In the wake of the Oct 1 shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, President Obama called upon lawmakers to end the “routine” of mass shootings in America. Unlike his response to the Sandy Hook shooting in 2013, when Mr. Obama unveiled ambitious proposals to curb gun violence, the president opted against announcing any new gun control initiatives. Acknowledging his inability to navigate a gridlocked Congress, Mr. Obama observed that there is “a gun for roughly every man, woman and child in America… If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your view.”
Congress reflected the nation’s divided view on gun control by backpedaling on Mr. Obama’s 2013 efforts to increase background checks. In a HuffPost/YouGov survey conducted just a month after the Sandy Hook shooting, 50% of respondents voiced support for stronger gun regulations, as compared to 43% that felt laws should remain unchanged. Having failed to achieve passage by Congress of an extensive bill, Mr. Obama signed an executive order requiring colleges to ramp up safety procedures by establishing “model emergency response plans.”
Reports gathered by the AP, however, indicate that neither the executive action nor a 2007 law requiring colleges to publicize their emergency response plans has resulted in a uniform policy to address potential shootings. Studying the security measures in place at public colleges and universities in 40 states, the AP found that institutions vary in efforts to infuse campus culture with an awareness of safety issues. Some schools incorporate “active shooter” training into freshman orientation, while others relegate procedures to a brief online mention. At the Colorado School of Mines and Arkansas State University, for example, students are required to hear presentations on how to respond to a crisis. The presentations are followed by a discussion on whether the best course of action is to run, hide or fight back.
The AP review found that most schools rely on alert systems, such as a campus-wide emails, to warn students of potential threats. To further bolster safety, some colleges have moved to hire armed officers. These officers conduct drills with law enforcement authorities and oversee threat-assessment teams that determine whether an overheard remark or an essay laden with violence may serve as warning sign. Many of these measures are credited with saving lives. When a gunman shot students at a Florida State University library in 2013, campus police responded within minutes. Fewer than two weeks before the crisis, these officers had participated in active shooter training that included a scenario with a gunman at the library.
The effective coordination of safety officers, however, may mask issues campus awareness of emergency procedure. While most schools have created online guides or brochures to advise the community of its options, these resources are not always easily accessible. Richard Turton, chairman of West Virginia University’s Faculty Senate, said he wasn’t familiar with his school’s active shooter plan until a reporter’s question prompted him to do some digging. He found a PowerPoint presentation and videos on the university’s website. “I would suspect many faculty who are very busy would tend to not look at those things unless they’re sort of prompted several times,” Turton said. Matt Barnes, a freshman civil engineering student at the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus, also struggled to understand his school’s active shooter policy. During his orientation, Barnes received a booklet that outlined the school’s emergency notification procedures, but its lacked information on how to respond to an armed intrusion.
Further complicating the communication of a concrete emergency policy, plans to address shootings vary from campus to campus. Many schools have adopted the run, hide or fight-back training promoted by the FBI. Others have embraced the procedures developed by the I Love U Guys Foundation, which urges students to lock themselves in classrooms if feasible.
Compounding the problem of misinformation is student perceptions of campus safety. In January 2013, only 41% of respondents in a Campus Safety poll “strongly agreed” their schools had “the appropriate emergency crisis up to date.” About 29% strongly agreed that their campus was “adequately prepared to respond to an active shooter.” On the staff’s end, only 14% of 650 respondents strongly agreed that “the public safety/emergency management department(s) at [their] institution [had] enough staff to respond appropriately to incidents.”
Connecticut College, for its part, relies upon coordination between local police forces and its 25 Campus Safety officers to handle a crisis. According to Stewart Smith, Director of Campus Safety, the “department is well-staffed for the duties and responsibilities we have. We are fortunate to be located in a small city where we know the local police departments well and where it only takes minutes for New London or Waterford police to respond to campus when needed.”
An Emergency Response Plan, located under the “Documents and Policies” tab of CamelWeb, outlines Conn’s response to a number of danger situations. In the event of a potential shooting, Campus Safety would dispatch officers to the scene and contact the New London Police. Once the police arrive, Smith says, “Campus Safety officers would brief them on the situation and then NLPD would be in charge with our full cooperation and assistance.”
The College’s emergency plan, adopted in 2007, is reviewed on a yearly basis by emergency response team players. The team, whose members are drawn from Student Life, Communications and Campus Safety, may revise the plan as they see fit. To understand the concerns of students, campus officers work in consultation with the student-run Campus Safety. A blue light system, for example, was installed on campus to address issues raised in committee.
A strong working relationship among both students and officers in the New London area provides flexibility in revising policy. Smith notes that, “Every time one of these incidents happen at other campuses, we review the actions taken and discuss any lessons we can take from it to better prepare on our own campus.” Since the Virginia Tech shooting, Connecticut College has contracted an outside firm to send text messages and emails with instructions on how to respond to a shooting incident. The college also maintains a CARE Team (Concern, Assessment, Response, Evaluation) that provides coordinated support for students showing signs of distress.
By sitting in on routine tabletop drills, Smith feels that Campus Safety better understand how to coordinate with the local police in emergency situations. The most recent two-hour drills, held Aug. 12 and Oct. 6, were followed by extensive discussion and analysis. In Smith’s view, Campus Safety works effectively with local police forces because both approach emergency situations with the same philosophy. Smith observes, “In [his] 25 years here, these departments have always responded very quickly to the needs of the College. We share the same goal: to keep our community safe.” •
