Are campus police ‘real’ police? Students’ perceptions of campus versus municipal police
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X20906859 |
| Author | Andrea Allen |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Are campus police ‘real’
police? Students’
perceptions of campus
versus municipal police
Andrea Allen
Department of Social Sciences, Clayton State University, Morrow,
Georgia, USA
Abstract
Campus police (CP) actively enforce across US universities. Yet the public questions
whether they are ‘real’ police, like municipal police (MP). Research finds students per-
ceive CP and MP differently, generally holding the former in lower regard. However,
little is known about exactly how students view CP as different from and similar to MP.
This article addresses that gap by analyzing qualitative data from 73 university students.
Participants perceive CP and MP as varying in training, powers, resources, sanction
severity, and danger. The article concludes by discussing broader implications, including
how comparing CP to MP can improve research, theory, and policing.
Keywords
Campus police, qualitative, municipal police, theory
Campus policing dates to the 19th century and has greatly evolved since then (Bromley
and Reaves, 1998; Fisher and Sloan, 2007; Gehrand, 2008; Peak et al., 2008; Sloan,
1992). Today, it is a major feature of the law enforcement apparatus in the United States.
There are over 10,000 campus police (CP) serving at almost 4,000 universities making
tens of thousands of arrests annually (Anderson, 2015; Reaves, 2008; USDOE, 2016).
Yet media headlines question whether CP are ‘real cops’ like municipal police (MP).
Examples include ‘Are campus police officers “real” police officers?’ (Chronicle,
2015b), ‘What are campus police allowed to do?’ (Chronicle, 2015a), ‘What is the real
Corresponding author:
Andrea Allen, Department of Social Sciences, Clayton State University, 2000 Clayton State Boulevard,
Morrow, GA 30260, USA.
Email: andreaallen@clayton.edu
The Police Journal:
Theory, Practice and Principles
2021, Vol. 94(2) 102–121
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032258X20906859
journals.sagepub.com/home/pjx
role of police on college campuses?’ (Anderson, 2015), and ‘Campus police: real deal or
rent-a-cops?’ (Mayer, 2014). That such questions are even asked is important to the
study of policing, given that theory and research suggest citizens’ perceptions of offi-
cers’ legitimacy affect their compliance with the law and how they interact with them
(Tyler, 2006).
However, little research examines students’ perceptions of CP in relation to MP. This
article addresses that lacuna by analyzing qualitative data obtained during interviews
with 73 students attending a university in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, USA. In what
follows, the next section describes the history of CP as well as how CP and MP vary
concretely and in perception. After prese nting the study’s method and findings, the
article discusses their implications for future research and (campus) policing.
Campus policing
The history of CP dates back to the late 19th century when Yale University hired two
New Haven municipal policemen to patrol campus (Powell, 1994; Sloan, 1992). By the
early 20th century, campus policing had evolved into the night watchman style, with
primary duties being facility maintenance and enforcing campus rules (Fisher and Sloan,
2007; Gehrand, 2008; Sloan, 1992). These CP, however, typically lacked law enforce-
ment training, so local MP officers were called in when serious issues arose on campus
(Gehrand, 2008).
That approach to campus security remained relatively unchanged until the 1960s.
This new era arose from the first mass school shooting, namely that around the Univer-
sity of Texas Tower, and from widespread student protests against the Vietnam War and
other social issues. In turn, university administrators selected experienced officers from
municipal departments to develop, staff, and oversee campus enforcement operations
(Fisher and Sloan, 2007). CP departments became more like MP departments in orga-
nizational and operational styles (Bromley and Reaves, 1998, 1999; Paoline and Sloan,
2003; Reaves and Goldberg, 1996). Additionally, state legislatures passed laws allowing
universities to staff their own police departments with POST
1
certified sworn officers.
This change meant CP now had the same police powers as MP, such as the ability to
arrest suspects (Fisher and Sloan, 2007; Sloan, 1992).
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, campus policing transformed once again. This
time, the spurring incident was the 1986 murder of Jeanne Ann Clery (Sloan and Fisher,
2011). She was raped, tortured, and strangled to death by a man, with whom she was not
acquainted, who entered her dorm room in an attempt to burglarize it. According to
reports, the perpetrator was able to enter Clery’s room, because several of the building’s
doors had been propped open and left unlocked. A few years later, this incident resulted
in the Clery Act, which requires universities to annually notify the public about incidents
on campus and crimes known to CP. Clery’s murder as well as media reports of lax
campus security practices across the nation were catalysts in the legislation’s adoption.
Moreover, in response to negative publicity, CP departments began adopting community
policing approaches to better prevent and respond to crime. In practice, this meant that
CP became more proactive in their enforcement efforts, perhaps even more so than MP
(Sloan and Lanier, 2007).
Allen 103
To continue reading
Request your trial