Journal of Higher Education Management - Vol 36(1)

incorporate shared goals and demonstrate a unified front; and 4) maintaining lines of communication and scheduling regular cross-unit meetings.

In dialogues with University Police officers, it became clear that they held a strong desire to connect with the community and to form meaningful relationships with stakeholders and students.

Officers expressed an understanding that their presence could create a negative impact if they were to come across an unavoidable issue during their community outreach efforts such as evidence of possession of illicit drugs or behavior that violates university policy. University Police expressed jointly-envisioned solutions that would be helpful for them including the following, ones that could be broadly applied at many institutions of higher education: 1) Schedule specific targeted events in common spaces that are well advertised and structured to allow officers to engage with residents and students in a controlled environment and to demonstrate team and collaborative spirit.

2) Engage campus police in community resource presentations for resident advisor training, during orientation, and in First Year Experience programs.

3) Explore topics that campus police can facilitate as part of “Know Your Rights” programs and campaigns. Campus police see value in educating students on shared awareness of rules and protocols, in creating more understanding of how campus police enforce university policies, and in explaining the differences between university policies and state, local, or federal laws.

4) Assess student perceptions of campus police using survey tools and conduct ongoing listening sessions with campus police units to identify issues and solutions.

5) Examine and revise university policies, ensuring that any negative assumptions are removed, and that the role of campus police is made clear.

6) Examine student conduct trends and assess how first responders are trained, including clear guidelines for why and when staff/faculty/student staff should call campus police.

What has become clear through the conscious dialogues of this process is that both University Police and key stakeholders, such as other support units and student groups, demonstrate a willingness to invest in each other's mission, goals, and priorities. Specifically, the University Police and CDI have worked collaboratively by investing time in supporting events of the other unit, in participating in joint committee efforts, and in working together to alleviate pressures each may face under a common goal.

This shared commitment can only function, however, if all parties acknowledge power dynamics when forming partnerships.

Conclusion Campus policing is a more than 100-year old phenomenon, which has evolved from an early property protection role to a far more complex set of expectations. Contemporary campus policing units provide varied support for security-guard and rule enforcement duties, as well as responding to incidents of campus unrest in an increasingly professionalized approach that frequently resembles external policing (Sloan, 2020). Given this evolving history, it is not surprising that structures and communication systems need to be reviewed and evaluated periodically in light of changing institutional and cultural contexts. In this paper, we provided context for a student experience of racial trauma that was catalyzed most vividly during the pandemic by the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, but which follows a long and well-documented history of how policing behavior can impact minoritized communities. Through the framework of our campus efforts during the pandemic and within the integrated model provided, we offered a means of operationalizing campus action through 56