On Saturday, Sept. 14, the Johns Hopkins University Police Accountability Board (JH Accountability Board) hosted an open virtual meeting to discuss the policies and deployment of the Johns Hopkins Police Department (JHPD). The JH Accountability Board is responsible for sharing community feedback with JHPD leadership; reviewing JHPD metrics involving crime; and assessing departmental policies, procedures and training to provide recommendations for improvement.
The meeting was initially scheduled as an in-person event, but, in light of an X post insinuating a disruption during the community conversation, members of the JH Accountability Board convened at an undisclosed location and shifted community participation to a virtual setting.
The first section of the event occurred as a webinar on Zoom during which participants were unable to turn on their cameras or unmute themselves; attendees could only post written questions through Zoom's question and answer feature. The second section shifted the meeting to a structured public commentary through which participants could individually turn their cameras and mics on to voice their questions or comments about the JHPD.
The webinar opened with an introduction by Chairperson of Community Engagement Sonja Merchant-Jones, during which she acknowledged the public’s concerns about the JHPD — as well as a general discontent with the meeting’s virtual setting.
“We know that the establishment of a police force is a deeply sensitive issue, particularly given the historical and ongoing challenges related to policing and community relations,” she said. “Your voices are important, and we hear you. The accountability board title is to you, and so when you're not here, we can’t have the exchange that we would like so that we can represent that to public safety, so we need to change that.”
She then proposed a series of town hall meetings during which community members would be able to actively voice their concerns about the JHPD.
The event transitioned to a presentation by Douglas Tremitiere, chair of policy and training, and Dr. Madhu Subramanian, vice chair of the aforementioned committee. The two discussed the final draft of the JHPD policies and how those policies account for public suggestions and commentary. The meeting then opened to the public for questions.
Graduate student Janvi Madhani first voiced her discontent about the virtual setting of the meeting. Her views were shared by several other participants, who were disappointed that they were unable to meet their community members and engage in an open dialogue with the JH Accountability Board.
“I’m deeply disappointed that the format of this meeting was changed, in your own words, to avoid unpleasantness, and you'd hope that, as an accountability board, you wouldn't shy away from accountability to the public,” Madhani said. “If you're here to represent us, then you have to be willing to hear us, and you're not facilitating a community dialogue by hosting these meetings in a format in which you're able to censor who is able to speak in these meetings.”
She then transitioned to more specific questions about the JHPD, such as the circumstances under which members of an armed police force should be the first responders to an event. The JH Accountability Board ultimately established that this would depend on the circumstances.
“That’s an operational call — which incidents would be responded to with a firearm,” a member on the board said. “That’s an operational issue, which is kind of outside our purview. But to understand the types of incidents that are occurring, [where] firearms are needed, I’m presuming there are very few, and there would be very few. This is all part of collecting information to make sure it gets to the right place.”
After further discussion, the JH Accountability Board emphasized that the conception of the JHPD occurred at the state level and was not implemented by members of the board.
Another participant voiced concerns about the police force carrying rifles around campus. Given that the JHPD is currently in the process of being deployed, the participant doubted that his concerns would be taken into account to revise the department’s final policy. He was especially worried that, despite the fact that the issue of weaponry has not yet been resolved or agreed upon by the Hopkins community, the JHPD is currently in the process of being trained and deployed with those firearms. He urged the accountability board to resolve these issues prior to deployment. The board responded in turn.
“All we can do is say that this is a legitimate concern,” Merchant-Jones said. “We are not the bad guys. We are not the police. We are you, and we are just trying to communicate with the police department and make sure that your concerns and questions are addressed, and, if people feel the opposite way, we represent those people as well, so we are trying to do our best job to represent everyone that we represent.”
Emil Volcheck, a member of the Abell Improvement Association, then raised several concerns about the recently-published final policies of the JHPD.
“Guns don’t make our community safer, particularly military style. Rifles, guns and students don’t mix,” he said. “Next, people of color are at greater risk of harm by having more armed police. Next, crime has been decreasing in our community, as supported by the Baltimore Banner and the Charles Village Community Benefit District management authority. A new private armed police force is not needed to make us safer. Unarmed security is a better way, like the Baltimore City Community College model.”
He then insisted that law enforcement powers must be held publicly accountable, openly questioning the authority of the JH Accountability Board to challenge the University on JHPD policy. He argued that the ultimate authority on this matter is President Ronald J. Daniels, a power neither elected nor accountable.
Aprille Weron, city council president appointee of the JH Accountability Board, responded to these comments by emphasizing that the accountability board has no authority to dissolve the police force but can and will take community suggestions into account to ensure the JHPD’s full transparency and competency. Another member of the board then mentioned that the current policies reconcile opposing community viewpoints, taking into account those who do believe that an armed police force will promote campus security.
“[The University] did open up the door for you to say that you don't feel that [the JHPD] should exist,“ she said. “But there are other people in this same community who do support it. And so that's why it's best that we all come together and and [...] and come up with decisions that everyone can walk away satisfied with.”
Another participant suggested that the University can collaborate with Baltimore’s nonprofit, non-police community safety initiatives to limit — or eliminate entirely — the presence of police officers on campus. She argued that this would not only improve campus safety but would also strengthen ties between the University and the Baltimore community.
The JH Accountability Board then faced significant backlash from attendees who objected to their previous comments about armed police. Some asked if members of the board felt any personal complicity in the harm that may come to the community after the implementation of an armed police force on campus.
They were placed under further scrutiny in light of their comments that the Maryland Legislature created the JHPD; it did not, some argued, it merely approved its existence. Given that the JH Accountability Board is a legal requirement for the formulation of the JHPD, many urged the board to quit their jobs so as to delay deployment and absolve themselves of any personal complicity.
The meeting concluded with a final comment from a Hopkins faculty member who questioned whether peaceful protests would be broken up by the armed JHPD. They cited protests at University of California, Los Angeles and Columbia University as examples of peaceful protests that were broken up by a police presence on campus. The JH Accountability Board responded in turn.
“From a personal level, I can’t guarantee the action of any other human being,” a member of the accountability board said. “I can only guarantee the actions of myself, so I don’t know.”
