You do realize that almost every university on the US has its own police force? They are absolutely equipped to investigate crimes, or they’re at least as qualified as the town police would be.

Pro Tip: the university police has a conflict of interest, they will prefer to sweep violent crime under the rug rather than deal with it because bad statistics will make the place look bad. The GP poster is correct to be concerned that investigative and judicial powers are vested in the same entity; we usually keep them separate, and for good reason.

As someone from the US, universities having their own police forces is between authoritarian and barking mad. It seems downright at odds with both its proposed functionality and goals. The design seems like it would cynically be used to suppress student movements yet it is mostly used to softball enforcement for sake of reputations and not alienating students.

Having police for demographics seems inherently suspicious from a standpoint of liberty as it is either for undue crackdowns or undue lenience separate from official legal status. To give an absurd yet rationally based hypothetical - if it was official that it was in the interest of the state and people for college students to get more lenient drug and alcohol sentences because they want to encourage a limited degree of exploration to better innovation they wouldn't need a seperate police force because it was already codified in law.

This is distinct from when there are actual practical differences for given groups to be policed - a specialized white collar crime police force makes perfect sense as the needs are different. Similarly military police in a provost [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provost_(military_police)] role are justifiable.

I'm not saying campuses should go unpoliced. I'm saying that the approach is suspect for the situation even if it is just a stupid historical artifact. Keeping an office of a police station on a sufficiently large campus but part of the normal state or city policing is fine - just because they are part of a university doesn't mean they are outside their jurisdiction. Deciding to have a security force that specifically don't have policing powers but enforce rules 'privately' is also fine.

Agreed. The other side of the argument seems too trapped inside a vacuum where things are done the way they should be on paper. That's not reality at a university looking to turn a profit. The people doing the grunt work (Campus Police) might have the tools and means to solve this problem but the people signing their paychecks don't want them to do anything that could reduce profits or put their job at Campus Police in jeopardy.

That’s a fair point. Judicial processes on campus can definitely be pooorly conceived and unintuitive. My “favorite” are the various “honor courts” that various schoold use as a catch-all “we don’t like what you did, so you’re expelled” process.

I was about to write that this was not true, because I could not believe it, but boy was I wrong: “in the 2004-05 school year, 74% of college campuses had sworn officers with the power to arrest, and 90% of these departments were armed”. [0]. That seems absurd to me! I went to tiny liberal arts schools for undergrad/grad school, and we just had nice dudes with pepper spray that walked around occasionally.

0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_police

1. A university education is a massive advantage in various measures of success

2. Universities have often been actively hostile towards various groups

These two facts caused a lot of government regulation to be applied to universities, which includes the university taking steps to prevent a "hostile environment." This means that policing harassment is often a legal requirement on universities, and was put in place so that the universities could not rely on the existing student body to do the discrimination on behalf of the university.

That is to say prior to the laws that are being applied in this case, we had laws against harassment and they didn't work. At least partly this is because harassment is usually not a federal crime, so the federal government could not force the states to enforce those laws.