CW: death, stabbing, robbery, rape, assault
The wave of crime that swept through both campus and the greater Philadelphia area during the 90s helped create and refine the safety measures in place today.
Calls for increased and more efficient security measures were at an all time high during the 1990s. A student being shot near the Dental School, a murder outside of Copabanana, a serial rapist on the loose, among several other crimes, brought greater attention to the practices of the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
Student frustration pinpointed several concerns:
“The administration refuses to recognize that deterring crime off-campus is equally important as deterring crime on-campus.” Ira Kaufman Law’92, The Daily Pennsylvanian, November 2, 1990
“Penn is so worried about their academic ranking. But if they don’t do anything about crime, students are going to go to Cornell, which is much safer.” Zibbel CAS’92, The Daily Pennsylvanian, November 8, 1990
“If they have police at every corner, it could be effective, but I think it would spoil the school atmosphere. We would feel secure but not comfortable.” Yutaka Nakayama CAS’94, The Daily Pennsylvanian, November 8, 1990
Though attitudes were divided on campus climate in the wake of increased violence, fear was the overwhelming sentiment. The first student organization to demand for change from the University was Students Together Against Acquaintance Rape (STAAR). The organization demanded for increased foot patrols and to introduce a police escort foot patrol program. STAAR proposed for University Police officers to walk assigned routes on campus at regular times so that student can walk with them. Anne Siegle, then STAAR coordinator, suggested that this system could work in a twofold approach: officers can continue patrolling while doubling as walking escorts.
Like STAAR, other student organizations echoed calls to action, including the Penn Human Rights Coalition that staged a sit-in at then President Sheldon Hackney’s office. Their protest was in response to a break-in that occurred in the Quad where a freshman student was raped and robbed. Penn students, community leaders, and administrators were all involved in the conversation surrounding safety during a time of extreme need.
Penn’s approach to combatting crime on campus reflected community policing policies. Instead of viewing crime as an isolated and singular issue, it is better seen as a collective issue that takes the collective responsibility of the community to be stopped. Administration acted promptly to address concerns and ease student concerns. Several changes were implemented including:
- Adding regular escort service stops at SHDH and Van Pelt Library several times every night
- Changing the University Police phone number to make it easier to remember
- Installing new lighting in several areas on University property
- Publicizing existing programs better (i.e. safety checks for off-campus residents)
- Meeting with student leaders to discuss how DPS deploys their officers and to find out where students think they are needed most
- Increasing recruitment of minority candidates to increase diversity within DPS
- Working more closely with off-campus landlords to implement any needed security measures
Erica Strohl, the STAAR Coordinator commented how “It [was] the fastest [she’s] ever seen Penn do something. We did in a week what usually takes six months to do.” This is the harsh reality when it comes to institutions tackling both internal and external safety concerns. The University feels greater pressure to address and manage crime that occurs off-campus due to Penn’s proximity to major public hotspots. It is easier for Penn to hire one or two more security guards to patrol a corner than taking action against violence on campus. The University needs to do better at its responsiveness and due diligence to all campus safety concerns.
Though these policies have done their fair share to promote a better sense of safety both on and off campus, there is no one size fits all solution. Both the Escort Service and PennBus are subject to natural delays caused by traffic, insufficient staffing, and budget issues. Many students report not electing to utilize these services because of the inconsistencies and inconvenience of waiting.
The services that the DPS offer are available for any Penn student to use, yet many groups feel less inclined to use these free services by fear of victimization. In an October 1990 DP article on students’ response to crime, Jeffery Jacobson, a College junior, added that many male students hesitated to use PennBus or Escort Services because they felt “uncomfortable or embarrassed.” Jacobson remarked:
“Worrying about crime is not a macho thing. Walking through campus is not a test of masculinity — it’s a test of intelligence.”
Source: The Daily Pennsylvanian, October 29, 1990.
Some students chose to take matters into their own hands by purchasing protective equipment. Virginia Young, then a College senior, purchased mace. Likewise, Wharton juniors Brian Butler and Marek Gootman took to Locust Walk to sell a mace-like weapon called CAPSTUN. On the more extreme end, several students shared their intent to purchase guns in order to protect themselves. Though University Police cautioned against students buying weapons, they did encourage students to report suspicious activity immediately and remain alert.
Penn being located in an urban city poses additional challenges that make it harder for campus police to patrol and regulate activity. According to a 2017 National Center for Campus Public Safety forum on critical issues in urban campus public safety, urban campus police departments face special challenges relating to campus access, resources, relationships and partnerships, student welfare off-campus, and communication technologies. As we continue to consider Penn as an integral part of West Philadelphia, we need to examine how crime both on and off campus impacts students’ experiences and how Penn as an institution tackles these issues. The 90s brought a lot of needed change to safety practices on Penn’s campus. The University must remain open and receptive to criticism about security concerns and work towards improving safety practices to reflect current needs.
References:
“Campus Policing in an Urban Environment.” NATIONAL CENTER FOR CAMPUS PUBLIC SAFETY. July 2018. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/bja/grants/255142.pdf
Jung, Helen. “U. to Increase Security Budget by $1 million.” The Daily Pennsylvanian. 9 January 1990.
Karron, Sloane. “University Unveils Major Increase in Police Security Services.” The Daily Pennsylvanian. 31 January 1990.
Lissner, Caren. “Escort Problems Cause Some Delays.” The Daily Pennsylvanian. 23 March 1990.
Lutton, Christine. “Public Safety Seeks Diversity in Expansion.” The Daily Pennsylvanian. 22 February 1990.
O’Donnell, Patrick. “Student group calls for security changes.” The Daily Pennsylvanian. 26 October 1990.
O’Donnell, Patrick. “Students’ fear of crime rises after recent events.” The Daily Pennsylvanian. 29 October 1990.
O’Donnell, Patrick. “U. Plans to Increase Security After Crimes.” The Daily Pennsylvanian. 31 October 1990.
Stephen Averill Sherman (2022) Policing the Campus: Police Communications and near-Campus Development across Atlanta’s University Communities, Planning Theory & Practice, 23:3, 368-387, DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2022.2050281
Trauma Porn to Title IX: Gender Based Violence at Penn 