Pepper spray, tear gas, and lamp posts, oh my!


IntroductionModerators: Meredith Sproull, Ellie Manca, and Taylor Balliet

Social psychologists define group mentality as “[experiencing] deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness,” thus making people less likely to follow societal norms and more likely to act out. This phenomenon is explicitly seen during riots, and therefore has effectively also been dubbed “mob mentality.”

Mobs and riots have been on college campuses throughout history, dating all the way back to 1229 when the University of Paris was closed for more than two years due to student protests. More recently, these campus riots have become a force to be reckoned with.

USA Today called this growing trend “a crisis” following Minnesota’s victory over Maine in the 2002 NCAA hockey championship, which spurred street fires, 45 arrests, and nearly $40,000 in property damage. Most campus riots tend to cause thousands of dollars’ worth of damages to the surrounding community. Colleges have been struggling for decades to combat the destruction. A sense of deindividuation, paired with alcohol, darkness, pent up energy, and fellow students in the same place leads to riots on campuses. The cause is clear, but the approaches to solve this trend are not.

Closer to home, Penn State University is considered one of the most riotous college campuses in America. The 1980s saw football success in the form of two National Championships, both in 1982 and 1986. These big wins saw massive field stormings, torn down goal posts, ripped up grass: the whole nine yards. Next, the late ‘90s saw riots unfold at State College’s annual Arts Fest, causing $150,000 in damages. Just a few years later in 2001, yet another Arts Fest riot occurred. Forward to 2008, Penn State’s upset over Ohio State caused massive damage to the downtown area. More recently, after the university fired the revered Coach Joe Paterno after the 2011 Sandusky Scandal, fans again took to the streets in Penn State’s biggest riot to date.

2016 saw an unprecedented number of riots in campus history. Another Ohio State upset saw the first storming of Beaver Stadium since 1986. Earlier in the semester, after a supposed murderous clown spotting on campus, students’ hysteria, in the form of running through the streets, again was classified as a riot due to downtown damage. Lastly, after Penn State clinched the Big Ten Championship, yet another riot erupted downtown.

The rate of sports rioting is increasing and the University and State College locals are having to pay the price. Residents, professors, law enforcement officers, and students alike have struggled with mediating these celebrations gone awry and minimizing tangible damage. The current practice is a mobilization of police forces with riot shields, tear gas, pepper spray, and some mounted officers as well. The police department acts proactively in attempting to diminish the damage. For example, they had already begun to mobilize before the 2016 Ohio State game ended. However, their efforts proved unsatisfactory as the riot did cause damage.


In attempting to combat these riots, measures can be taken prior to the threat of a riot; during the actual event; and after the situation has been resolved. Approach One, Education & Community Involvement, would attempt to strengthen the bonds between the students and their community, hoping to increase their stake in the town’s well being. Approach Two, Law Enforcement, would increase the presence of law enforcement officials as well as the technology used during the actual riot. Lastly, Approach Three, University Policy, discusses possible changes regarding riots regulations to foster a stricter mentality regarding the consequences of student participation.

Whether a single approach would be more effective, or a combination of the three, action needs to be taken to reduce the frequency of college campus riots. Sports rioting, especially on the Penn State campus, is becoming dangerous and costly, and it must be tamed.

Works Cited:

Donley, Megan. “Examining the Mob Mentality.” The Green Issue. South University, 2017. Web. 27 February 2017.

Siddiqui, Faiz. “The 25 Biggest College Campus Riots of All Time.” Complex. Complex Media, Incorporated, 17 January 2013. Web. 27 February 2017.

“Minnesota hockey fans celebrate, riot after second straight title.” USA Today. Gannet Company, Incorporated, 14 April 2003. Web. 27 February 2017.

“1982 #2 Nebraska vs. #7 PSU.” Blue White Illustrated. Yahoo, 7 January 2016. Web. 27 February 2017.

