Printer Friendly

Big plan on campus.

THE FUTURE OF CAMPUS SECUrity is guided by its past. Only by understanding where it has been and where it is now can campus security determine where it needs to go. The history of security on college campuses provides the basis for charting the "big plan" for campus security. Although the historical literature on American campus security is limited, it suggests that security provided an element of control in response to increased violence and student demonstrations. This article, however, provides a different explanation for the development of campus security and is based on a recently completed, institution-specific comparative case study* of Transylvania University in Lexington, KY, and Berea College in Berea, KY The research indicated that campus security evolved largely as a response to the need for control over outsiders. Outsiders represent a university's fear of individuals or groups who pose a threat to campus inhabitants and property. The history of campus security represents a unique infrastructure that dates back to the 15th century. At that time, at Oxford University, individuals performing what could be described as security-related activities were referred to as "bedels." As servants appointed to execute the orders of the chancellor and the proctor, they would serve writs, collect fines, and escort evildoers to prison. The bedels were charged with keeping order, making lists of offenders, and enforcing punishments and fines. Money collected from the fines was used to pay the bedels for maintaining security on the campus at night. Yale University adopted the first formal campus security department in 1894. Prior to that, crime and student violence were handled informally with the assistance of the Blue Skin Club, which was started by Julian Sturtevants, a Yale undergraduate. Sturtevants, along with three friends, formed the club to monitor violations of college rules. As a result of the increased strain on relations between students and residents and the recommendation of a special task force, local police were used at night to patrol the campus. Ultimately, these officers were hired away from the city to form the Yale campus police. The history of student control has been described as a struggle between students and administrators for control. That struggle explains student unrest, violence on campus, and the subsequent initial impetus for campus security. The Revolutionary War brought about many factors that led to student revolt. The purpose and role of higher education in the United States became less defined. Students entering college during the postwar years pursued a path different from their predecessors, who were usually preparing for the ministry. The new students were not as willing to accept administrative and faculty demands passively.

Postrevolutionary presidents and professors had been trained as ministers in 18th century colleges. Their philosophies and ideologies contrasted violently with the new student culture. They were unyielding to student complaints and consistently traditional in disciplinary actions.

The colleges' control over students was supported by local communities, which feared civil disorder. The continual war between faculty and students etched out a student culture very different from that of the 18th century. Student control both on campus and off was a major concern for college administrators and faculty, who normally handled all disciplinary action. Not surprisingly, faculty-student relations were bitter and confrontational.

Little is written about pre-1950s campus security except for references to night watchmen, who usually came from the physical plant or buildings and grounds departments. The night watchman was the predecessor to the modem campus security officer.

During the early 20th century the watchman's responsibilities varied but normally consisted of performing maintenance-orientated tasks, checking locks and lights, and watching for fires.

With the advent of prohibition in the early 1930s the watchman acquired the additional responsibility of reporting such violations as staying out past curfew, drinking on campus, and entertaining members of the opposite sex in dormitories.

Although the concept of security in the university setting began as a fire watch system commonly staffed by night watchmen, in the years following World War II more colleges began to develop formal security departments. The student demonstrations of the 1960s were instrumental in increasing the number of those departments across the country.

The '60s also represented a change in the role of the administration. The concept of "in loco parentis," or serving in place of a parent, was replaced by legal concepts that recognized students' civil rights and responsibilities. Consequently, the campus assumed a more open atmosphere that recognized students' fights as citizens.

Changes from restricted and sexually segregated dormitories to an environment with coeducational residences resulted in a significant social transformation of college campuses.

During the mid- to late-1970s, campus security departments experienced even greater growth. Often, the growth followed violent crimes on campus.

CAMPUS SECURITY CAN BEST BE DEscribed as a service infrastructure that has evolved in response to a perceived obligation by the administration to provide a safe and secure environment for the campus community.

The service orientation refers to the handling of a variety of situations in which the law may have been violated but the campus security officer chooses to deal with the situation without resorting to the criminal justice system.

For example, an officer may intervene to arbitrate quarrels, pacify the unruly, and aid people in trouble. With a service orientation the officer continuously looks for violations so that he or she can intervene and perhaps avoid the need for an arrest.

In contrast, campus security officers with a law enforcement orientation often approach situations by invoking criminal statutes. Their goal is to make an arrest or report a person's actions so meted out. That orientation is consistent with student control and emphasizes a need to maintain law and order within the campus community.

The student demonstrations of the 1960s not only increased the number of security departments but also enhanced their responsibilities. To diminish the watchman image of campus security officers, many universities promoted a law enforcement orientation for their security departments.

The explanation provided that campus security developed because administrators needed another means of controlling students does not adequately describe what took place historically at the private colleges examined in this article.

The years before and after the Civil War saw no notable student unrest at either of the colleges studied. Rules governing student control were relatively unchanged and consistently enforced until the end of the 19th century. Contrary to the historical discourse, controlling students was not a great concern to the leaders of those two private colleges.

The issue of service, however, continues to play a significant role in campus security. The historical analysis points to the importance of service and of providing a safe and secure environment on those campuses.

Interestingly, campus security at both private colleges had few, if any, problems with controlling students. The object of control for campus security was not the student but the outside criminal preying on the unsuspecting campus community.

That purpose suggests colleges have not completely relinquished the concept of "in loco parentis." In fact, that doctrine is very much alive at the colleges studied and is one of the guiding forces behind campus security.

However, the parental role emphasized is that of protection rather than discipline. At those two colleges, control over students has never completely been out of the administration's hands. The growth and development of security can be attributed to concern for providing a safe and secure environment. The accompanying chart shows that every increase in staffing was preceded by an act of violence or crime against the college or the campus community.

The perceived need for control over students has been linked closely with the history of campus security. Therefore, understanding that control is critical to explaining campus security in the United States.

What the historical argument has not taken into consideration, however, are issues relating to service versus enforcement orientation and the significance of corresponding policies and procedures.

The literature barely addresses policies and procedures and their relative importance in defining role orientation. Both public and private universities clearly lack direction in their support role. Guidance that could help clarify campus security policy is a scarce commodity.

What is the effect of policies and procedures on role orientation? The following questions were asked of administrators, faculty, students, and officers at the two colleges:

* Who establishes policies and procedures for the campus security department on issues relating to student discipline, rules of conduct, crimes, and offenses?

* Is the perception of campus security's role by faculty, students, and the administration compatible with the orientation of the security department?

* If the perception is incompatible, what impact does that incompatibility have on policy formation and program effectiveness?

Predictably, the mission statements for both colleges were similar, emphasizing the importance of providing an atmosphere free from fear of personal harm, property loss, or accident. The purpose of the security department could best be described as creating and maintaining a feeling of confidence among the campus community.

Interestingly, though they have generic policy statements, both security departments operate without specific procedural guidelines. They rely primarily on "management by memo." with that type of management for officers is that it provides minimal direction on decisions they may have to make where specific policy has not been established. "Management by memo" is similar to management by crisis," in which decisions are made after the fact.

Both departments have service-oriented policy statements, and descriptions of officers' responsibilities clearly emphasize service. Therefore, the current management method directly conflicts with the approach suggested in the departments' mission statements.

Interviews at the colleges showed that perceptions vary dramatically among students, faculty, the administration, and even the officers themselves. The confusion over role orientation is linked to policy and procedural deficiencies. Moreover, the lack of policies and procedures often results in frustration and a decline in morale.

Campus security should focus on internal issues and becoming a more effective support service to the campus community. Success in the future depends on the development of sound policies and procedures for providing a high quality of service that results in a safe and secure college environment. Campus security should be viewed as a requisite component of American higher education and an integral part of the cam us infrastructure.2
COPYRIGHT 1992 American Society for Industrial Security
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:campus security
Author:Collins, Pam
Publication:Security Management
Article Type:Cover Story
Date:Mar 1, 1992
Words:1689
Previous Article:What's in store with EAS.
Next Article:The secure store: a clean, well-lighted place.
Topics:


Related Articles
Painful lessons.
State higher education experiences building boom.
Baruch College opens doors to new academic complex. (Design and Development).
Clues to Campus Crime reports.
Beyer Blinder Belle gets accepted by Princeton.
Campus IT trends.
Wi-Fi growth.
VoIP use grows at colleges and universities.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters