JHU Snap of campus security guard ignites controversy

Last week on Nov. 4, JHU Snaps on Facebook returned from its hiatus with post #1042, a screenshot of a security officer apparently sleeping on the job and the caption “Keeping the lib real safe.”

Within seven minutes, the Facebook post attracted an urgent comment about how the public nature of the post may place the officer’s job in jeopardy with calls for it to be taken down. This comment garnered 47 likes at the time of writing.

Another student further suggested that “posting this stuff (was) the reason JHU Snaps got taken down for a bit before,” something that a Facebook group administrator disputed.

While the empathy toward the officer in question is heartening, the instinct to hide and bury a problem in fear of its consequences is concerning. It is exactly when small and easy problems are hidden from view that large and complex problems emerge in their place. On issues such as security where one lapse is all it takes to injure or harm, we must collaborate to increase our expectations of accountability.

The first thing we must ask ourselves is whether the behavior in question was acceptable. There are many considerations, but by a general societal standard, a majority would likely agree that any security officer sleeping on the job is unacceptable. After all, the very purpose of such an officer being present is to offer protection, something which cannot be offered when the officer is mentally (or physically) absent.

Consider for a moment walking through a silent TSA checkpoint where all the officers are sleeping. How safe can one feel when those tasked with ensuring safety have clearly checked out? And even if safety is not compromised, what exactly are we paying these TSA agents to do?

The next thing we must ask ourselves is who should take responsibility for this lapse. This must not solely lie with the officer in question. The front-line officer is but the last line of defense in a larger security enterprise.

Here, the questions we ask must be related to systems and organizations. These include whether our front-line officers are getting adequate rest breaks, whether supervisors who are checking in are doing so in a timely and consistent manner and whether everyone involved is trained to respond appropriately both to routine procedural matters and to emergency situations. It is only by strengthening these procedures that we can create a robust and adaptable framework that makes security relevant and keeps us safe.

When one considers a machine as complex as security services, special attention must be paid to the nuts and bolts to ensure that crucial gears are well-oiled and redundant ones are removed or replaced. Campus Safety and Security often assures us that campus is safe and that an entire team of officers is here for our protection. Our community can and should have good cause to believe that we are safe.

However, along with the assurance that our own responsible decisions are being supported by multiple layers of added protection, it is also pertinent to ask if those who protect us are similarly being protected and given the tools and support necessary to do their job well.

This does not suggest that a public JHU Snaps post parodying or ridiculing lapses in security is the most effective way to ensure that our community remains responsive and accountable. If problems are systemic rather than individual, the termination of an officer’s employment will not solve any problems. To create incentives for a witch-hunt promotes a culture of distrust and runs counter to the collaboration within the community that is necessary to maximize safety.

If such a system doesn’t already exist, Campus Safety and Security may want to consider an amnesty scheme popularized in commercial aviation where pilots can report fatigue-related lapses without penalty. In our case, allowing both security officers to self-report and community members to indirectly report will allow for a more realistic portrayal of the on-ground situation and provide the impetus for greater system-level support.

The simple reality is that the students who called for Snap #1042 to be removed and, in doing so, for the issue swept under the rug, had an easy ask because nothing happened. There was no incident on Nov. 4 that required the officer in question to respond. In all likelihood, the officer was awake soon after the Snap was taken. But to what extent should such incidents be tolerated?

If a culture that tolerates such lapses pervades not just the organizational level (security services) but also the mentalities of constituents that these organizations serve (students), whose feet will accountability ultimately lie at? One can only hope that it does not lie at the feet of a victim of a crime, a victim not just of an opportunistic perpetrator but of an unravelling of the very layers intended to protect when something does happen.

Tommy Koh is a junior in the departments of Political Science, Psychology and Social Policy. This piece is part of a biweekly feature titled “Change and Continuity: Insights into our Hopkins Community.”