Ganim, Sara. “Riot at Penn State is most costly, destructive in 15 years, State College police chief says.” PA Penn Live. PA Media Group, 21 December 2011. Web. 27 February 2017.


Approach #1: Education and Community Involvement

Moderators: Eli Kelsey and Nate Putt

Idea Explanation Advantage Disadvantages

Riot Modules

Like SAFE and AWARE Modules taken before the start of a student’s freshman year to educate them on drug/alcohol use and sexual assault, the Riot Module would also be required to attend PSU

Means of educating students before they come to PSU

Encourage students not to participate in riots

Alcohol – students who riot are frequently under the influence of alcohol and are unaware of the damage they are causing

If they didn’t pay attention to the Alcohol/Drug Module, why would they pay attention to one about rioting?

Outreach Programs

A program would be put into place to require students to participate in community service to graduate

Gives students pride in the community that they helped to build

Students may resent communities if they are forced to do community service

Approach One, Education & Community Involvement, examines riots from the perspective of a lack of respect between the community and college aims to create a program that would:

1. Develop a deep sense of institutional memory with a sense of shame at the memory of riots

2. Deter rioting with creation of a respect for the community through volunteering

The root of the rioting issue comes from a lack of respect for the community, which stems from lack of institutional memory. Institutional memory is when the experiences and memories of an organization or place is passed down through documents or personal experiences, giving a sense of unity within a particular place. Students quickly enroll and graduate in a constant cycle,


meaning that shared, personal experiences between community members and students simply doesn’t translate over the years. In 1998 the State College Arts Festival (a non-university event) saw riots where roughly 1,500 students took to the streets, causing the most property damage Chief of Police Tom Herman had seen in 25 years. Afterward, many college students were shameful of what they had done to the community, but those riots were soon forgotten. Patty Kleban, a previous teacher at Penn State, noticed that with each passing semester, less and less people knew about the riots or what happened as a consequence. Therefore, riots of any type could arise because of a lack of understanding or involvement with the community.

Policy Suggestions

1. Our first suggestion is to require new students to participate in an educational program about the community before they even attend. Similar to the alcohol and sexual assault modules (SAFE and AWARE), these programs could give the students a chance to learn more about the community and what happened there before. This institutional memory imbues each new student with a sense of personal responsibility of the shame and consequence of rioting throughout their four years.

2. Our second solution is to integrate the students into the surrounding State College community before they attend Penn State. When they arrive on campus, it is be necessary to establish different community outreach programs in order to have the students give back to their hopefully beloved town. Before a student can declare their major, they should participate in a community program, allowing them to meet different members and work on some sort of project to better create a sense of shared community space. By having students work to add something to the community, it would give them pride in

something they created, not something they tore down.

Drawbacks

1. Possible drawbacks to solution two include forcing students to work in a community program could overwhelm them with responsibilities, creating resentment for the community instead of love.


2. Many of these riots occur as a result of alcohol. Students who are drunk are less likely to care about causing property damage than they are about having some fun and going crazy in order to celebrate a win.

3. if these students are under the influence, it’s obvious that they alcohol module did not succeed.

As a whole, attempting to create a way for each new wave of students to care about their community seems beneficial, but completely determinant on how willing students are to put forth the effort to give it a chance.

Summary

One of the biggest reasons for destructive riots within college campuses is a lack of respect for the community and positive institutional memories. While certain events, such as past riots, may make college students value their town, these students eventually graduate and that feeling leaves with them. This lack of institutional memory can be fixed in different ways. The first suggestion is education about past riots to encourage responsibility. The second suggestion would be to make college students attend mandatory community events, giving them the opportunity each year to help fully integrate Penn State students into the surrounding State College community.

Works Cited:

"1,500 Riot At Penn State Festival -- 24 Arrested, 14 Officers Hurt In College Melee." The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times, 13 July 1998. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

Kleban, Patty. "State College, PA - A Drinking Town With A University Problem." StateCollege.com. StateCollege.com, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.


