26 of 121 DOCUMENTS The Boston Globe February 5, 2005, Saturday THIRD EDITION KEEPING AN EYE AND A CAMERA ON COLLEGE STUDENTS BYLINE: JACK LEVIN SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A11 LENGTH: 807 words VIOLENT SOCIAL protests during the 1990s in response to police brutality or racism seem as much a distant memory as Rodney King. Nowadays, riots are likely to be celebratory, committed by middle-class college students who rejoice violently when their sports team wins an important game. During the last five years, happy college students on dozens of campuses across the country have participated in postgame looting, overturning vehicles, lighting fires, hurling bottles and rocks, and fighting. Certainty of punishment is a powerful deterrent to illegal behavior. In order to eliminate postgame rioting would-be violators must understand they cannot possibly escape being identified and punished. To this end, Boston Police Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole has promised to have officers from across the Commonwealth out in force tomorrow for the Super Bowl Sunday, and Mayor Thomas Menino has urged that colleges make clear they will discipline any student who participates in violent postgame celebrations. Referring to students who might decide to riot in the aftermath of a Patriots victory, Menino said this week, "Bad behavior will not be tolerated." While worthwhile, such threats of formal punishment cannot by themselves possibly ensure tranquility following every championship game. Students must first be convinced that their participation in a riot will inevitably have negative consequences. Yet being immersed in a crowd, participants often come to feel totally anonymous. No matter how severe the possible consequences, they simply do not believe they can be singled out and punished. Socials psychologists refer to this phenomenon as "deindividuation," because people in a crowd-especially in a spontaneous gathering of excited participantslose their individual identities. To a limited extent, a far-reaching law enforcement presence reduces this feeling of anonymity. But, as we observed after the Red Sox's American League pennant victory in October, the presence of armed police on the streets can also exacerbate the danger, resulting in confrontations with students and even the death of innocent bystanders. In addition, it is all but impossible for the police to be in every area where rioting is likely to occur or to round up each and every violent student. Rioters know this, and it reduces their fear of being caught. An alternative crime-fighting approach would be to supplement the police presence by installing tiny closed-circuit television cameras on street lamps and buildings in order to monitor those areas of the city densely populated by college students, where rioting is likely to occur. To maximize the effectiveness of surveillance, potential riot-areas must be blanketed with cameras. Their presence must be publicized throughout the academic community, so that students become completely aware of their presence. Many European countries now employ public video surveillance to discourage crime, drugs, and terrorism. More than 1.5 million closed-circuit television systems monitor the streets and roads of English cities and towns. In the United States, such major cities as Chicago and Baltimore have similarly made plans to electronically monitor and dispatch aid in response to crime, terrorist acts, and traffic problems. Holyoke is in the process of installing closed-circuit television cameras in the crime-prone downtown area of the city. In Boston, surveillance cameras were installed last summer to identify terrorist threats during the Democratic National Convention, but have not been used extensively as a crime-fighting apparatus. Concerned about an erosion of personal privacy, civil libertarians have opposed the widespread presence of surveillance cameras to fight crime but fail to recognize that a pervasive police presence on the streets has a similar impact. Moreover, rioting occurs not behind closed doors, but in public places where everyday behavior can be easily observed. In England, where the ubiquitous closed-circuit television cameras have significantly reduced criminal activities, there is surprising support among citizens for video surveillance. It is too late for surveillance cameras to be effectively installed and publicized prior to tomorrow's game. But there is time to make preparations now for the possibility of violence after future sports events, including Boston's Beanpot tournament, the NCAA Final Four, and October's World Series. Rioting has become a fad among college students, taking the place of the goldfish swallowing, flagpole sitting, panty raids, and streaking practiced by previous generations. At some point, today's college students will tire of rioting and move on. In the meantime, we should keep an eye and a camera on them. LOAD-DATE: February 7, 2005 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH NOTES: JACK LEVIN Jack Levin is director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict at Northeastern University. Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company |