News

A Dangerous Combination

First they succeeded in attaining police powers. Now, under the title of "peace officers," DPS could be one step closer to carrying firearms.

By Raechel Sims

On January 8th of this year, the Oregon Legislature entertained Bill 135, an amendment that would re-classify officers of the Department of Public Safety as "peace officers" instead of their previous title, "special campus security." While to you and I this may sound like just another instance of DPS playing the name game, this reclassification is far from the friendly, hippie-visions of "peace" that might be floating before your eyes. Ironically, the term "peace officers" encompasses all the officials that get to carry guns, like cops, sheriffs or marshals.

And now, possibly DPS officers.

According to Sgt. Sean Strahon of the Department of Public Safety, the DPS did not support the original bill as proposed, which was rejected pending further. "There were some things that needed to be fixed," Strahon says. However, Sgt. Strahon does agree with the idea of giving DPS officers firearms. "Oregon is the only state that operates its public colleges and universities without a police force on campus. We're trying to bring Oregon into the next century." Strahon also cites as further justification the recent raise in on campus crimes, including assaults and theft

The addition of firearms isn't the only attempt the Department of Public safety is making to increase safety on campus. In response to the recent outbreak of attacks on women, (3 within a 15 day period), the Department Of Public Safety announced that they would be placing "Crime Alert" bulletins across campus. These bulletins give brief details about the previous attacks, as well as tips to avoid similar incidents in the future - all superimposed over the DPS star logo. Also, as reported by the OC earlier this year, (December 6,2000), DPS has already opened a substation in Hawthorne hall of the Walton complex. Officer Robert Guse explained that the three officers on duty at the substation from 6pm-2am seven days a week are there to "talk", "answer questions" and to create a general atmosphere free of fear or intimidation of DPS officers.

While this entire campaign to spread safety may seem well meaning and harmless on the surface, there are many, many sketchy details that the DPS seems to be overlooking.

The problems with giving the Department of Public Safety the power to use firearms are many, but let's start with that singular, key concept: we're giving DPS officers guns. And just who are these Department of Public Safety officers, anyway? For example, the OC discovered earlier this year that a current DPS employee had a restraining order from 1996 for an unknown reason. When questioned, former Department of Public Safety Associative Director Tom Hicks who was in charge at the time of the hiring, admitted that it was an "oversight". An oversight, indeed. If something as major as a restraining order can be overlooked in the hiring process used by the Department of Public Safety, how can they possibly ensure the safety of students when they aren't even aware of the danger their own employees may pose? It seems that running a more efficient background check would be less drastic than handing out semi-automatic weapons to under-qualified and potentially dangerous individuals.

And less costly, too. According to Bill 135, "… The State System of Higher Education may use funds…. to defray the cost of basic academy training for safety officers." At the current time, the department of public safety consists of 21 employees - 15 public safety officers, three sergeants, one lieutenant, one associate director and a director. Even if the University were only to train the 15 public safety officers, it would literally cost thousands to cover the 2 week training program, weapons for the officers, a constant supply of ammunition, as well as other accessories, like bullet proof vests, or gun holsters. With the recent lack of funding for various programs as well as a ridiculously underpaid faculty, the University can hardly afford to undertake such an extensive, costly and questionable endeavor.

And speaking of questionable endeavors, raising the number of firearms on campus is an insanely dangerous thing to do, especially for those students residing within the dorms. The Residence Hall Contract that all those living on-campus are required to sign states that "…Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms, ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on university property except as expressly authorized by law or university regulations is prohibited…". This single document forces students into an agreement that they won't carry so much as a bottle of pepper spray, instead leaving all weapons on campus to be owned, controlled and used at will by a single group: the Department of Public Safety. And this same single group would be carrying loaded firearms in active, densely populated areas on campus, at sporting events and, thanks to the recent addition of the new Walton substation, inside residence halls.

Ignore the screaming voice in your head for a second and try to ask yourself with an open mind, "Is this logical?" The simple answer is no, for a number of reasons that have already been discussed. But what's even more frightening about this whole proposition is the light in which it is being viewed: as the best possible answer, a God-sent ending to all those pesky on-campus crimes, the mentality that if they get guns, that will take care of everything. The Department of Public Safety's main justification, over and over, is to increase safety, but they are yet to provide any other alternatives to achieving this goal.

Putting up flyers, a.k.a. "Crime Alert Bulletins", to warn females on campus of assaults? The February 28th attack, which was described as the "most severe" of the three, occurred in broad daylight at 2:30pm, not something preventable by "walking in a well lit area" as the flyers advise. No one has mentioned that the February 14th assault, "outside of the Rec Center", was less than 200 feet from DPS headquarters. According to an anonymous source who was working at the University of Oregon Bower-Aly speech tournament where the February 21st attack took place, DPS strictly instructed bystanders and tournament judges alike against telling the students or coaches about what had happened in efforts to warn others. "They said that in past years the tournament had had a bad reputation and they didn't want to add to that by scaring all of the students. But they were ok with sending high school girls out alone at night across campus to random buildings like Gerlinger, or Friendly. It was bullshit."

And what's the real purpose of setting up a substation within a housing complex? If it were really to "talk" and "answer questions", why are the hours of operation only from 6pm to 2am? Wouldn't it make sense to have hours to "answer questions" during the day? I wonder how many freshmen have strolled into that substation in the wee hours of the morn to strike up a friendly chat with a DPS officer. (Probably only the drunk ones, but that's not the point.) Has the Department of Public Safety considered the ramifications of giving those three officers loaded weapons inside of a housing facility? What if they were to fall into the hands of a student? Or an intruder?

When all is said and done and the details are finely examined, the reclassification of DPS officers is anything but a step towards safety, and certainly nothing near the projected image of peace that is being pulled over our eyes. This is a matter that deals with your safety, your money, and your everyday life. You should have a say in the matter.

Raechel Sims, a sophomore double-majoring in Journalism and Music Studies, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator