A lot of noise, but that’s about itBrown's new security systems

For the past year, Brown University has been hard at work on a number of well-intentioned but misguided efforts to improve the safety of its students. I will discuss three of these efforts in this article: first, a siren, and second, a text-messaging system, both intended to counter school shootings; and, third, a campaign to distribute “PAL” noise systems, intended to deter muggings and other personal attacks. As will be made clear, all of them suffer from the problem of being overly reactionary and passive. The former two do nothing to counter a Virginia Tech-style attacker, and the latter is impotent at best.

Consider, first, our lovely new campus siren. A year in the making (primarily because of bureaucratic hurdles with the Providence City Council), the system employs several loudspeakers that sound off at 110 decibels, with the capacity to carry spoken messages as well as an alarm. According to Vice President of Administration Walter Hunter (“Emergency alert system,” The Brown Daily Herald, 29 Feb.), the system was developed as a response to the Virginia Tech massacre of April 16, 2007, in which 32 individuals were killed by a student gunman. Hunter stated that the system would be used during three potential crises: a hostile intruder on campus, a toxic chemical release nearby, or a natural disaster without adequate prior warning (such as a tornado).

This is reasonable, but the limits of the siren system are clear. During the initial test, students indoors, especially in northern classrooms, such as on Pembroke Campus, could not hear the noise. Hunter himself stated that the purpose of the siren was mostly to get students to move indoors in the event of danger, and so this was not a huge concern.

Of course, given that the system was ostensibly put into place as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings, this makes absolutely no sense. Seung-Hui Cho was able to kill 32 individuals and wound 25 others primarily because his victims were bunched together in classrooms. And most of his victims were killed within a single classroom building – Norris Hall. Indeed, most school shootings are concentrated in one area; the very recent Northern Illinois University shootings, for example, all took place within a single classroom. It is fairly clear that telling students to go indoors would not have helped matters, at least during these incidents.

Brown’s other new alert system – mass text-messaging – is more promising, though similarly flawed. By the time an email alert was sent during the Virgina Tech Massacre, Cho had time to return home, rearm, mail a package, proceed across campus, and claim 30 additional victims; an alert after these first shootings (had they been discovered, which is always an issue) might have saved many lives. Noting this, Brown, along with a number of other colleges around the country, has deployed an “inCampusAlert” system developed by Mir3. This system allows for mass emails, text-messages, and voicemails, at a cost of approximately $25,000 per year, plus standard text-message charges (usually ten cents per message). Mir3 is well regarded, and its customers include such notables as the U.S. Air Force, the Red Cross, and Homeland Security’s National Medical Response Teams.

Mir3’s system is used at St. John’s University, where it has seen a live trial. As chronicled by The New York Times (“More Adventures in Emergency Text Messaging,” Sept. 28, 2007), St. John’s used the system with reasonable success following the arrest of a gunman on campus and suspicion that a second might be at-large. Students were rather bluntly apprised of the situation, and told to remain indoors. Unfortunately, the message took seven minutes to pass through the cellular network to students’ phones.

inCampusAlert is clearly superior to the siren system, and the two do complement one another in spreading alert messages. More than half of Brown students have registered their phone numbers with the system, and, given word of mouth, this may be nominally adequate to spread the word of an attack. However, like the siren, inCampusAlert affords absolutely no preventative protection. It would probably reduce casualties in the event of a drawn-out or dispersed shooting spree, but only in one type of situation: if the police are alerted (triggering the message’s being sent) but fail to contain the situation in the first few minutes. This is a potentiality far better addressed by improving the response time of Brown’s police force. It affords no first-line defense, and is dependent upon the often-clogged cellular networks for delivery. Indeed, as is well known to students, many campus locations do not get cellular service at all. inCampusAlert certainly transcends security theater, and I am quite glad that we have it. But as a response to Virginia Tech, it once again misses the point.

Brown’s passive, pacifistic attitude toward safety extends to personal defense, as well. As of the time of this writing, the Department of Public Safety is making a concerted effort to market its “free” (subsidized by your tuition, of course) “personal noise systems,” in order to “assist students in taking a more active role in their personal safety.” These bulky and somewhat awkward devices emit noise at 130 decibels and flash with light. As a way to scare the living daylights out of your roommate, they are absolutely fantastic. But as a mechanism for personal defense, they are basically useless. As irritating to the user as to the attacker, they will, at best, alert passers-by to an attack. As is well known, cries for help are frequently, and unfortunately, ignored.

As a best-case scenario, imagine that you are walking home at night, and an armed attacker demands your wallet. You instead draw out the equivalently-sized sound device (that has been bulging out of your pocket and making you a laughing stock all evening), and smirk as you pull the cord. A security officer nearby hears the noise, and runs over to assist. The security officer’s walkie talkie (his only weapon, of course – it’s Brown!) is rendered useless by the deafening noise, and so the mugger, now irate, takes his wallet, too, before casually walking away. You are no longer smirking. When the Brown or Providence Police actually arrive, you are wallet-less, humiliated, and your ears are still ringing. It is, unfortunately, little surprise that DPS is left boasting that “over a dozen” of Brown’s 5,500 undergraduates have asked for one of these devices.

As I wrote last month (”Shooting Back: Gun Rights and Student Responsibility,” The Brown Spectator, VI:5), Northern Illinois University Police responded to a shooter within 90 seconds, and I certainly hope that DPS would be equivalently hasty. But to be clear, 90 seconds is a very long time to fire bullets at students lined up in classroom seats. I suggested that, if otherwise qualified students (age, background check, training, etc.) were allowed concealed-carry permits like every other member of the community, the small number of students (say 0.5-1%) who would acquire such a permit would, statistically, afford a reasonable probability that one or more students would be armed against an attack, especially in a large classroom. Not wishing to reiterate my entire article again, I will say here only that universities, especially those that wish to instill a sense of empowerment in their students, would do far better to advance, rather than hinder, the right to self defense.

I am well aware that Brown would never allow students to carry handguns, despite whatever arguments I might make. However, there are directional steps that the University could take to make the defense of its students a more active, rather than passive, affair. In 2006, Brown began arming and training its police, and this should be extended to all campus safety officers. And at relatively low cost, Brown police officers, perhaps even in plain clothes, could regularly attend large lecture classes. This would have several benefits, not the least of which would be the added connection that officers would feel for students, as they would effectively be participating in our lives, while simultaneously being immediately at hand in the event of an emergency. Finally, allowing actual weapons (!) to students, even if only pepper-spray, would begin to create a deterrent force, and Brown students would start to shed their reputation as “soft targets.”