From protests to protection: New training tackles campus crisis management

U.S. colleges and universities are facing a moment of reckoning: When does free expression cross the line into creating an unsafe environment for students, faculty, and staff? Institutions are grappling with unprecedented challenges as geopolitical tensions and ideological divisions spill over onto campuses.

Campuses today are experiencing levels of unrest reminiscent of earlier eras, with acts of aggression increasingly tied to global tensions. Protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict have, in some cases, escalated into physical confrontations and targeted actions at institutions such as UCLA, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Michigan, Tulane, Cooper Union and UT-Austin. Hate incidents, some resulting in violence, have reached record levels, posing significant challenges for universities as they work to ensure safety and promote respectful dialogue within their communities.

“Campus policing has gone from flash to bang, backburner to front burner, due to geopolitical flashpoints playing out on our quads and in our classrooms,” said Paul Cell, executive director of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA). “We are now in the position of being on the ideological front lines ultimately impacting the safety and security of students and faculty.”

This stark reality set the stage for “Navigating Through Campus Conflict,” a two-day pilot program aimed at equipping campus law enforcement, security and administrative officials with the tools to address today’s increasingly complex challenges. Held in early December at Rutgers University, the program drew over 100 participants from colleges and universities from as far as Boston, Toronto and Montreal, as well as local, state, and federal law enforcement officials.

According to John Farmer, acting chief counsel for Rutgers University and Director of the Miller Center on Policing and Community Resilience at Rutgers, a key goal of the training is to break down silos between college administrators and law enforcement. “The aim is to develop an effective training module that administrators, college presidents, civilian public safety directors, and college chiefs of police can all understand and recognize,” Farmer explained. “It’s about coming together to address and curb this rise — this epidemic, if you will — of bias and hate crimes on campuses.”

The pilot training program, consisting of 10 modules, was co-sponsored by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA), the Miller Center, and the Global Consortium of Law Enforcement Training Executives (GCLETE).

The event began with remarks from the three convening organizations, followed by the signing of a memorandum of understanding by Cell, IACLEA President and Rhodes College Associate VP of Campus Safety L. Angela Webb, and the Miller Center’s Chief Policy Advisor and program lead, Paul Goldenberg. The signatories committed to collaborating on the development, expansion and dissemination of this training across campuses nationwide. “This past year has been one of the toughest for universities, not only here, but globally,” Webb noted, emphasizing the urgent need to address campus safety challenges.

Hands-on training to navigate real-world scenarios

One of the most impactful modules focused on de-escalation and use of force, immersing college administrators in the role of campus police to illustrate the challenges public safety officers encounter in volatile and ambiguous situations.

The first scenario presented a high-stakes but common situation: campus police are called to the quad, where 200 students protesting tuition increases have gathered, blocking access to the administrative building. As officers arrive, the demonstrators’ tone becomes increasingly confrontational, with students accusing campus police of siding with a “greedy administration.” Robert Czepiel, chief curriculum developer, played the role of an angry protester, charging toward three administrators acting as campus police. Pointing a finger in their faces, he shouted, “This school sucks!”

The exercise forced participants to think on their feet: How should the officers respond? One participant calmly raised her hands, signaling the man to keep his distance, and, using a steady and controlled voice, asked the protester to back up. Her approach successfully de-escalated the tension, highlighting the importance of composure and clear communication in volatile situations.

The scenarios didn’t stop there. In a second exercise, instructors raised the stakes by introducing whispers of a demonstrator carrying a gun. Some students speculated the rumor was a smear tactic, while others feared it could be true. Czepiel, again in character, approached the three administrators-turned-campus-police, exhibiting “squirrelly” behavior with one hand hidden behind his back. This ambiguous and tense situation tested participants’ ability to balance caution with maintaining control, forcing them to navigate the fine line between responding to a potential threat and avoiding unnecessary escalation.

The final scenario was even more intense. A student, again played by Czepiel, approached holding a large knife pointed downward, claiming to have found it on campus. When the participants ordered him to drop the knife, he refused to comply. This high-pressure situation required participants to respond decisively, testing their ability to make split-second decisions to ensure safety while managing the unfolding tension.

While the participants handled these scenarios well considering their limited training — given that they are neither police nor security officers— the instructors provided critical feedback. They stressed the importance of maintaining a safe distance from the knife bearer, ensuring that only one officer issues commands to avoid confusion, and keeping clear and consistent lines of communication throughout the encounter.

Expanding the training to cover critical challenges

These hands-on exercises were just one component of a comprehensive program. Beyond de-escalation, other modules covered critical topics such as determining whether an act constitutes a hate/bias incident, a crime, or neither; balancing free expression with campus safety; the psychological impact of hate/bias crimes on students and families with transgenerational trauma; the relationship between civilian administrators and sworn/nonsworn campus safety officials; the roles, authority, and distinctions between campus police and non-sworn campus security; and strategies for leveraging social media to identify and respond to potential threats.

