Dealing with this new and emerging threat is complicated as on one hand it encourages terrorist organizations and organized crime to aptly seek recruitment, while on the other it hinders law enforcement in reacting as per their standard operating procedures. This trend points to serious concerns of growing acceptability for violence and a tendency to subvert the law. The important concerns to be discussed at length are twofold; the nature of these violent activities and the approach adopted by perpetrators. To understand nature of violence, the argument dissects whether this activity is cyclic; falling within the ambit of the cycle of violence, or escalatory; intensifying with each episode or scuffle between student groups. Also, the origins are also important to be understood as being individualistic or group-intensive. This discussion is important because it not only concerns maintaining a peaceful and healthy campus environment, but also in discouraging non-state entities in seeing this situation as a recruitment opportunity.
Students enrolled in colleges and universities are some of the most vulnerable groups in terms of state security, as they can be intentionally or unintentionally ‘recruited’ by a whole host of non-state entities. This ranges from narcotics peddling to gang enforcers, criminal organizations, anti-state elements like separatist groups, terrorist organizations and proscribed entities. The pull factors for students being attracted to such entities include financial benefits, the alleviation of negative social sentiments through use of force, exaggeration of social or ethnic sentiments through propaganda and promotion of societal compartmentalization that already exists between various social groups. The three dominant factors that such organizations might prefer in prospective ‘recruits’ can be narcissism, novelty seeking and humiliation revenge.
Use of politically insensitive remarks, excessive display of force by forming large groups and engaging in violent outbursts with ‘rival’ groups is a serious concern on campuses.
Student groups, especially in universities display almost all these psychological traits where various student groups engage in violent clashes. Such confrontations are either based on group superiority sentiments or as a means to vent out societal and social frustrations emanating from feeling of isolation or class compartmentalization. With absence or inadequate counselling services available to students and limited campus based cocurricular activities, students are susceptible to such sentiments. The behavior of campus administration and use of culturally or socially sensitive remarks during conversation are some of the catalysts that add fuel to the fire. The absence of political correctness in conversation or lack of control over sensitive group based activities through administrative inattention are also catalysts that promote such sentiments.
To address collective narcissism among student groups, university administrations can engage in a win-win environment where such groups can be periodically be engaged in social activities on and off campus to create an aperture for dispelling any negative outcomes emanating out of such sentiments. This can include campus cleanup drives, social mobility outlets like campus management assistance, student support activities, and by seeing this narcissistic tendency as merely a smokescreen for shame-based fear factors. Some students develop these tendencies even without being affiliated to any student, as they are unable to adjust to campus life either due to socioeconomic reasons or cultural shock.
Novelty seeking behavior is another trait that manifests impulsive mostly reactionary outburst of violence often associated to ‘reputation.' Use of politically insensitive remarks, excessive display of force by forming large groups and engaging in violent outbursts with ‘rival’ groups is a serious concern on campuses. Such confrontations are further exacerbated by use of cultural and ethnic references, use of sectarian or ideological symbols and signals, and disregard of campus rules as a means to register presence. This, combined with humiliation and revenge based on ethnic, racial, sectarian or ideological lines is recipe for largescale group violence as seen in recent years at various academic institutions. The lack of affirmative action within campus limits or immediate use of local law enforcement not only promotes such groups from novelty seeking by combining it with ‘anti-establishment’ symbolism which complicates mitigation.
Outrightly banning students unions and organizations or allowing escalation through administrative indecision are to be curtailed to gradually make the environment conducive.
Academic institutions can offer a comprehensive strategy to address these sentiments by instituting a preemptive and preventive approach. Redefining the ambit and scope of student unions and employing psychosocial counseling are some of the affirmative actions that can reduce a pre-violence atmosphere. Simultaneously, taking a zero-tolerant approach towards habitual troublemakers can help address both novelty and narcissism. When students are sure that their actions will not bear any consequences, such an emboldening atmosphere is conducive for encouraging more violence.
Activities such as ragging and bullying have already been curtailed, but frequent lawbreaking like smoking on-campus, frequently bunking classes and a general lack of political correctness during conversations also needs to be addressed more actively. Career counseling services, psychological and behavioral counseling as well as reporting delinquency to parents can also act as barriers to such communicative malfeasance.
Outrightly banning students unions and organizations or allowing escalation through administrative indecision are to be curtailed to gradually make the environment conducive.
Academic institutions can be susceptible to political opinions and that is not a cause for concern, but outrightly promoting one political narrative over the other or allowing academic institutions to be used for purely political services is a catalyst for violent confrontation that can be circumscribed. Academic institutions should not be made a recruiting ground for anti-state and non-state entities, but the growing violence and confrontational atmosphere is not only suitable for such entities to recruit from, but would also make it nigh impossible for law enforcement to curtail the fallout.
Moreover, insider threats and sympathizers may also provide and aperture for such organizations to carry out their nefarious activities on campus and cause a national level crisis. Keeping terrorist activities conducted on campuses as a point of reference, Pakistan cannot afford another calamity of such or greater proportions.
Academic institutions, especially universities, need to incorporate comprehensive preventive and preemptive mechanisms to gradually curtail this growing acceptability for violence and ethnocentrism-incentive xenophobic environment and strive to offer psychological, behavioral practices centered around diversity-intensive and politically correct atmosphere. Such environment is not only to be created for students but also for faculty and administrative staff, who should periodically but regularly undergo diversity training and counselling proficiency training to promptly and preemptively address such sentiments before they become a groupthink issue and cause an outburst.