1 Executive Summary
Campus Carry Survey Results
Katherine A. Austin, Ph.D.
Institutional Effectiveness
Office of the Provost
2 Response Metrics
The survey was administered to 12,790 faculty, staff, and students (1800 faculty; 4749 staff; and
6241 graduate students); and 3,647 responded yielding a 29% response rate. The response
sample was representative of the TTU population; the participants’ spanned thirty-two (32)
areas/divisions, and 179 departments within those divisions and area. However, 1,146
individuals elected not to select a department, representing 31.4% of the sample. The following
bar graph depicts campus participation:
3 Sample representation depicted in a numeric table:
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Administration
88
2.4
2.4
Student Services
64
1.8
4.2
Enrollment
Management
45
1.2
5.4
CFO Area
156
4.3
9.7
Arts & Sciences
625
17.1
26.8
96
2.6
29.4
Engineering
255
7.0
36.4
Human Sciences
126
3.5
39.9
Library
70
1.9
41.8
Media &
Communications
75
2.1
43.9
Rawls
133
3.6
47.5
Honors
13
.4
47.9
114
3.1
51.0
Architecture
31
.9
51.9
Graduate School
62
1.7
53.6
School of Law
56
1.5
55.1
Operations
53
1.5
56.5
Vice Pres for Research
58
1.6
58.1
Athletics
38
1.0
59.2
CASNR
161
4.4
63.6
6
.2
63.8
47
1.3
65.0
Human Resources
9
.2
65.3
Diversity
8
.2
65.5
International Affairs
21
.6
66.1
Off Campus
10
.3
66.4
Undergraduate
Education
30
.8
67.2
9
.2
67.4
TTUISD
25
.7
68.1
Texas Tech System
17
.5
68.6
No Dept. Selected
1146
31.4
100.0
Total
3647
100.0
Education
Visual & Perf Arts
Alumni
Info Technology
Police
4 For the areas that have departments that are designated in the Banner Information
NRHC KTTZ TV KTTZ Radio Sr. VP Provost President OP & Proced Official Pub Museum Lubbock Lake IR Comm & Mark Administra8on ASFR 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Academic Affairs Systems, the following graphs display number of respondents by department:
Administra8on 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Academic Affairs Athle8cs All Depts -­‐ No Banner Detail Athle8cs 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 HR Srvs HR Admin Human Resources 0 TLPDC UG Ed Undergraduate Educa8on Supp Oper & Reten8on Student Services 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Advising Student Judicial Academic Tes8ng Upward Bound UIL Career Svs Transi8on & Engage TechMRT Stud Res Ctr Student Media Student Financial Aid SDS Student Counseling Parent Rela8ons Dean of Students CSAR CISER Campus Life 5 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 6 25 20 15 10 5 0 Dev & Scholar Registrar Student Fin Aid & Schol Stud Ops Academic Reten8on Admissions Enrolllment Management 70 60 50 40 30 20 CFO Area Off Research Acct Housing USA Sr VP SUB SBS Rec Sports Procurement Svs Payroll Hospitality Golf Fin Svs Fin Bus Svc Budget AFISM 0 Accounts Receivable 10 7 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Ground Op Bldg Bus Srvs Dept Srvs U8li8es Eng Srvs Plann & Parking Maint Division Maint & Admin Admin Constr Opera8ons 12 10 8 6 4 Vice Pres for Research Animal Care ORS Commercializa8on VPR Pulsed Power NeuroImaging NWI TIEHH EH&S Ctr BioTech Geon 0 CCAAC 2 8 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 App Dev CIO Office IT Support ITHC Tech Supp Telecomm Info Technology 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Comm Col Xfer Off Camp Ed Outreach & Prof TTU Dev Fredericksburg Off Campus TTU Junc8on 0 Arts & Sciences ATMO Sci Wom Stud STEM CORE Instructors Soc, Anth, & Soc Wk Psych Sci Pre Prof Health Poli Sci Physics External Philosophy Mus Sci Mil Sci Math & Stats Admininstra8on History HESS GeoSciences For Sci English Economics Academic CMLL Chemistry Biology A&S Dean ROTC 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Opera8ons TTUISD Colleges
