RI Council of Postsecondary Education votes in support of mandating armed campus police at RIC and CCRI; RIC students oppose

Olivia Barone

Editor in Chief

The Rhode Island Council of Postsecondary Education [OPC] met last week to vote on the issue of arming campus police officers at both Rhode Island College [RIC] and the Community College of Rhode Island [CCRI]. After an open forum featuring testimonies from several students, faculty, staff and officers from both campuses and heavy deliberation, the council voted to approve the arming of campus police officers. 

In May 2013, the Rhode Island Board of Education allowed public colleges to arm campus police officers but only the University of Rhode Island [URI] decided to take part while RIC and CCRI refused. The issue was raised again in 2018 but was rejected by RIC’s previous president, Frank Sanchez, who cited the fast response times and adequate protection of nearby Providence and North Providence police departments. However, the mandate was reintroduced this year by RI Representative William O’Brien in the form of bill 2026-H 7128 after the Brown University shooting on Dec. 13, 2025. 

Image by Anchor Staff

In response, RIC’s Office of the President conducted a survey to gauge the opinion of its community members on whether or not they would feel safer if campus police were armed in a crisis or otherwise. An email sent on April 13, 2026, from President Jack Warner to all students, revealed that 57.6% of respondents were either somewhat or strongly in favor of arming campus police officers. No other details of the survey were made available to campus prior to the council meeting on April 15, 2026. 

President Warner was present at the council meeting and summarized the intended efforts of the survey, saying it “was designed to be a straightforward measure of campus sentiment.” He stated that Qualtrics, the software used to create and conduct the survey, flagged duplicate responses so that they did not alter results. Of the 1,528 responses received, 1,376 were deemed legitimate and worthy of analysis. Warner also clarified that council members received the full results of the survey prior to the council meeting that night. 

“I fully support arming trained campus police at RIC,” President Warner concluded his opening remarks. 

RIC students who attended the council meeting testified that the survey was poorly conducted, flawed and was not a proper representation of the opinions of their community. In his testimony, Student Community Government [SCG] President Dante DiGregorio claimed “the questions were leading students to a predetermined answer. We asked for the full results, we were promised them. We never got them.” 

RIC Psychology student and SCG Chief of Staff James Goldberg pointed to the decision to make the survey accessible to anyone regardless of if they attended or worked at RIC. “There was not closed access to the survey so anyone with access could weigh in on this serious topic that will impact the RIC community.” 

SCG Vice President Tess Sullivan shared her dissatisfaction with the indirect method of data collection provided by the survey. “I personally, as a social work student, take fault with not reaching out to students directly… Students do not think black and white about this issue. There is nuance and I worry that without a form of qualitative data, we are not getting the full picture.” Sullivan also highlighted the estimated $200,000 cost of this initiative and suggested that funds could be put toward preventative measures such as increased mental health counseling at RIC. 

Other students expressed feeling unsafe if campus police were to be armed. RIC social work major Alexandra Howlett confessed, “I would personally not feel safe with my community police if whenever I saw them, they had a gun in their pocket… I really encourage [the council] to rethink this decision. You can look at the turnout from the students here. We feel really strongly about this issue.” 

Of the 16 testimonies given, 13 were by students and two were by staff in opposition to the bill. However, Campus Police Officer Ray Glenn testified in favor of the bill, saying, “we have the chance to make a historic step in doing something very tangible to save a future student’s life.” He proposed that preventative measures to campus violence are difficult to measure but mitigation is possible if given the right resources. 

After the open forum, all were required to leave the meeting room while the council made their decision, resulting in the approval of the bill with one opposing vote. 

Council member Lawrence Purtill gave his concluding thoughts, speaking directly to the campus police officers in the room: “I support you but I’d like to see a lot from you as well… Students need to feel safe. I hope as we go through with this, this goal is important to you as well.” 

A confirmed timeline for the implementation of the bill has not been announced. All campus officers will undergo an 18-month training but what exactly this training entails has not been provided to the public. 

An email from President Warner to campus the day after the council meeting included the statement he gave and a promise that the implementation of this new mandate will be “careful, thorough and deliberate, proceeding in clearly defined phases… This decision marks the beginning of an ongoing conversation, not its conclusion.” 

Those interested in viewing the council meeting’s opening statements from President Warner and the OPC can do so on Youtube, as well as the testimonies from students and staff. 

RIC community members are encouraged to share their thoughts on this important issue by messaging The Anchor or SCG on Instagram: @rictheanchor and @scgric.