WATCH: Robert Czepiel, Jr., NTCC Lead Curriculum Developer and retired Deputy Director of the NJ Division of Criminal Justice, discusses the IACLEA training curriculum.

The training concluded with a module led by Jason Kepp, Acting Deputy Director of the DHS Federal Protective Service, which focused on proactive strategies for managing conflict during unrest. The session emphasized not only effectively addressing protests but also building relationships with protest leaders to foster ongoing dialogue and prevent future incidents.

Despite the presence of other programs addressing campus conflict, this initiative stood out for its breadth and inclusivity. “There have been other laudable efforts to address bias, hate crimes, and intimidation on college campuses, especially since October 7, 2023,” said IACLEA President L. Angela Webb. “This training — which, to be clear, will continue to be developed and refined — includes the very people we rely on for campus safety: police and security.” She emphasized that the program incorporates diverse perspectives, drawing on the expertise of detectives, college administrators, academics, attorneys, prosecutors, psychologists, and other specialists.

WATCH: Dr. Stacy Fisher, Director of Community Standards and Title IX Coordinator, Stevens Institute of Technology, discusses the IACLEA training.

The program’s relevance strongly resonated with attendees. Dr. Stacy Fisher, Director of Community Standards and Title IX Coordinator at the Stevens Institute of Technology, highlighted how timely the training felt. “Given the political climate we’re in and everything we’ve been dealing with since last October, it’s critical that we’re on the same page about how we’re navigating not only the law but also our students’ experiences during these times,” she said.

Fisher noted that she found particular value in the training focused on prosecuting hate and bias crime cases. “I’ve been trained extensively in investigations and interviewing students effectively,” she explained. “But seeing the flip side — understanding how to ensure I’m not stepping on the toes of my officers while also fulfilling my responsibilities — has been a real eye-opener for me.”

Dr. Jennifer Griffin, Vice President of Public Safety and Chief of Police at Temple University, valued the program’s focus on uniting resources and partners across universities to create an inclusive training model. “These are unprecedented times that require university leaders — including the president, the police chief, and university administrators — to perform with speed, accuracy, and in compliance with acts, policies, and best practices,” Griffin said. “Because we all experience moments of uncertainty, and sometimes chaos, this training presents an opportunity to ensure we are all moving in unison.”

Feedback from the pilot will guide future enhancements to the training program. The objective is to create a program that meets the needs of its audiences while staying true to the law, campus culture, and community relationships. One early suggestion was to move the discussion of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to the first day of the program. Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs, is a cornerstone of campus equity efforts. Missteps in complying with Title VI can expose institutions to civil lawsuits, making its early placement in the training critical to establishing a strong foundation.

Global perspectives on managing campus conflict

The pilot program also demonstrated its global relevance. Public safety officials from Canada, including representatives from the University of Toronto, Canada’s largest university, and McGill University in Montreal, explored ways to adapt the training to their unique legal and operational contexts. Dr. Peter Shipley, Assistant Director of Campus Safety Special Constable Service at the University of Toronto, emphasized the importance of addressing global complexities. “The need has never been greater for university leadership, police, and security to understand the impact and intricacies of conflict to navigate complex campus issues effectively,” Shipley said. He also highlighted the value of the course’s inclusion of legal protections like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, along with its focus on de-escalation, conflict resolution, and mediation.

Throughout the training, real-life case studies and videos brought the program’s key themes to life. Dr. Kate Tumelty Felice, a professor of education and psychology at Rowan College of South Jersey, and Brian Christensen, a retired sergeant from the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice’s Bias Crimes Unit, presented gripping examples. These included Jewish students holding an Israeli flag being attacked by protesters at UC Berkeley, Islamophobic demonstrators stomping on a Quran at Wayne State University, and two gay students being assaulted at the University of Michigan. Despite their differences, these cases shared a common theme: students who felt unsafe and unsupported.

Tumelty Felice offered practical advice for engaging with survivors of hate crimes. She encouraged investigators to give survivors space to vent, allow them to share their stories in their own words, and ask for details about specific language or actions that caused their trauma. She also stressed the importance of determining whether survivors have supportive friends or family to lean on during their recovery.

The program’s overarching goal is to ensure higher education institutions are safe havens for learning and free expression, free from bias, harassment, or hate. “At the end of the day,” said IACLEA’s Cell, “we want to make sure these students are protected and that they receive the legal protection and justice they deserve when they are the victims of bias incidents or crimes.”