Approach #2: Law EnforcementModerators: Hope Pavsek and Emily Loucks


Increase Police Force

Due to the overwhelming size of riots at PSU, an increase in police presence at Beaver Stadium and in the streets could be beneficial

Intimidation factor Shows students violence

will not be tolerated

Costs more money to employ greater number of police

Mass Arrest Mass arrest of students who riot instead of only a few people

Would cause great shock and fear, causing riots to shut down faster

Due to the mass arrest, large amounts of students could be detained for hours, which could infringe on the student’s rights

Could result in lawsuits

New Methods/ Technologies

Different methods and technologies, like Tasers, water cannons, and the Skunk could be used

Would cause great shock and fear, causing riots to shut down faster

water cannons allow control over the amount of force

the Skunk is harmless

Could result in lawsuits if injury is caused

Water cannons cause large mess and make it hard to target an individual

Approach 2 looks at improvements that can be made to crowd management to disperse the riots in a more efficient manner and reduce the amount of property damage. Crowd management is a police department’s rehearsed and pre-planned response to a disturbance.


Generally, there are two tactical responses for riot control, called the soft squad for non-violent crowd control, and the hard squad for when there is a need to suppress violence. The soft squad attempts to calm the situation through verbalization tactics, deploying aerosols and using batons, as well as utilizing squad formations to hinder the movement of the crowd. They are outfitted with basic protective gear and equipment, including body armor, a ballistic helmet equipped with a drop shield, and elbow, knee, and shin protections. The hard squad builds upon this and carries riot shields, specialty impact munitions, and various chemical munitions including pepper spray and tear gas.

In the two riots this past semester, the one following the Ohio State upset and the one after the victory in the Big 10 Championship, both techniques were employed. Riot shields, mounted officers blocking off intersections of streets, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and tear gas were all utilized. A handful of students were arrested and charged, 13 for the Ohio State riot and 11 for the Big 10 riot. Even with these measures in place, as well as the police increasing their presence before the end of the games to be ready for any disturbance, over $30,000 in damages were caused and it took around two hours to clear the area after the Ohio State riot. This approach suggests improvements in equipment and different management techniques by:

Increasing the amount and type of gear available to police officers

In a statement released from the State Police department, they said police were limited because they could only deploy as many officers as there was gear and riot helmets were in very short supply. Thus the amount of gear available for the department should be increased, but also the type of equipment should be broadened as well. The pepper spray and rubber bullets stopped some rioters, but did not have the mass impact expected. When ESPN’s Coley Harvey was reporting on the riot he said that “students and fans who were caught in the crossfire didn’t seem to care.” Two other techniques that have been recognized by the Department of Defense and can be employed are:

Tasers: The Taser model, TASER X26, currently in use has an effective range of 0-35 feet and is one of the cheaper and safer alternatives. An individual Taser is around $43.00 and only a few are needed as the shock factor in seeing other people get tased is quite effective as well.

Using water cannons or fire trucks: These are advantageous in that they can be used in varying degrees of force, ranging from an incredibly forceful thin stream to a more diffused spray mode, giving the officers a higher level of control over the appropriate level to use based on the situation. By being able to control the amount of force it is also easier to combat the possibility of injuries amongst the rioters.

The Skunk: It is a completely non-toxic, harmless spray that smells incredibly foul and can be deployed through grenades or in a water canon. It was developed by the Israeli


army and has been proven quite effective in dispelling riots and keeping people away. Besides the smell it poses no hazards and not only is it 100% eco-friendly but also washes out of clothing in one wash. It is a much more cost effective tool compared to most other riot control measures although a specific monetary amount has not been released.

Implementing the Use of Mass Arrests

As seen by the occurrence of another riot, the tactics and threats used by police in the Ohio State Game were not enough of a deterrent to prevent students from starting another riot after the Big Ten Championship. Riots create a “mob mentality” which results from feelings of anonymity, unaccountability, and invincibility in each individual (Mammana). All of these feelings arise from the safety and security of being in a large group, which means people are more willing to commit wrongful acts if they feel untouchable from the law enforcement.

