I came to Princeton with the preconception that it is a safe, insular campus — no officers roaming around with guns, and no need for such either. And for the past year, I have always felt safe on a gun-free campus. So when I first heard the news of Department of Public Safety officers soon having access to firearms, I was, to say the least, unsettled.
There are some limitations in place, as covered in the breaking news article in The Daily Princetonian. Guns can only be used ‘“to respond to an active shooter or someone brandishing a firearm’” on campus — only an “imminent danger,” however that may be defined — and will only be granted to fully trained police officers in the DPS. Nonetheless, even this information did not assuage my initial discomfort.
Princeton has always had a gun-free policy, even though the policy has been challenged before. In 2008, the Fraternal Order of the Police, the DPS’s police union, filed a complaint with OSHA claiming, “the University’s policy of not allowing Public Safety officers to carry guns was an occupational hazard.” Back then, OSHA ruled against the need for guns.
Again in 2013, the Fraternal Order of the Police recommended a change in the gun policy, but Princeton again did not budge. Then President Emeritus Shirley Tilghman stressed her resolve to maintain a gun-free community. The administration argued that, in the wake of an emergency, the local police departments would be able to respond to the situation with firearms of their own.
Less than two years have elapsed, so why do we suddenly need to bring guns to our campus? DPS Executive Director Paul Ominsky asserts, ‘“The national best practices for responding to an active shooter have evolved,”’ especially in light of recent situations with armed shooters on campuses. But is recent gun violence on college campuses a compelling enough reason? There is no evidence that links gun-free zones with a greater instance of gun violence, according to Media Matters.
I understand the heightened concerns for students’ safety. In the wake of tragic shooting rampages across the country, notably in Oregon and my home state Arizona, no one wants to see another tragedy befall any school campus again. However, the decision to keep campus gun-free has never compromised our safety. Nor has the local police’s ability to respond to on-campus emergencies ever proven inadequate. In the case of an emergency, trained, armed police would be ready to dispatch to campus, merely a four-minute car ride — if not less — away. While I agree with Ominsky that “a few minutes can make a difference to save a life,” arguably it would take the same length of time to dispatch officers from DPS as it would to dispatch officers from the local borough.
As the role of campus police is being reconsidered regarding access to firearms, we must ask exactly what kind of firearms Public Safety officers will have access to. Various news sources say rifles; why specifically is there a need for rifles? Have Taser guns and chemical or pepper spray been definitively ruled out?
Colleges have offered “the active-shooter scenario” as a warrant for the need for such military-grade rifles; many have armed their police officers and campus military arsenals have grown over time. In fact, the Pentagon has provided more than 130 universities with surplus military-grade weapons, such as M-16s, having granted more than $12 million in weapons and equipment, according to The Marshall Project. The Department of Defense’s 1033 program transfers surplus military equipment for free to many campus police departments, both public and private colleges, according to The New York Times. Could Princeton receive equipment too?
Most importantly, we need to answer the question of whether arming our officers will definitively make our campus safer — or rather, whether our students and faculty will feel safer as a result.
The likelihood is small, but more importantly we should consider the other consequences of an armed DPS. While officers won’t be carrying firearms, as students become more aware of on-hand access to guns, the willingness to engage in protests may go down. Plus, an imminent threat or danger may be presumed with the presence of guns on campus.
Moreover, this decision may lead to a slippery slope of who can carry weapons on campus. If the main issue is concerning the safety of our campus, then students and faculty could contend that they too should be able to carry a weapon for their own protection.
This is not a solution to stopping gun violence on college campuses. This is not a deterrent or preventative measure. This is part of a larger problem. We should allocate more resources towards implementing greater security measures to minimize the probability of gun violence. Bringing guns onto campus will not stop others from doing the same.
Ominsky, in a recent ‘Prince’ article, argues that “There are times when administrators will act on behalf of the community for that purpose, so we did not consult with students.” But when it is our safety — the students’ safety — on the line, shouldn’t administrators and DPS officials treat us with enough respect to consult with us? This is a conversation that should take place with input from all of us — if the safety of the community is truly the concern.
Sarah Sakha is a sophomore from Scottsdale, Ariz. She can be reached at ssakha@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton needs to be a climate justice leader — emphasis on the ‘climate,’ emphasis on the ‘justice’
Alex Norbrook and Eleanor Clemans-Cope“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
