Introduction
Universities and campuses are the present-day levels of higher learning. They are relatively open and free space physically as well as academically. The campus community comprises a wide range of social habits, ethnic customs, cultural norms, and individual and family histories; some of these habits, customs forms, and histories include abuse of and by others.
One unique feature of a campus community culture is its possibility of contributing to persons becoming victims of violence. Violence is behavior that is experienced by members of the same culture as a positive violation of culturally patterned interpersonal behavioral norms, according to Margaret Mead (1969). Such “positive violations” for the case of the campus violence refer to offenses to or against students, staff, or faculty members or to outsiders though within the University’s geographical boundary.
Violence may be in the form of swift and intensive force, rough or injurious physical force, action or treatment, and unjust or unwarranted extension of forced power, as against rights or laws. Violence is rough or immoderate vehemence and damage through distortion or unwarranted altercation. Virginia Tech is one such example of violence on campus in university systems.
The root of addressing the factor of violence in campus or universities is hinged on laying out the foundation or cause of the problem. It is these very problems that can and are best sorted out in order to achieve at least a general, if not specific, a form of calm “in the campus society,” the factors that should be addressed include alcohol and drug abuse, race relations and polycultural sensitivities, sexual orientations and individual mental health.
Main Body
First, there is the case of sexual intercourse, rape, and mutual consent. 15 to 20 % of female college students admit to having experienced forced intercourse (rape), Fisher et al. (1987). Koss et al. (1991) point to 5 to 15% of men acknowledging forced intercourse. There is a need to address this, whether in or off-campus (but involving the student). It should be understood that this includes sexual harassment raging from ogling, offensive language, derogatory remarks based on sex to outright unwelcome sexual (mis)conduct related to any condition of employment or evaluation.
Preventing this requires that the colleges and universities uphold the rule of law, citing the campus sex crimes prevention act (2000). In respect, it is allowing for correction and disclosure of information on employment at institutions as this. The law also upholds the 1992 campus sexual assault victims bill of rights, which enshrines the individual right of all those involved in the sexual harassment tussle.
Secondly, drug and alcohol abuse is the other factor that should be addressed. Lisak et al. (1990) point to alcohol and drug abuse implication in approximately 55 to 74% of sexual assaults on campuses. Zakocs et al. (2 002) postulate 1,400 college students die each year from alcohol-related injuries. To curb this, there is a need to address environmental issues such as drugs and alcohol.
With the apparent idea of peer influence in drugs and alcohol abuse, it is significant that campuses develop early warning systems such as the student Assistant Coordinating Committee. The campus mental health service program also comes into play, working hand in hand with respective faculty members and the greater student community to identify individuals ravaged by drug-alcohol abuse and enrolling them in rehabilitative systems.
There is a need to address peer group members: especially where hazing is involved. Any activity that is expected of someone joining a group that humiliates degrades, or risks emotional or physical harm. Hazing can involve forced alcohol consumption, ingestion of vile substances, and sexual violation.
Hazing is a complex social problem that is shaped by power dynamics operating in a group or organization; it can be prevented. This is by particularly addressing the unique haze activity, for example, stifling sexual violation. The campus mental health and student welfare programs should focus on patterns of and determinants of perpetration of hazing, rooting out the vice by inculcating other disciplines like religion and co-curricular activities like basketball, swimming, and other games.
The American campus is obviously multiracial. Non-Hispanic whites are more likely than other races to be victims of overall violence or simple assaults. Black students were somewhat more likely than white students to suffer simple assaults, Baum and Klaus (2005). To prevent such, it is significant that a campus-wide response to hate crimes be instituted. This can be achieved by designating a civil rights officer for such a campus. A guideline should be designed that defines hate crimes, how to report them. When and to whom. A hate crime response team should also be formed. In addition to training on incidences of race crime, the university’s position on hate crime should be restated and should condemn such acts.
Individual mental health is a factor in preventing campus violence. It is significant that there be screens out of a student who poses a real threat and that they are subjected to therapy. A case in point is the Nero Versus Kansas State University (1993), where a rapist re-offended while residing within the university. By doing reviews of community members’ mental health, the individual and community are protected from the possible “effects of stress” on Cho-SEUNG-Hui that caused the Virginia Tech massacre. The faculty graduate assistants, staff, and students should be educated on the importance of early referral for distressed students and the rest of the community members.
Conclusion
Prevention of violence on campus involves addressing every single factor that comes into play when addressing the whole community. Specifically, student-to-student relations should ensure that proper guidelines are met, avoiding possible violations toward each party concerned. The campus should establish protocols that convey information regarding dangerous situations and threats. Students and staff should be encouraged to report verbal and written threats, weapons, and bizarre behavior. For the case of weapons, the campus should exercise a total ban on firearms, knives, and related arsenal.
Students to staff or faculty relations should also be within set limits. They are ensuring that sexual harassment by either of the party involved is contained. Possible sexual liaisons -with the aim of getting better grades or other favors- should be strictly deterred. This is possible by enforcing a professional code of conduct in faculty and staff as well as proper regulation for the students. Tougher sanctions should be implemented, including expulsions and suspensions for the students and firing of faculty or staff for gross misconduct.
Lastly, what counts is a zero-tolerance policy. That upholds the sanctity of life and its irreplaceable nature, therefore, calling for the need to ensure that cases of sexual violence, manslaughter, celebratory violence, hazing, hate crimes, alcohol and drug abuse, and related crimes are addressed accordingly. To address this entire continuum of violence, it is significant that a sense of community is built, which strengthens campus relations and ensures proper modalities that address any differences that crop up. Bystander interventions or whistleblowers should be encouraged to come forward, suspicious report activities, and be held on anonymity.
References
- Baum, K. Klaus P. Violent Victimisation of college students (1995 – 2002) (NCJ Publication No 20t836) (2005) USA
- Barnyard, V. L et al Bystander Education Bring a brooder community perspective to sexual Violence prevention Journal of community psychology, (2004) USA
- Hang L. Understanding and preventing Violence on campuses : A comprehensive student affairs initiative (2002) USA
- Jeans C. Disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime Statistics Act, Published L No 105-244 (1998)