Campus Safety Commission reflects on summit, discusses future identity at meeting

Members from the UNC Campus Safety Commission gathered Wednesday in Carroll Hall to reflect on the 2020 Summit on Safety and Belonging. The group also discussed what the future identity of the commission should look like by considering future proposals and agendas.

But, ideological disagreements between commission members surfaced.

Reflecting on the summit

Members began the meeting by sharing their thoughts on the 2020 Summit on Safety and Belonging, which took place on Jan. 28 to discuss the reality of safety on campus. 

Lawrence Grossberg, communications and cultural studies professor, shared his opinion on the summit. He said that while the summit was a great public relations success, he felt it was sham. While he agreed with many of the proposals introduced, he thought they were a product of Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz and not the commission.

“Two-thirds of the proposals offered — I’d never heard of them,” he said. 

He said what was said at the summit did not reflect the conversations that were held by the commission in the six months leading up to it. 

DeVetta Holman, resiliency and student support programs coordinator, disagreed. 

“It did reflect the feedback that we got from the listening sessions, though — there was nothing made up,” she said. “These overarching themes came from the listening sessions.”

Amending the voting process

Frank Baumgartner, political science professor and co-chairperson of the commission, transitioned the conversation into how the commission would deal with these differences of opinions in the future. 

He said since different opinions among the members may arise, the commission should try to agree upon a voting process for future proposals. 

“I would just propose a majority vote with members present, but then each recommendation be subject to a separate vote,” he said. “I would not propose unanimous.”

But other members preferred a two-thirds vote. 

Kim Strom-Gottfried, professor in the School of Social Work, said the beauty of a two-thirds vote is that it allows the commission to decide where it is going to put its weight.

Brandon Washington — director of Equal Opportunity and Compliance — said that without a unanimous vote, the commission runs the risk of potentially undermining certain proposals. But, he also said he recognized that implementing a unanimous vote may not be feasible. 

“It also asks, you know, 'Are there things that we can actually all agree on?'” Washington said. 

Defining safety

The members then discussed what the specific mission of the committee should be. They disagreed on whether or not the mission is to promote just physical safety or emotional safety as well.

“My understanding of safety is the mitigation of risk of harm," Quinton Smith, graduate student in the School of Social Work, said. “A concerted lack of belonging in a sense produces a sense of harm, and this can be psychological, it can be social, it can be emotional.”

Grossberg said the protection of emotional safety falls into the hands of other organizations on campus and not necessarily the Campus Safety Commission. 

Despite differing opinions, all members agreed that clarification on what the mission truly is will be necessary in the near future. 

university@dailytarheel.com