There is a problem with gun culture in this country. This should not come as a surprise. The number of mass shootings continues to increase each year. Parents are afraid to send their children to school, people of color try to stay in groups because of persistent armed racism, and colleges are beginning to consider arming their campus security officers. This is where the University of Rochester finds itself today.

The university administration has begun to discuss whether they will arm campus security, citing the persistent and increasing violence erupting on college campus communities across the country. They held a small forum for students this past Wednesday, mostly by invitation, as a trial run to a more public discussion to come. In this forum, administrators tried to explain their reasoning behind this decision, how the decision is being made, etc. The students who attended this first discussion made it abundantly clear that they believed it was in the best interests of everyone that we DO NOT arm campus safety officers, and I am so proud of them for showing up and making their voices heard.

I want to open this discussion up first by pointing out what seems to me to be a big discrepancy between administrative policy and administrative action. University President Joel Seligman, when YikYak was being used to make anonymous threats to students of color, steadfastly refused to block YikYak from university servers because of “concern of opening a door that would lead to graver consequences” [this is not quoting him directly so much as it is paraphrasing him]. But my question for him is, if blocking YikYak opens some Pandora’s Box of censorship, doesn’t arming campus officers open a similar issue of gun violence? If we bring guns on this campus in one form, does that not follow the President’s sentiment that it would lead to more issues?

Now personally, I think a ban on YikYak is the appropriate response given the site’s refusal to cooperate with the university and the District Attorney’s office concerning those threats I mentioned earlier. Likewise, I think the problem with arming public safety is not so much the changing of campus culture (I think our campus has already become fairly violent) as it is the simple fact that guns do NOT make people any safer.

By arming our security officers, who already have an arsenal of non-lethal weapons at their disposal, with guns, we perpetuate the culture we are attempting to fix. Violence does not solve/stop/prevent violence.

Even if we did arm campus security officers, the administrators at the discussion explained there would be no specific training targeted at racial profiling, bias-related incidents, and last-resort measures. We know all too well the consequences of arming officers, especially without proper training. It is why time after time, unarmed Black people are shot and killed by police for “looking suspicious.” They shoot first and ask questions later.

If we arm campus security officers, it becomes more likely that this epidemic of police brutality will show up not only on our campus but also in the greater Rochester community. The administration cites “gang violence” and robberies as the cause of the pending decision, but the reality of the situation is that this threatens the Rochester community far more than it does our campus community. Mark my words, if we arm campus security we will see not an increase in campus safety, but rather an increase in violence outside the campus bubble. This has happened across the country, and I think it is naïve to assume it will be different if we do it here in Rochester.