you're ahead of the game.

Who should own the policy?

Lowell: The HR department should handle faculty and staff; the dean of students should handle the students. The plan should have a process for immediately reporting potential problems to either the Public Safety department or the dean, and then have a process in place to follow up, investigate, get help, and so forth.

What types of policies do you actually have in place at your institutions?

Riseling: If students or employees on our campus hear a threat or witness strange behavior on campus, they know precisely who to report to, based upon our Violence in the Workplace policy. And we send a letter to faculty and staff around the university, describing what to do about disruptive students: If a student has something to report, he goes to the Dean of Students office. If it's an employee, he goes to Human Relations. If it's an immediate threat, he comes right to the police, and bypasses those two offices. Staff can also get help from the Employee Assistance office, and students can go to the Counseling Center. The key lies in training the staff in those offices, rather than trying to train thousands of employees. It actually doesn't matter which office the threat gets reported to--all of them know how to respond by bringing our crisis groups together quickly to evaluate the situation. Our crisis groups usually consist of representatives from the university police, legal services, Dean of Students' office, and the counseling center if a student is involved--HR and EAP if it is a staff or faculty member.

Megerson: At Southwest Texas State, whenever there's a situation, a crisis response team is pulled together accordingly. Whenever we hear of an incident that in some way is traumatic to our students or staff, we have somebody to go and address that. It may be counselors, police, or business affairs people. It just depends on the situation. Let's say we hear about a suicide threat. We not only have our own counseling staff who make contact with the individual and offer their services, but if the police have been called in, we also have a local group funded through the state and the state hospital, which visits the individual to determine to the extent of the threat. For threats of any kind, we can make an incarceration recommendation for further evaluation, or recommend no further action.

Slamons: Our policy allows us to require an immediate psychological assessment of any student we've had a level of concern about. In other words, we'll just do it when a faculty member or another student flags us. The dean of students and a counseling center staffer will assess the situation and make a decision quickly. After the dean's initial assessment, the university police, the dean of students, vice chancellor, and associate vice chancellor meet to determine the appropriate action. The individual could be required to go to counseling, may be removed from the university for treatment, or whatever else might be appropriate. The university judicial board is also involved. The five faculty members and four students constitute an administrative board, not a criminal board, so they don't have to worry about attorneys intervening and the like. Then, pending the outcome of the assessment, the dean of students has the authority to place that student on interim suspension. In these cases, if students are suspended or if they're deemed no longer part of the campus, they may be placed in a particular status. Say there was an incident in an academic building: Those in the building are notified that the individual is no longer permitted at the university, and we should be called if he's seen on the premises. If the incident is larger--for instance, we're looking for a person who committed an assault--a campus wide safety bulletin is sent out, saying that we are looking for the individual. If the individual returns to campus, we can remove him for trespassing.

Are "workplace" violence policies becoming more commonplace on college campuses? Are they enough to thwart the truly violent crimes we're talking about? Moreover, can a policy--one of thousands of campus documents--get the message across to students and faculty to immediately report threats to campus security?

Lowell: My guess is that they are not prevalent on campuses. There are so many companies you'd expect to have such programs, and they don't, that I would be surprised if the academic world was way ahead of corporate America. But it's something that everybody needs to be looking at.

Riseling: I can guarantee you that the average University of Wisconsin student has never looked at the policy documents for the school. So in that sense, a policy is not going to make a difference in getting people to come forward with their tidbit of information. Yet policy is important for the institution, so that it knows what it can expect from itself, and so that there is some guideline in the event somebody does bring something forward that needs to be dealt with. But as far as students go, you've got to reach enough of them so that they might turn to someone else and say, "What would you do, if--?" Then you hope that the people they're turning to will step back and think, "Okay, this is probably bigger than me. Let me think about where I can turn in this enormous, complex university, and who might be of help to me." Anything to get the information moving toward the apparatus that can respond. At our school, members of the campus police department talk to students at all the orientation sessions at the beginning of the year. We train RAs, and they talk to students in the residence halls. We also talk to students about things they are more likely to come in contact with--drugs, theft, sexual assault, and alcohol. Still, students want information when they need it. So, Web-based stuff is more effective. If we give them 20 different brochures at orientation, they're going to end up in a trash can. Then, three months later when the students need the information, they won't have it. But if they remember your Web page, they may log on at 3 o'clock in the morning to read about the issue they're faced with. So, getting all our brochures on our Web site is a work in progress.

Megerson: At Southwest Texas, residential students are given information about campus security in the RA-held meetings. They are told that if they are aware of a threat to themselves or others, they have a responsibility to come forward and share the information. But the bulk of our population is commuting students. They're encouraged, at orientation and through special programs, to report things that are of a suspicious nature to our Non-traditional Students Organization. It's not the same as having an RA, but it's pretty close.

Slamons: Keep in mind that when you're dealing with a college, you're dealing on an annual basis with a turnover population. You can never say, "Well, we've taken care of it." As soon as you say that, you've messed up. The University of Arkansas's associate vice chancellor for Student Affairs and dean of students have done an outstanding job in making sure that they relate to the students on this campus. They're now in the process of putting together a manual for students and faculty that talks about dealing with disruptive behavior. It discusses what to do if a student appears to be dangerous, possible sanctions that can be addressed, and what disruptive behavior is.

The University of Arizona is instituting a series of workshops for instructors that focus on assessing mental health risks and identifying people in trouble. Is this a good approach?

Lowell: You can't expect lay people to be mental health professionals. Training has to focus on signs of behavior that are indicators of a potential problem, and reporting methods. We can certainly be trained to recognize that if a person is usually meticulous and now all of a sudden she becomes slovenly, something may be troubling her. Or if a person who is normally always on time, starts showing up late and missing classes, there may be a problem. Those are the sorts of things you talk about in a workshop. And while it's politically difficult to make such workshops mandatory, it's not a bad idea; a lot of faculty probably would not attend if they didn't have to.

Megerson: We don't have such a plan. The psychiatrists and the counseling staff have enough difficulty making assessments and they have the degrees to do it. I'm not sure you can train instructional staff or lay people to make those kinds of judgments.

Riseling: Workshops are absolutely a good idea. We hold workshops periodically before school starts and throughout the semesters, to discuss how faculty should approach a situation and when they should be reaching out to get other people to help them think the situation through. But they're not mandatory. In an academic setting people deeply resent being told what to do, and on this campus that's especially true if it's something the police want. We do get a good turnout, however.

What about that police issue? Are you taking measures to make campus police more visible on your campus and to foster better communication between police officers, students, faculty and administration?

Riseling: People have to be willing to come forward and they will only do that if they feel comfortable with who they are reporting to. So at Wisconsin, every residence hall has a "liaison" officer. We believe very strongly in community policing and have defined "neighborhoods." Some officers have academic buildings; others have residence halls or apartments. They make themselves visible and available to the staff, faculty, and students.

Megerson: The tradition at many campuses is to put the police department in the basement, in the back of a building, or on the perimeter of the campus. Our goal was to place the police department at the heart of the campus, where we're easily accessible. In addition, our officers walk the residential halls--not because there's a problem or a crime, but because they want to interact with the students. We've also built an outreach-center kiosk in the student center, staffed by officers; the students can speak directly with them. We've received some grants from COPS, the [Justice Department's] community-oriented policing service [www.cops.usdoj.gov]. So we were able to get seven new officers for the department, four of which were assigned to crime prevention. Their entire function is to be "out there," engaging and communicating with faculty, students, and staff; and conducting programs. We're there all the time, not just when there's a problem. The idea is not to be reactive, but to he responsive.

Lowell: Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale and Davie, FL, has done some outstanding things. They now have two on-site investigators. Anything that happens on campus that would normally be investigated by the city police department, is investigated by their own investigators. They work with the City of Davie Police Department, which patrols their area. And two Davie police officers are permanently assigned to the campus with patrol vehicles. Those two officers never change. They know everybody--who's supposed to be there, and who isn't. They know the campus backwards and forwards. There's a big difference between a campus where you call the Public Safety Department and an anonymous police officer shows up, versus seeing the same two guys day in, day out. It's a terrific program.

Even with the aforementioned measures in place, does more need to be done to prevent acts of violence from occurring on campus?

Riseling: Prevention is linked in many ways to information flow. The information must be gathered and then acted upon in a timely manner. Yet, in this society, with the freedoms we have and want to preserve, it is not possible to prevent all acts of violence, no matter how good we are and how many resources we put toward it. The fact of the matter is we don't have endless resources. If we wanted to put the level of resources it would take into preventing the kind of thing that happened at the University of Arizona, we almost could not do anything else. It takes enormous resources to find out who the problem child is, and to figure out how we can deter him before he acts out. To use those resources to check someone out to see if he is a potential problem, is also an invasion of normal people's lives; we could do that to the point where they wouldn't tolerate it. The art of this is to apply things when and where needed--and that's far from an exact science. We need to put our resources into what is going on a frequent basis: for instance, which kids are dying from drinking too much alcohol. We have to be reasonable about what we can and cannot do. Right now, we have a policy; ways of informing people about it; a police force trained to respond rapidly to active shooters; investigators who can perform threat assessments if alerted. At some point you say, "We've done a lot in this area and we pray to God that it's sufficient, but we have to move on." As to the American mindset that everything is preventable--in a perfect world, maybe. But it's just not a perfect world.

ROUNDTABLE PARTICIPANTS:

John Megerson, Police Director, Southwest Texas State University

Susan Riseling, Police Chief, University of Wisconsin, and Chair of the University and College Division of the Int'l Association of Chiefs of Police

Larry Slamons, Chief of Police, University of Arkansas

Peter Lowell Global Director of Executive Protection, Kroll Worldwide