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ag & Farm Ag Ed & Op Comm Ag & Nat Ag & Anim & Nat Res & Res Applied Eco Food Sci Mgmt PSS Landscape Arch Educa8on Sowell Ctr Ed Psych Leadership Ed Psych Dean Office Teach Ed Curr & Inst Lead Ed Burkhart Ctr Au8sm 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Bilingual Ed CASNR 11 Petroleum Murdough Ethics Ctr Mechanical Industrial Dean Electrical Constr Engr & Tech Comp Sci Civil 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Chemical Engineering 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Child Dev Com Fam Curr Ctr Design Fam & Res Ctr Addic8on Comm Sci Cons Sci Srvs Edu HDFS Dean Nurt Nutr Sci Hosp Ret Mgmt PFP Human Sciences 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Inst Pragma8sm Library Srvs SW Collec8on Library Vietnam Ctr 12 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Comm Studies Median & Comm All Depts -­‐ No Banner Detail Media & Communica8ons 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Library SOL All Depts -­‐ No Banner Detail School of Law 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Theatre & Dance Art Dean Visual & Perf Arts Music 13 Colleges/Areas with No Departments Identified in Banner Data System
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 College of Grad Honors -­‐ RCOBA -­‐All Alumni Ctr Diversity Int Aff All Police All Arch All School All All Depts Depts All Depts All Depts Depts Depts Depts -­‐ Depts Demographic Data
Concealed Carry License Status
14 Position on Legislation
Gun-Free Zone Feedback
1. Respondents clearly indicated that functions or locations serving alcohol should
be designated as a gun-free::
15 2. On the other hand, respondents indicated that the free speech area should not
be designated as a gun-free zone:
Gun-Free Zone Detailed Questions
1. Public Areas: Respondents rated athletic events, the Student Union Building,
and Recreational Sports Center as the most favored places to designate as “gunfree.” Results from the survey:
2500 2380 1947 2000 1607 1500 777 Public Areas Other None NRHC SUB Rec Sports Escondido Theatre 601 82 61 Planetarium 48 287 Museum 115 Maedgen Theatre 266 Allen Theatre 0 Athle8c Events 500 319 Athe8c Training 1000 16 In the “other” category, the following additional areas were noted, with the first
four items by far the most frequent:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
Entire campus
Faculty offices
All classrooms
Library
Holden Hall
Engineering Key
Residence Halls
Doak Conference Center
West Hall
Hemmle Recital Hall
Memorial Circle
Rawls College of Business
Chemistry Building
United Spirit Arena
Physics Building
2. Vulnerable Populations: Respondents expressed the highest concern over
areas serving patients, such as the Psychology Clinic and the Student Wellness
Center, but also expressed a lower level of concern in all the categories:
2500 2017 2000 1450 1500 1194 330 Other None 317 Human Resources 318 Student Judicial 474 762 593 Dean of Students HDFS Family Counseling Large Classrooms Student Wellness Ctr 0 Pschology Clinic 500 642 Addici8on Sciences 702 Burkhart Ctr 1000 Vulnerable Popula8ons In contrast, 762 individuals indicated “none,” suggesting that none of these
audiences should be considered when selecting “gun free” zones. Suggestions
from the “other” category:
a. Faculty offices
b. Entire campus
17 c. Classrooms
d. International Students, Faculty (they cannot carry a weapon)
3. Hazardous Materials – Participants indicated that research labs with various
chemical substances should be considered for gun-free zone designation, and
931 did not think hazardous areas should be gun-free:
2500 2254 2111 2068 2000 1500 931 1000 467 500 244 0 Research Lab Federal Biosafety Physical Regulated Level 3 Labs Plant Labs Other None Hazardous Materials In the “other” category, respondents listed the top additional suggestions:
a. Entire campus
b. Grounds maintenance
c. Kitchen areas with poisonous cleaning liquids
d. Any area that requires a badge for entry
e. All research labs, including faculty offices
f. Art Studio, especially sculpting studios
g. All utilities and all plants
4. Faculty Addendum
