Arming CPSO

Photo by Kayla Nguyen.

After attending the public forum regarding the boost to PSU’s Campus Public Safety Office’s budget and the deputizing of CPSO officers in December, I came away with the understanding that there are two different opinions on the best way to improve student safety on campus.

One involved swearing in CPSO officers to allow them greater authority and autonomy, and an increased budget to facilitate these increased capabilities. The opposing argument endorsed preventative measures such as providing better lighting around campus and implementing safe-walk programs.

The really controversial issue surrounding CPSO, however, is arming its officers.

While I support any effort to improve campus security, providing CPSO officers with firearms is not the ideal method to deal with safety risks on campus.

People will argue that without armed officers, an armed and dangerous criminal would have more time to cause havoc. In addition, CPSO Chief Phillip Zerzan was forthright in expressing his unhappiness with CPSO’s current relationship with the Portland Police Bureau, stressing that the PPB’s response time is too lengthy to prevent a public safety disaster on campus.

Zerzan stressed that creating an autonomous campus security unit with capabilities equal to the PPB’s would drastically increase campus safety. My response to this argument is that improving the relationship between CPSO and the PPB can be just as effective as arming CPSO officers and would be unquestionably more cost-effective.

As an urban campus, PSU has unique characteristics. The possibility for dangerous individuals with no affiliation to the university to be among students and staff is higher than at a more traditional, secluded campus.

However, if PSU’s downtown location provides a space for criminals to potentially tread, it also provides a space for Portland police officers to patrol. Why should it be that only CPSO officers may patrol campus? Yes, CPSO officers are better suited for issues that are unique to a campus environment, but they are not suited for handling the crime outside of the campus that potentially filters into it.

By having Portland police officers include PSU in their “beat,” they can develop a better understanding of the university’s nuances while offering capabilities that CPSO officers don’t currently possess. It may even allow for PPB to mend its reputation as a “shoot first, ask questions later” police force by creating a positive relationship between officers and students.

There is simply no justification for CPSO’s desire to avoid working with PPB and become entirely autonomous. Yes, the PPB currently has a bad reputation, but it is inexcusable that the relationship should remain strained. The Portland Police Bureau is located about eight blocks from campus; its proximity should prevent problems with delayed response times.

If PSU and CPSO truly feel that it is an issue, then a dialogue between CPSO and the PPB needs to be initiated. Throwing money at the problem and creating our own police force is not the ideal solution.

While money should never be the deciding factor in the handling of public safety, judging by the concern demonstrated by students at the public forum, it is a topic that deserves to be addressed.

At the forum, it was stated that an increase to CPSO’s budget would not result in a tuition hike. This is all well and good, but the allocation of PSU’s existing funds remains a concern. If funding the CPSO expansion will require the millions of dollars it’s rumored to cost, then something will have to be cut in order for the school to balance its books.

Frankly, I find that alternatives to deputizing and arming CPSO officers can be much more cost effective and would prevent cutting other programs to fund this renovation. Coupled with improving CPSO’s relationship with the PPB, preventative measures can be implemented at a fraction of the cost of creating an autonomous CPSO. These include eliminating dimly lit areas, implementing safe-walk programs and increasing the number and visibility of emergency phones—more inexpensive approaches to improving public safety.

Increasing the number of CPSO officers rather than spending the money to have each trained and sworn in also presents a more affordable approach to increasing campus security, and if they can work effectively with Portland police officers, it could prove more productive. Even if PSU does have each CPSO officer trained and sworn in, we are still left with a security force of inexperienced and newly armed officers. Inexperience and firearms do not mix.

I, for one, would feel much safer having experienced Portland police officers who have dealt previously with violent criminals responding to potentially violent offenders on campus. While training is great, experience is priceless.

Whichever direction PSU and CPSO decide to take, there will need to be a great deal of transparency in the planning and execution of such an overhaul, for this is a process that requires the voice of the students.