A new report from the Centre on the Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) reveals that despite security staff being a common sight on university campuses, only one third (30.8%) of students surveyed agreed that they keep students safe on campus. The report follows a series of high-profile and controversial incidents involving campus security services and police and students at UK universities.
Whose campus?
The Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity is the UK’s leading centre of research into ethnic, racial, and religious inequalities. Its new report is called Whose campus, whose security? In this first-of-a-kind study, students raised concerns about racial profiling and discrimination from campus security staff.
Nearly three-quarters of students surveyed agreed that some people would be more likely the have encounters or issues with security staff than others, with 78.6% saying that race was a key factor, followed by gender (61.7%) and social class (54.8%).
Only 22.6% of students who identify as trans, non-binary, or an ‘other’ gender identity said that security services keep students safe and the report found cases of transphobic and misogynistic behaviour from security staff towards students.
‘Intimidated and scared’ by security staff
Students reported instances of sexual violence, assault, or drink spiking being dismissed or not believed or by security staff. Sexual violence and drink spiking were important issues for students, and many felt that security staff did not treat them seriously enough. The report also highlighted some cases were security staff accused students of lying about being spiked, or blamed them for leaving drinks unattended.
In many universities, security staff are also the designated first responders to mental health incidents. Though there were cases where security staff were sensitive and supportive to students in crisis, there were many more where the response from individual security staff was inadequate or insensitive, sometimes even making the problem worse.
Security staff have wide-ranging and often conflicting responsibilities, and the report raises serious questions about whether they are best positioned to fulfil this role. One student remembered being intimidated and scared during a mental health crisis when she was escorted back to her student accommodation by security staff in ‘police-type uniform’. Others noted that security staff arrived quickly but clearly had little or no training in dealing with mental health emergencies.
Concerns over the ‘securitisation’ of universities
Lead author of the report, Remi Joseph-Salisbury, says:
From the student protests in response to the treatment of Zac Adan, to NUS Liberation policy raising concerns about security services, and the formation of student activist groups such as Cops off Campus, it’s clear that the role of campus security needs much closer scrutiny. This report provides an evidence base and highlights a range of problems. The onus is now on institutions to respond and show that their commitments to equality are sincere and determined.
Second author, Laura Connelly, says:
Universities seem to be necessitating that security services take on expanding roles, and yet students are unclear about whether campus security keep them safe. Some actually perceive security to be a direct threat to student safety, citing examples of racial profiling, transphobia, victim blaming in relation to gender-based violence, and the targeting of student activists. Despite these harms, university complaint processes are difficult to navigate, slow, and offer little recourse to accountability. We hope this report prompts action from universities, so that campuses become places where all students can feel safe.
Co-author, Siobhan O’Neill, says:
The increasing securitisation of university campuses – both through security personnel and policing – is a concern not only for students but also for the wider communities in which universities are located. Our report found a number of interpersonal and institutional harms related to the practices and processes of security on campuses. including issues around racial profiling and racism. Universities, who have a duty of care to their students and who have made commitments to tackling inequalities, ought to pay due regard to the concerns raised in this report and address them with urgency.
Exerting control – not exercising care
Dr Shabna Begum, interim co-CEO of the Runnymede Trust, says:
We are deeply concerned with the securitisation of our educational spaces; whether its police in schools – or campus security services, there is a creeping extension of a surveillance and punitive culture in spaces that should invite young people to feel nurtured and cared for. This report also highlights the racialised nature of that experience and that alongside students with other protected characteristics, they are afforded the least protection and experience the most restriction.
Perhaps most shocking is that the budget allocations for campus security services were more than double that allowed for counselling and mental health services, this is such an extraordinary indictment of an education system that would rather exert control than exercise care for its student community.
Whose campus, whose security? comes following a series of high-profile and controversial incidents involving campus security services and police and students at UK universities. It is the first piece of research to investigate students’ views on, and experiences with, security services and police on UK university campuses.
Authored by Dr Remi Joseph-Salisbury, Dr Laura Connelly, Dr Kerry Pimblott, Dr Siobhan O’Neill, and Dr Harry Taylor, the report shows that students have a range of concerns about campus security services, as well as the police on campus.
Featured image via UoM Rent Strike
By The Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