Another riot occurred as a result of students still feeling invincible from law enforcement after the first riot. There were only 13 arrests after the Ohio State game, which is only a very small percentage of students learning a hard lesson after performing unlawful acts. Performing a mass arrest at a sports riots would break the feelings of invincibility from law enforcement. To perform this tactic, police indiscriminately arrest all people in the area after at least three verbal warnings to leave the area are given. Because a riot is an unlawful disturbance, police have a right to arrest people still on sight after clear warnings are given. Arresting a much larger number of people at the riot will cause a shock to many students who believed they were untouchable from law enforcement. Police can then detain those arrested and review the types of charges people face. People are detained for a couple hours, so police need a designated place to keep those who were arrested.

To prevent infringement on civil liberties, the detainment area should be sanitary, allow access to bathrooms, and have enough seats for everyone. Charges can be dropped against those with minor infractions while people found guilty of violence at the riot will be seriously charged. Arresting such a large group of people will teach a valuable lesson to many of the people present at the riot. This shows that individuals are not protected from being in a large group and that the act of rioting is a serious unlawful event that deserves punishment of some sort whether it be detainment for a few hours or being charged with a felony.

Drawbacks:

1. Some of the new techniques, such as the water cannon, can cause more disruption and disturbances for the residents of downtown when the goal is to reduce the disturbance.

2. The water cannons are indiscriminate, meaning they can’t be used to target the rowdier individuals but can only be used on entire crowds.


3. If a fire truck was to be used it would decrease the availability for response in other areas of State College if there was an emergency.

4. There is the potential for injury with these tactics to rioters.

5. Increasing the amount of basic riot gear, such as helmets, will allocate tax dollars from other areas of the police budget such as enforcement of drinking laws.

6. Mass arrests are highly controversial because they indiscriminately arrest people whether they are causing violence or not. This means innocent bystanders or people trying to get home could get arrested.

7. The cost for lawsuits against civil liberties can be astronomical. For example, in 2004 at the Republican National Convention in New York, Police arrested and detained over 1,800 people. This resulted in $17.9 million dollars in lawsuits (Draznin).

8. The mode of detainment can be an issue. If people are detained in unsanitary and harsh conditions, this does infringe on civil liberties.

Works Cited:

Draznin, Haley. "New York to Pay $17.9 Million to 2004 Republican Convention Protesters." CNN. Cable News Network, 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2017. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/new-york-republican-convention-settlement/>.

Elledge, John. "The Pros and Cons of Water Cannon Policing." NewStatesman. N.p., 11 June 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Grabianowski, Ed. "How Riot Control Works." HowStuffWorks. N.p., 30 Nov. 2004. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Mammana, Gregory N. SPORTS-RELATED RIOTS: UNDERSTANDING GROUP BEHAVIOR TO IMPROVE POLICE STRATEGY. Thesis. Naval Post Graduate School, 2016.

"Non-Lethal Weapons Program." Non-Lethal Weapons Program. U.S. Department of Defense, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Patterson @Chip_Patterson, Chip. "WATCH: State College Parties Its Tail off after Penn State's Big Ten Title Win." CBSSports.com. N.p., 04 Dec. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Rhodin, Tony. "13 Charged in Penn State Riot after Ohio State Game." Lehighvalleylive.com. N.p., 15 Nov. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Ruland, Sam. "After Beaver Avenue Riot, Police Say Several Arrests Are Pending." The Daily Collegian. N.p., 23 Oct. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.


"SKUNK." SKUNK - Homepage. Odortec, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Wogenrich, Mark. "Police Charge 11 in 'riot' following Penn State's Big Ten Title." Themorningcall.com. N.p., 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Young, Dave. "Crowd Management: Preparing for the Storm." Police Magazine. N.p., 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.


Approach #3: University PolicyModerators: Zack Pettoruto and Michael Peagler


Concrete University Policies

Concrete University policies and disciplinary actions, like the removal of season football tickets or suspension, could be put into place

Students have a better understanding of what is at risk if they riot

Diversity in punishments so they apply to many students

Acts as a prevention and punishment

Students may not care or be indifferent

Students may have a negative reaction to policy implementation

Takes away from the community aspect of the crime

Disciplinary In-Person Riot Class

Like classes that must be taken when charged with an underage or DUI, an in-person class could be a requirement for students caught rioting

Give students the facts about riots (cost, legal/university consequences, alternative actions, perspective into what a rioter is actually destroying, etc.)

Encourages students to not participate in the future

Practicality of a class in questionable

May not be cost- or time-effective for the university

Takes away from the community aspect of the crime

Could create further resentment towards community

Approach 3 looks at creating university-wide policy to address rioting offenses and deter riots from occurring in the future. Creating policy that institutes educational programs and concrete punishment for rioting would serve to

1) Discourage students from rioting through the implementation of specific, serious consequence

2) Inform Penn State students about what they may be destroying and the cost of rioting.

More often than not, university policies categorize the act of rioting as a “serious offense”, but the vague undertone regarding “serious offense” leaves the entailed punishment up for wide-


range of interpretation. For example, Princeton and Penn State’s student codes of conduct state the following:

Princeton Policy1.2.5 Personal Safety

Actions that threaten or endanger in any way the personal safety or security of others will be regarded as serious offenses. The following offenses will be regarded as extremely serious:

1. Deliberate participation in a riot or general disturbance that threatens the safety, or seriously threatens the property, of either University members or townspeople.

Penn State PolicyThe sanctions for off-campus misconduct range from a Conduct Warning to Expulsion (Penn State Code of Conduct)

Policy such as this will not have an impact because of its unclear meaning and students will not take it seriously. Research shows that the simpler and more concrete something is; the greater impact it will have on someone’s decision making. (Source: Roller, “How Cognitive Fluency Affects Decision Making.)

The University of Colorado took this information to heart when implementing their riot policy. Their stance and rules on riots can be summed up in three paragraphs, taken directly from Colorado state law:

Student enrollment, prohibition, public peace and order convictions.

1. No person who is convicted of a riot offense shall be enrolled in a state-supported institution of higher education for a period of twelve months following the date of conviction.

2. A student who is enrolled in a state supported institution of higher education and who is convicted of a riot offense shall be immediately suspended from the institution upon the institution’s notification of such conviction for a period of twelve months following the date of conviction.

3. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a state-supported institution of higher education from implementing its own policies and procedures or disciplinary actions, in addition to the suspension in subsection (2) of this section, regarding students involved in riots. (Source: “Student Conduct Code Policies & Procedures 2016 –17”).


Since implementing its riot policy in 2002, UC Boulder has only seen one riot occur (Source: “University of Colorado at Boulder Catalog 2004-05”), whereas Penn State had 3 riots just last semester. This approach looks at fixing that problem at the University administrative level.

Policy Suggestions

This approach focuses on implementing specific university-enforced consequences that will be imposed on a student for their contribution to a destructive riot. Such policies could include but would not be limited to the following: taking away student football ticket privileges, taking away activity privileges, a warning for the first offense followed by suspension/expulsion for subsequent offenses, etc.

Writing policy to create online educational programs or in-person courses could be another way of combating riot issues at Penn State; however, unlike Approach 1, this approach suggests that the education be reactionary instead of preemptive. Having students take an extensive post-riot webinar or in-person course would force them to reflect on what they have done and would be similar to the classes alcohol and marijuana users must take after they are caught using. Policy creating an in-class program would be especially effective because many students wouldn’t want to take the chance of being thrown in it more than once. Burning a couch may be fun, but it’s harmful and people need to know why!

