The Targeted Classroom and Creating Deterrence Through Publicity
At the All Hazards Training Center, we train and consult in a myriad of safety and security areas. Those areas include both counter-terrorism and assisting in the protection of college campuses and schools. Recently, we’ve started to consider those two areas as overlapping circles.
Americans are accustomed, sadly, to a series of ‘lone gunman’ events at schools and college campuses throughout the US. Such incidents are most often discovered to be the work of a single, troubled person (as with Virginia Tech in 2007) or a small band of vengeful, suicidal criminals (as with Columbine). While they don’t meet the FBI definition of ‘terrorism’, campus tragedies like these may be considered as such by lay people. Perhaps that’s because the public lumps such incidents into simple categories, and most people aren’t aware of the true definition of the word.
Regardless, college campuses are a target-rich environment for those who we might commonly define as terrorists. Those who organize to strike public places might soon conspire to attack an institution of higher learning as a symbol of their cultural or political enemy.
The Jeanne Clery Act of 1998 is a little-publicized federal law that requires colleges and universities to disclose campus crime statistics. The most common beneficiaries of this regulation are knowledge-seeking parents and students, who wish to establish for themselves the safety level of a prospective college. And as a conduit of information for that purpose, the Clery Act is invaluable.
The downside is that the publication of campus crime information can also help a terrorist group profile a college as a likely target. Schools with higher crime rates can logically be assumed to be those with more flaws in their security services and routines.
Colleges and universities are the lifeblood of public discourse and research. To serve that purpose well – for the campus community to really think – a certain feeling of comfort and freedom is essential. Those conditions, however, may allow for unfettered access to any number of busy administration buildings and classrooms. Non-residents often easily enter even residence halls, where gateway security may be most common.
Institutions of higher learning are perfect emotional targets, too, since they are populated by young adults, who most still think of as “kids.” Any disaster at a large or well-known university will attract the highest level of media attention.
Colleges do have tools for terrorism defense, however. The US Department of Education website lists the most logical means of terrorism prevention and deterrence for post-secondary schools, from building stronger alliances with law enforcement to increasing video surveillance. Trouble is, many colleges face serious budget shortfalls now and in the near future. So security upkeep is difficult.
But colleges can do one thing on the cheap that might well deter terrorist groups from targeting their campuses: put a ‘beware of dog’ sign in the yard.
When a school makes security plans or improvements of any kind, those actions should be trumpeted as loudly as any significant research finding. College administrators are happy to brag about everything from a recent football victory to the construction of a new classroom building. At Findlay, we remind them to also boast of tight, smart security, and of a culture of security consciousness that stretches across their campus community. Like the homeowner who uses a window sign to portray his common beagle as a trained Doberman, colleges should publicly depict their plans to protect against terrorism as ironclad.
Naturally, we would never advocate creating a false security curtain. All institutions of higher learning need to be constantly vigilant and defensive against all forms of crime and terrorism. But they should never be quiet about their efforts. They must let the world know – with a loud noise – that they are on guard.
