Virginia Tech, infamed for the massacre on its campus that dark April day five years ago, is considering expanding its security surveillance by adding 2,500 new cameras.
Since the shooting they have already installed approximately 300 cameras in parking garages and throughout campus, and have updated existing cameras; all under a contract that has cost nearly $1,000,000.
This latest security effort is, as the Roanoke Times reports, an option to “add one more layer to Tech’s security efforts.”
“You never stop trying to make the campus safer,” university spokesman Mark Owczarski said.
Unless trying to make it safer involves allowing students to carry concealed weapons on college campuses.
I’m actually not an activist for university concealed-carry allowances. My opinion is, using Old Dominion University as an example, it is a decision made by the board of visitors, who are appointed by the governor, who is elected by the people. I’m not saying they shouldn’t allow guns on campus–nor am I saying they should. I just think it’s a decision each campus has to make.
Again, I’m not saying it’s wise to ban all firearms on campus, as ODU has. In fact, more often than not it may be unwise to do so, since by restricting an individual’s instrument of self-preservation we demand the campus therefore take all measures to preserve the individual for him. In other words, “You never stop trying to make the campus safer.”
Now it is entirely possible that Virginia Tech will have approximately one security camera per acre on its 2,600-acre campus.
Efforts to expand surveillance began almost immediately after the tragedy. A year after the fact, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that “Some students have grumbled about the possibility of surveillance cameras on campus, but many support the concept. ‘It makes me feel safer,’ said student Laura Klene, 19.”
“It makes me feel safer.”
Alcohol makes me feel warmer; but it is an illusion. In fact, it can be fatal to treat hypothermia with booze–though I may feel good doing it.
While it is nice to “feel safer,” this too can be fatal, for it instills a sense of security that allows one to become complacent. “I needn’t be vigilant. The campus will take care of me. I needn’t look after myself. The government will take care of me. I needn’t be free. I am secure.”
Will having over 2,500 security cameras help prevent another tragedy similar to that on April 16th, 2007? Perhaps. But will it necessarily prevent one? No. Would it even have prevented Cho himself?
The Incident Review Panel at Virginia Tech reported that “Tech had no security cameras and the outcome might have been different had the perpetrator of the initial homicides been rapidly identified.” Might have been different.
“It makes me feel safer.”
Campus carry laws presumably do the opposite. They make students feel less safe. Which may be to say they feel more vigilant. They almost assuredly make those who carry firearms “feel safer.” But unlike relying on the Eye in the Sky to inform an authorized peace officer, remotely dispatched, for assistance, Personal Protective Equipment may be employed immediately “to reduce … exposure to hazards when engineering and administrative controls are not feasible or effective in reducing these exposures to acceptable levels.”
Who knows how much installing, linking, centralizing, and maintaining 2,500 security cameras will cost. But while we whine simultaneously about the price of tuition and the security of our campuses, I can only think we are getting what we ask for.
The price of a degree goes up. “It makes me feel educated.”
The privacy of a citizen decreases. “It makes me feel safer.”
Maybe we should approach this problem differently. Just because a campus can restrict gun laws doesn’t mean it should; especially when that restriction is contingent upon drastically reducing the privacy of students at a cost of untold millions of dollars.
“You never stop trying to make the campus safer.”
Then garrison the campus, restrict access to and from, provide guards for every student, bar the dormitories, conduct regular and thorough searches of all students and living spaces, and conduct classes in confinement.
Too expensive?
Then try allowing — and encouraging — students to take care of themselves.
