Building Safer Campuses

Patrick I. Romero-Aldaz

Considering the climate in higher education post Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, institutions of higher educations have been held responsible for the safety of their students where it could be demonstrated that the injury to a students was foreseeable or that there was a history of similar events that gave rise to the injury. (Kaplin & Lee, 2007, chap. 7). As a result, colleges and universities have been examining their role in providing for campus safety.

According to the Violent Victimization of College Students report (Baum & Klaus, 2005), compiled with data from 1995 to 2002, college students were victims to approximately 479,000 crimes of violence annually. With such high rates of crime ranging from individual incidents to mass school shootings this subject has become a major topic of conversation. The occurrence of violence has resulted in an environment where campus administrators and government officials are scrambling to determine what proper steps must be taken to ensure a safe campus and to protect our students.

One way in which such steps have been taken is through continued revision and clarification the Jeanne Clery Act. Enacted in 1990, and Revised in 1998, the legislation aims to provide crime information to current and prospective students and employees, educate students and staff about campus crime so that they may better protect themselves, and reduce crime (Gregory & Janosik, 2002). A key component of the legislation requires that campus administrators provide timely warning when dangerous crimes occur on campus (Janosik & Plummer, 2005).

The subject of timely warning has been gaining traction as a major part of this conversation in that many administrators cite lack of clarity in the legislation as a major deterrent to compliance (Gehring & Callaway, 1997). McNeal (2007) reports that of Law Enforcement Officers participating in her study, 86% of them indicated that ambiguity in the law made compliance and reporting difficult. This issue of effectiveness brings to light the question of how institutions are fulfilling the requirements of the legislation. Further if the vast majority of law enforcement officials find it difficult to comply with the expectations of the legislation, how is that we can expect for hundreds of thousands of university administrators act in similar fashions using very broadly defined parameters.

The 2010 revisions of the definitions and requirements for Clery as a result of the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings require institutions to act in a “timely fashion” in notifying students when an “immediate danger” is present. The issue at hand is that no one knows what these terms mean and who defines what is “timely” or “immediate.” Further, when working with an environment in which a majority of students remain unaware of the legislation or its purpose, don’t read the reports, and fail to use the information provided in their personal decision-making (Janosik & Ghering, 2001), how is it possible to create environments where institutions and their constituent bodies share responsibility for creating safer campus environments?

In order to reach this goal of creating shared communities where safety is a defining factor, higher education must partner with those communities to assess expectations. Sells (1999) comments on the need for creating partnerships with parents [and students] to enhance the educational process and to help develop a shared sense of responsibility. These partnerships can and should begin as students are examining schools to apply to. Institutions need to integrate these conversations into their orientation programs, and students need to be socialized to understand and share responsibility for safe behaviors and campus culture.

McNeal (2007) concludes the findings of her research discussing the current state higher education and increased demands with diminishing resources. With this in mind, it is essential that proper training and support be given to administrators so that compliance and creation of safe campus communities can more readily be realized. The Clery Act and its expectations do not represent a one-stop solution, but rather serve as a mechanism by which Higher education can demonstrate its commitment to the importance safe campuses. Through the realization of this commitment, higher education administrators must commit to building those crucial partnerships and having difficult conversations about shared responsibility not just to one another, but also a greater necessity to become more educated and to act upon that knowledge.

References

Gehring, D.D. & Callaway, R.L. (1997). Compliance with the notice requirement of the Campus Security Act. College and University, 73, 13-18.

Gregory, D.E. & Janosik, S.M. (2002). The Clery Act: How Effective is it? Perceptions from the field, the current state of research and recommendations for improvement. The Stetson Law Review, 32(1), 7-60.

Janosik, S.M. & Gehring, D.D. (2001). The impact of the Jeanne Clery Act Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and the Campus Crime Statistics Act on student decision making. EPI Policy Paper, No. 10. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.

Janosik, S.M.,& Plummer, E. (2005). The Clery Act, campus safety and the views of assault victim advocates. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(1), 116-130.

Kaplin, W.A., & Lee, B.A. (2007). The Law of Higher Education: Student Version (4^th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McNeal, L.R. (2007). Clery Act: Road to Compliance. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 19, 105-113.

Sells D., (2002). Parents and Campus Safety. New Directions for Student Services, 99, 25-35. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2005) Victimization of College Students, 1995-2002. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, D.C.: Baum, K. & Klaus, P.