Universities can potentially play a very useful role in figuring out how to curb police violations of rights and other forms of officer misconduct while still ensuring the safety of our communities. In the United States policing is decentralized and the degree and nature of officer misconduct vary greatly around the country. Understanding why misconduct occurs and determining the best steps to prevent it requires far more systematic data about police practices than researchers have been able to generate. There are, literally, hundreds of studies to be carried out--on everything from the effectiveness of early intervention systems to the relationships between police and prosecutors to the impact of municipal funding arrangements--before sensible policing reform is possible. University researchers skilled in gathering and analyzing data could play a leading role in generating the empirical basis public decisionmakers need to develop and implement effective proposals. In some universities, of course, there is valuable data-driven work on policing well underway.
The problem, though, is that in reaction to George Floyd’s death, many universities seem to have started down a quite different path. Among the things they have instead decided on: additional diversity officers and other administrators; racial bias training for incoming students; racial climate studies; various conferences and “town halls;” new scholarships for minority students (including many named after George Floyd himself); additional affirmative action measures in admissions and faculty hiring; more courses (perhaps required) on racial issues; dismantling campus statues and renaming campus buildings; enhanced procedures for reporting and punishing bias; and new committees to identify and remedy discrimination on campus.
Perhaps there is a case to be made for some or all of these initiatives. As with anything, the merits of each should be considered in light of other priorities, competing proposals, and resource constraints and with careful attention to associated costs. The case for some of these things is inevitably stronger than for others. For instance, if space exists on the orientation agenda for incoming students, is the need for training on racial bias more acute today than, say, on freedom of speech? If there is money available for good causes, why a student scholarship rather than, say, coronavirus research?
Regardless, a more basic question looms large: what do any of these measures actually have to do with the death of George Floyd? In other words, will changing the name of a campus building stop unlawful police searches? Will police officers treat suspects differently once a scholarship has been endowed? Did the absence of a campus diversity officer cause the death of somebody in police custody? And so on.
The answer, I strongly suspect, is that the measures being pursued have no relationship to preventing police misconduct. Accordingly, most universities are (so far) missing a prime opportunity to tackle a well-recognized problem beyond their walls—and to help protect rights and safeguard communities.
Can universities shift gears to make a useful public contribution? Or is their main response to police misconduct reallocations of funds, appointment of new personnel, and some Zoom sessions?