Defending Your Campus Against WMDs

Even if the campus itself is not a target, if it has a large population that is in close proximity to an attractive site, security measures should be deployed. Disaster plans should also be in place so the campus’ population, as well as its emergency personnel, can quickly respond in the event of a disaster.

Different Terrorists Have Different Characteristics
When considering the types of risks their campuses face, directors of security and chiefs of police should be familiar with not only the sites they are protecting, but the various types of potential attackers.

Some terrorists, like members of Al Qaeda, are homicidal, suicidal and prefer world-reknown targets (like the World Trade Center or Los Angeles Int’l Airport). If a campus is appealing to this type of attacker, the highest level of security may need to be employed.

Other special-interest terrorist organizations, like environmental, anti-abortion or animal rights groups, normally target individuals or facilities (animal research facilities or women’s health-care clinics, for example) based on the issue of interest. Although these terrorists may not be homicidal or suicidal, their activities, which are often criminal, can take a deadly turn (as in the case of the Atlanta Olympics).

Right-wing terrorist groups — which often espouse white-supremacist, Christian extremist, anti-government and/or anti-gun control philosophies — have become particularly problematic in recent years. Timothy McVeigh, who was responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was involved in this type of group.

There are many other types of terrorist organizations that may find campuses to be attractive targets. College campuses, in particular, are considered by some to be fertile grounds for recruitment.

Despite all of the attention that is given to terrorism, however, campuses should not overlook those who may not have any connections to terrorist groups, such as disgruntled employees. Indeed, unhappy staff members often have a whole range of personal grudges against an organization and should be considered a significant threat in some instances. Mentally unstable, angry or distraught patients or students could (and often do) pose problems as well.

4 Ways to Harden a Target That Is at Risk
Once a campus’ risk is determined, preventive measures can be implemented. Although no site can be completely insulated from threats, there are some basic tactics, equipment and policies that can make a campus less vulnerable to a WMD attack.

• Do Background Checks Early, Often — To reduce internal threats, a campus should properly screen all employees and students working in sensitive research environments. Veteran personnel should also be subject to ongoing background checks.
• Develop an Intelligence Network —Hospitals, in particular, have done an excellent job of developing a network of security managers who share information on threats. For example, last summer several unauthorized individuals were demanding hospital access, claiming they were joint commission investigators. Because of the network developed by the medical centers, however, within about a day, most of the security managers knew of these imposters and were able to respond appropriately to the threat.

  Additionally, networking with other law enforcement organizations, including the Department of Homeland Security, is very helpful in developing intelligence.

• Involve Security in Construction —The architectural design of a building can either help or hinder security. Thus, it would behoove the security director to have a say in new construction so security and safety aren’t compromised.

  “Architects like to make buildings of aluminum and glass,” says Ron Timm, security consultant with Chicago-based RETA Security Inc. “They will fight you tooth-and-nail, but they might not realize that their proposed design has made your building a potential target.”

  If a building has a lot of glass, protective laminants and proper anchoring can go a long way toward reducing its vulnerability to explosions. These measures, however, are not nearly as effective as concrete.

  Additionally, some of the bio labs currently under construction are being built so that if part of a structure caves in due to an attack, the rest of it remains standing, preventing progressive collapse.

• Install Electronic Security Equipment — Access control, intrusion alarms and camera surveillance, if installed properly, operated correctly and maintained regularly, can do wonders to reduce the threat of a WMD attack.

  Card access control is a primary feature, but for biological and nuclear research laboratories, biometrics adds an extra level of protection. Often in extremely high-risk locations, on-site armed guards (in hardened positions) patrol these areas 24/7. On-campus central station personnel may even monitor these kinds of sensitive locations via closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras. The appropriate deployment of metal detectors can also reduce vulnerability.

  To prevent a car bomb attack on a building, vehicle access should be limited, and concrete bollards or other barriers should be erected. Vehicles that do come close should be adequately screened.

Campuses Often Struggle to Balance Openness, Security
Many campuses, however, don’t opt for extreme security measures. Most hospitals and college campuses are committed to being open environments. Public safety directors can balance this by having officers on post, disciplined, paying attention and communicating not only among each other but with the outside world. Additionally, it is important to have a reporting process so if officers see something, they can report the issue to the proper authority.

Finding the right balance between openness and security can be a challenge. A security director could ask “what-if” to the point where fear pervades and the campus becomes practically a prison. But this would mean the terrorists have achieved their objective of frightening Americans. Campus officials are not about to let that happen.

Instead, with the right processes and equipment in place, campuses can reduce their vulnerabilities yet maintain a relatively open environment. Although no facility can be rendered 100-percent safe and secure, steps can be taken so the chances of a WMD attack are greatly reduced.

Robin Hattersley Gray is executive editor of Campus Safety Magazine. She can be reached at robin.gray@bobit.com.

For the complete version of this article, please refer to the March/April 2006 issue of Campus Safety Magazine.

If you appreciated this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!

Related Content

Stop Shootings Before They Start: Proactively Detect Threats with Visual AI

Pro-Palestine Protestors Occupy Cal Poly Humboldt Building

Student Mental Health Challenges Test the Mission of K-12 Schools

New Jersey Man Arrested for Vandalizing Rutgers Islamic Center During Eid al-Fitr