Spring Break
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:Police must be armed to show that the University trusts them
Letters to the Editor | 5/1/07
Posted online at 11:01 PM EST on 4/30/07
/ Last updated at 6:27 AM EST on 4/30/07
To the Editor:
Not arming Brandeis police is beyond silly ("After shootings, University police, again, say they should be armed," April 24 issue). I worked side-by-side with Public Safety as a BEMCo supervisor in 2000 and 2001, and this was a raging debate back then. There is no reason why these fine officers should not be armed.
What can the University possibly be worried about? This reluctance comes from one of two places: Either a moral stance on the use of guns in society, or a cost issue, with the University not wanting to pay for the guns and extra training. Neither is acceptable reasoning for an administration charged with protecting a vulnerable population. Pragmatism is the only acceptable approach, and this is lacking.
Police are police, and they rightly expect and deserve the tools of the trade. They're underpaid as it is; have a fairly uninteresting beat; and, at least in my experience, don't have the highest department morale in the world. Not arming them magnifies this. How would a hairdresser feel if he were forced to use safety scissors?
The University is no doubt losing many talented officers-and failing to hire countless others in the first place-because they are defecting to other jobs that will treat them with the proper level of respect. This compounds the safety issue and makes it a cost issue as well-high turnover costs money. I think this argument pales in comparison to the safety concerns, but perhaps this is th e only kind of message that will get through to the administration.
-Michael Schakow '01
Not arming Brandeis police is beyond silly ("After shootings, University police, again, say they should be armed," April 24 issue). I worked side-by-side with Public Safety as a BEMCo supervisor in 2000 and 2001, and this was a raging debate back then. There is no reason why these fine officers should not be armed.
What can the University possibly be worried about? This reluctance comes from one of two places: Either a moral stance on the use of guns in society, or a cost issue, with the University not wanting to pay for the guns and extra training. Neither is acceptable reasoning for an administration charged with protecting a vulnerable population. Pragmatism is the only acceptable approach, and this is lacking.
Police are police, and they rightly expect and deserve the tools of the trade. They're underpaid as it is; have a fairly uninteresting beat; and, at least in my experience, don't have the highest department morale in the world. Not arming them magnifies this. How would a hairdresser feel if he were forced to use safety scissors?
The University is no doubt losing many talented officers-and failing to hire countless others in the first place-because they are defecting to other jobs that will treat them with the proper level of respect. This compounds the safety issue and makes it a cost issue as well-high turnover costs money. I think this argument pales in comparison to the safety concerns, but perhaps this is th e only kind of message that will get through to the administration.
-Michael Schakow '01
Be the first to comment on this story