The option “faculty offices” was inadvertently left off of the survey, and to
compensate, we administered a two question survey to faculty through the
President of the Faculty Senate. Six-hundred and twelve (612) faculty completed
the survey, and indicated the following with regard to the importance of faculty
offices being designated as gun-free zones:
18 How important in your view is including faculty offices as one of the selected "gun-­‐free" zones on campus under the guidelines of current legisla8on? 450 401 Frequency of Response 400 350 300 250 200 127 150 100 41 50 18 11 14 0 Essen8al Very Important Important Somewhat Not Important Irrelevant -­‐ I important prefer Concealed Carry be permiced in faculty offices Suggestions for Campus Resources
The final quantitative question yielded strong support for a wide spectrum of support
resources, as depicted in the following chart:
3000 2500 2216 2212 2396 2194 2000 1500 1000 985 907 476 500 0 Gun Safety Informa8on Safety Training Website Campaign Ac8ve Shooter Session Resources Campus Discussion Signage Other 19 The “other” category contained a number of policy, resource, and safety suggestions.
The most frequent suggestions:
1. Don’t admit students with a history of mental illness
2. Refuse to comply with the legislation; fight congress
3. Create an anonymous system for faculty and students to submit instances of
feeling intimidated by a gun holder
4. Prohibit students under 25 from concealed carry or open carry
5. Keep entire campus gun-free
6. Mental health awareness and support
7. Campus gun registration
8. Metal detectors in every building, or at least some buildings
9. Required training
10. Open discussion about why someone would need to carry a gun on campus;
address any fears or concerns
11. Background check of students
12. Start a competitive sharp shooting team
13. Annual, mandatory mental health screenings for gun carriers
14. Publish a list of all students, faculty, and staff that have a permit and carry a
weapon.
15. Hire more police officers, and add blue lights on campus
16. Improve campus lighting
17. Invest in lobbying efforts to repeal this legislation
18. University issued bullet-proof vests
19. Mandatory Emergency Action Planning for those that carry guns
20. Additional emergency alert systems in classrooms, such as overhead
announcement systems and door locks
21. Designated gun educators added to staff ranks
22. Require chips on guns
23. Leverage the military veterans on campus to help train
24. Eliminate the irrational fear of guns with evidence-based education
25. Panic button installation in all classrooms
20 Qualitative Data Analysis
The final question allowed respondents to express any other thoughts or information
that they would like the committee to review. 1,648 participants provided feedback, and
the comments were categorized into four primary areas: favor campus carry; oppose
campus carry; recommendations for committee; and miscellaneous:
Type of Comment
Number of Comments
1 – Favor Legislation
274
2 – Oppose Legislation 631
3 – Recommendations
501
4 – Miscellaneous
279
A few common themes emerged, and the final, complete comments are contained in
Appendix A (256 pages):
1. Respondents appreciated the opportunity to voice opinions, concerns
2. The emotional nature of the issues is well documented throughout the
comments, note that profanity was not removed, and grammar/spelling errors not
corrected;
3. The campus has grave concerns about the implications of this legislation,
regardless of their own position on the legislation
4. Strong, compelling arguments for and against, and serious ignorance about the
legislations, the ability institutions have to refute, and the purpose of the survey
(despite clear explanatory text).
The faculty addendum also included an open-ended question, and those answers are
contained in Appendix B. Upon careful review, no new themes emerged, the content
remained emotional and fear-based, and the level of concern is clearly reflected in the
comments.