Implementing university policy that directly applies to acts of rioting, as well as instilling Penn State’s values and pride into the heart of its students, makes this approach a feasible one to look at. Students will have a better understanding of the consequences for rioting due to the policy’s concrete wording and the policy will be a riot-deterrent in itself; no one wants to lose their football tickets, waste their time having to take an in-person class, or be expelled from a university because of an act that could have been avoided with a little forethought.

Drawbacks

Issues with this approach include that it may not be practical for all schools, that university resources would have to be allocated to policy creation, and that students may have a negative reaction or would not care. For schools like Penn State, where rioting is nearly part of its culture and has been for decades, implementing such policy could be costly and have little to no effect.Implementing a policy like this at Penn State might not be practical because riots are very common, and suspending or expelling every kid who gets caught rioting would not be in the university’s best interest. In addition, creating an online program and/or having an in-class course for rioters may not be cost-effective because, as previously stated, Penn State loves its

University policies would be a negative punishment.


riots and there are only a small amount of students that are arrested during a riot anyway. Funding the in class program could be especially problematic because there isn’t a riot every semester, and teacher’s/time costs money.

Aside from these practical tradeoffs, the value tradeoffs of this approach are also substantial. For example, a negative reaction from the general student population is a real possibility. There is also a chance that students really won’t care about the punishment if it’s not serious enough. Additionally, making the programs/punishments university-based would take away from the community aspect of the crime, as Penn State riots often occur right off campus. Having the university enforce its policy could make kids forget where the real harm was done and actually cause them to further resent the off-campus community.

Works Cited:

"CU Changing Lives." University of Colorado at Boulder Catalog 2004-05. University of Colorado at Boulder Publications and Creative Services, 2004. Web. 27 Feb. 2017. <http://www.colorado.edu/registrar/sites/default/files/attached-files/ucb_2004-05_catalog.pdf>.

"Rights and Responsibilities of Community Living." STUDENT GUIDE TO GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICIES AND RULES. The Pennsylvania State University, 25 Sept. 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

Roller, Colleen. "How Cognitive Fluency Affects Decision Making." UXmatters. UX Matter, 4 July 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

"Student Conduct Code Policies & Procedures 2016 –17." OFFICE OF STUDENT CONDUCT & CONFLICT RESOLUTION: University of Colorado Boulder. The Regents of the University of Colorado, 8 Aug. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2017. <http://www.colorado.edu/osccr/sites/default/files/attached-files/studentconductcode_16-17-c.pdf>.

University, Princeton. "University-Wide Regulations." Princeton University. Trustees of Princeton University © 2014, 02 Aug. 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2017. <http://www.princeton.edu/pub/rrr/part1/>.

http://www.princeton.edu/pub/rrr/part1/

http://www.colorado.edu/registrar/sites/default/files/attached-files/ucb_2004-05_catalog.pdf


SummaryModerators: Isabel Brady, Allyson Stump, and Mike McPeek

The sports riots that plague Penn State pose a threat to the infrastructure of downtown State College, disrupt the daily lives of students and townspeople, and strain the relationship of the university and town. Three solutions have been proposed to stop these riots: before the riot, during the riot, and after the riot. Approach One examined the problem of the riots for the perspective of community-university relations and lack of respect; creating institutional memories, it was argued, would help prevent riots before they start. Approach Two argued that increased technology and mass arrests can help quickly disperse riots before they gain the power to do much property damage and shock students into compliance with an arrest. Approach Three, with modifications to university policy, argues that strict in-university policy would reduce riots with a dual tactic of both harsh penalties and revocation of privileges as well as education about rioting. These three approaches with diverse tactics aim to stem riots and their consequences with an overall effort to improve university-town relations.

Pepper spray, tear gas, and lamp posts, oh my! · Web viewAuthor: Allyson Stump Created Date:...

Documents

Transcript of Pepper spray, tear gas, and lamp posts, oh my! · Web viewAuthor: Allyson Stump Created Date:...