Solving campus-community problems

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The, Feb, 1995 by Michael G. Shanahan

If asked, most university administrators and campus law enforcement officials probably would cite alcohol abuse among organized groups living on or near campus as the most exasperating problem facing them. Media reports have chronicled the phenomenon; Congress has demanded that universities account for their crime rates; women's groups have organized to protest the victimization of female students at fraternity-sponsored activities.

For the University of Washington, the 1992 fall quarter began violently with a confrontation between a group of football players and members of a national fraternity. What started with racial epithets escalated into a free-for-all requiring a massive response by the Seattle Police Department (SPD). During the melee, a first-year female student was struck by a thrown beer bottle that shattered in her face, requiring the surgical removal of her right eye.

Local reporters had been following closely student alcohol abuse since a similarly disturbing incident occurred in 1989. During a football game, drunken fans took to the field, confronted police officers, and tore down a set of goal posts, nearly killing two students. Due to the seriousness of that incident and the extensive media attention it generated, university administrators appointed a special task force to analyze the factors that led to the flare-up and to suggest ways to prevent a recurrence.

The community task force approach proved highly successful in addressing the specific factors that led to the 1989 disturbance. Hoping to find solutions for the wider issues that resulted in the tragic 1992 incident, administrators once again turned to this process. The new task force would focus on the serious problems caused by alcohol abuse on campus and in the off-campus area known as "Greek Row" that housed fraternity and sorority groups.

NEED FOR THE TASK FORCE

Because of the success of the earlier task force, announcement of the new task force had an immediate calming effect on the media and the public. There was a sense that the process had credibility and that issues would not be "swept under the rug." Also, because task force findings were released into the public domain, the personal reputations of members rested on the results, or lack thereof.

Task force members quickly realized that although the two incidents shared some similarities, different factors fueled each situation. The 1989 incident was a recurring event that faced the university biennially, based on the intense rivalry between Washington State and the University of Washington. Consequently, the factors surrounding the event were fairly easy to address.

By contrast, the 1992 incident pointed to a set of ongoing behavioral problems. These were complicated by the off-campus status of Greek Row and by the fact that the Seattle Police Department exercised primary police authority over the area. Greek Row actually constituted a collection of private corporations. Each fraternity or sorority possessed its own governing board, owned the property on which its house stood, and took an autonomous attitude with regard to internal disciplinary matters.

The SPD became increasingly frustrated by the lawless flavor of the area; one sector sergeant sent letters to the university newspaper openly complaining of the disorderly and often violent behavior of drunken fraternity members. Incidents had become so threatening that the SPD refused to dispatch personnel into the area to restore order unless they were in a tactical unit formation. The same was true for emergency-aid crews of the Seattle Fire Department that responded to periodic injuries in the area.

Meanwhile, the public was frustrated by the university's perceived reluctance to meet its supervisory obligation over the fraternities. Residents also were upset that the Seattle Police Department failed to enforce State liquor laws uniformly to control behavior that often spilled into surrounding neighborhoods.

However, the university was in an untenable position. It could not exercise direct authority over the fraternities without exposing itself to major liability. Consequently, the university exercised what authority it had, not from a position of control, but rather by threatening to withhold recognition status from particular fraternities or sororities.

Despite repeated promises from fraternity leaders, very little was being done to correct the problems. This was due, in part, to the lack of institutional memory. Fraternity members literally came and left within 4-year cycles. And, despite the good faith efforts of the SPD, the department possessed no mechanism or authority to enter houses on a routine basis to enforce alcohol laws. The task force was tasked with addressing these and other fundamental issues.

THE TASK FORCE APPROACH

Building on Success

When the university's president created the new task force, he extended membership to off-campus groups to include the police and fire departments, the Washington State Liquor Control Board, and a group representing the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the Greek Row area. The 19 members of the task force also included representatives from the student body, as well as university faculty, staff, and administrators. The group met 12 times over a 14-week period.