The Last Word

Should Brown arm its police officers? Two Brown students offer their opinions. Anne Barylick believes Brown officers should not be denied their tools. Dmitri Seals urges a broad discussion that includes a greater portion of the Providence community.

By Dmitri Seals

The controversy before us has the potential to inspire truly meaningful action. The question of whether to arm our police with guns is connected to important questions about safety, police/community interactions within Brown, and the relationship between Brown and Providence. Discussion on these questions has only barely begun on the Brown campus, and if we are to tap into its full potential, we must expand this discussion to inform and include a greater portion of the Providence community.

As we consider this issue, we should remember that concerns about arming the police, although nearly absent from recent debates, are serious and widespread. We should also consider some arguments for arming with a critical eye.

We should look closely, for example, at assertions that Brown police will be safer when they carry deadly weapons. The current policy of disengagement was designed by a University committee in 1992 precisely to protect police from "unreasonable levels of risk," to keep them out of dangerous situations. Enabling our police to intervene in such situations may make them more powerful, but it probably will not make them any safer. Indeed, armed "police are often killed by their own weapons," as Susan DeFrancesco of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research notes, "by criminals who disarm them."

And as well-trained and sensitive as our officers may be, when they possess guns there is always the danger that they will be misused. It would only take one accident to do grave damage to our community.

Perhaps most importantly, we should consider the potential effects of arming our police on Brown’s relationship with surrounding communities. Many of Brown’s neighbors already view our University with suspicion, and the idea of an elite Ivy League institution arming its police against outsiders may place further strains on the town-gown relationship. Crime rises with poverty and desperation, and part of an effective response to crime must be to increase our investment in a peaceful and prosperous Providence.

I put forward these points as part of a conversation that must be pursued rigorously before any decisions about arming Brown police are made. In this spirit, the administration has committed itself, says Donald Reaves, to "encourage a broad and inclusive discussion" on the issue.

Unfortunately, this commitment is not yet a reality. The Undergraduate Council of Students recently passed a resolution in favor of arming the police, acting against the sentiment of many students, on the strength of a report that remains hidden from the Brown community. Such disregard for transparency is disappointing in an institution that claims to stand for democracy.

For Brown to follow through on its commitment to encouraging a broad and inclusive discussion, we must take at least two concrete actions. We must first make public all the information available to us, and bring to light all of the sticky issues connected to this decision. We must then invite critical members of surrounding neighborhoods to work with us to design policies that will both protect Brown and benefit all the people of Providence.

Dmitri Seals is a member of the class of 2002.

By Anne Barylick

Rhode Island General Law, Section 16-52-2 states in part that University police officers "shall have the same powers and authority as that conferred upon municipal police officers." With these powers and authority come responsibilities. For example, Brown police officers are required to follow the same laws about recording, reporting and releasing information, and we as a community expect this of them.

Likewise, we should be able to expect that the department be prepared to serve and protect our community. Having worked for five years with these officers in my duties as an EMT, I have no qualms about their commitment to this community, and their willingness to protect and serve.

These officers, however, are currently constrained by an antiquated policy that requires them to "disengage" from all situations involving a possible weapon. The reason for this policy? They are not armed with all of the tools that they were trained to use while at the Rhode Island Police Academy. Although they carry a baton and pepper spray, they do not carry a firearm and, simply put, a baton and pepper spray are not equivalent measures of protection against a knife or a gun.

Being a police officer is a dangerous job, and certainly some situations are more dangerous than others, a fact well recognized in the now infamous Risen Report. It was this report, along with arbitration between the University and Police and Security, that created the disengagement policy as it is now known. The report recommends that the department "eliminate the policy of response to high-risk situations" in order to better protect the officers involved. If the committee truly thought that this policy alone would protect our officers, surely they would not have issued a simultaneous mandate for all police and security officers to wear body armor. It is apparent that even in its creation the committee could see the policy's flaws.

The most crucial flaw of the policy is that these officers are trained to respond. Asking them to follow this policy is asking them to turn off and ignore a part of their ingrained training that makes them who they are. These officers know their job is dangerous, and they want to return home at the end of every shift. However, they are trained to respond and currently often do, bending and bowing the policy on disengagement because they feel it is their duty to help where they can. Asking an officer to stand by and wait for the Providence Police Department while something happens in front of them simply because they are not armed is like asking a fish not to swim. This is who they are and what they do, and they will react, even if it could place them in harm's way.

If as a community we expect our officers to protect and serve us, then it is imperative that we give them the support and the tools that they need to do so in an effective and responsible manner.

Anne Barylick is a member of the class of 2002.5