Harvard Gauges Vulnerability After Attacks

It is hard to imagine armed guards, metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs at the Science Center, but in the wake of last week’s terrorist attacks, security and terrorism experts say nothing can be ruled out.

But they also say the risk of an attack on the nation’s oldest University is a low one, and one that can be lessened still further through basic security precautions.

“Abroad, when people think of things that represent America they do think of Harvard. On the other hand, [Harvard] doesn’t represent America in the same way that the World Trade Center or the Pentagon does,” says Juliette Kayyem, executive director of the Kennedy School’s executive session on domestic preparedness.

“Universities are only a target because of their symbolic nature,” says Michael L. Taylor, president of American International Security Corp. (AISC), a Boston-based security-consulting firm.

Retired Army Gen. John C. Reppert, who now works at the Kennedy School, explains that Harvard’s symbolic stature is both an attraction and a deterrent to terrorists.

Harvard’s educational nature and its efforts to provide a diverse international student body and faculty help provide a positive reputation overseas, Reppert says.

“Harvard is vulnerable, though less so…because it is known around the world [largely because] people around the world have participated in it,” he says.

Taylor says that Harvard’s international character would likely discourage any international attacks, because so many nationalities are represented on campus that an attack would probably injure foreign citizens.

However, the experts agree that it is impossible to thoroughly assess the threat level of any particular target—there are simply too many factors and too many terrorists with different agendas and proclivities,they say.

“There’s really no way to come up with a threat level. All the wisdom in the world can’t do it,” Taylor says.

Assessing Harvard’s risk of being a target—a school where 18,000 students and an equal number of staff and faculty are spread out among a dozen schools and two campuses—is especially difficult.

Nonetheless, experts recommend several basic security measures the University could pursue to reduce its risk. Staff should be educated to watch for mail bombs and campus garbage cans should be replaced with so-called bomb mitigation containers—which are specially designed to contain and control a blast.

On a larger scale, though, last week’s attacks will force a complete rethinking of the mindset of corporations and institutions of higher learning, since for decades their attitude has been that “terrorism couldn’t happen here,” Taylor says.

Universities traditionally have been less likely to adopt security measures.

“Historically, universities are on a very tight budget and don’t have the resources [to adequately secure their buildings],” Taylor says.

But now that all appears to be changing.

Taylor and other area security firms say they’ve been overwhelmed with requests for site surveys and consultations since last week’s attack.

Kennedy School experts agree that the biggest threat to the University is the spread of “amateur copycats.”

The good thing about that, they say, is that the copycats are easier to deter.

“Any public institution should be taking precautions to secure its buildings. This brings a lot of crazies out of the woodwork,” Kayyem says.

Taylor explains that the best protection against terrorist attacks is simply to make a target less desirable, therefore encouraging a terrorist to strike elsewhere.

Simple security measures—guards and metal detectors at building entrances, ID checks, and bollards, which are concrete pots that guard against car bombs, around key buildings—can have a strong deterrent effect.

“You just can’t be a soft target,” Taylor says.

Harvard, though, faces a unique concern in securing its facilities: as an educational institution it prides itself on openness, access and freedom.

“There’s going to be a lot of debate about how far we go in response to last Tuesday’s attacks. We need to ensure that whatever measures are taken do not undermine what is so great about a place like Harvard,” Kayyem says.

Harvard could better secure itself by restricting access to the Yard, the libraries and other buildings to affiliates only, Reppert says, but such a move would come at a “horrendous price.”

Members of the public could not attend Harvard lectures and panels, outside researchers could not gain access to the University’s vast library holdings and students and tour groups would not be able to view the Yard.

“It’s outrageous to restrict access in an educational environment,” agrees Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) Chief Francis D. “Bud” Riley. “If we need to restrict access, we will—but we’ll make sure we can explain it. We’re just not at that level of risk.”

Reppert recommends HUPD refocus some of its community-oriented policing resources since many of the departmetn’s outreach efforts focus on preventing theft in University buildings.

“Laptops and billfolds may not be our greatest risk,” he says.

Reppert says that staff need to be trained both to prevent incidents and subsequently to respond to incidents if they occur.

“Education is something we do extremely well at Harvard, and we do surprisingly little in that area,” he notes.

Bollards around key buildings like Memorial Hall and the Holyoke Center might also be a good idea, he says.

Riley says HUPD has made great efforts to reach out and educate the University community since last Tuesday. Officers have been visiting offices and handing out flyers explaining how to detect a possible mail bomb or a suspicious package. Extra uniformed officers have been protecting individual buildings and responding to requests for additional security at campus events.

“A visible presence has a significant impact on the anxiety level of the community,” Riley says.

Riley has been meeting with other University officials over the last week to determine whether additional security measures are needed. HUPD has been in contact with federal agencies ranging from the FBI to the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service to discuss the University’s risk level.

And, in what is a clear sign that the department has long been considering Harvard’s risk, HUPD had looked into purchasing a bomb-sniffing dog prior to last Tuesday.

Vigilance and education can only go so far, though, experts agree, because no place can protect against every type of attack—especially at a place so diverse in buildings and people as Harvard. Even in New York, which has spent millions over the last decade preparing and training for a terrorist attack, the sheer scale of last week’s attack baffled many law enforcement officials. Before last week, few terrorist scenarios considered suicidal hijackers with pilot training.

Thus, departments and agencies must focus significant resources on training and contingency plans—and, here, Harvard’s vast resources give the University a leg up.

HUPD regularly offers its officers additional specialized training, Riley says. Many officers receive first responder training in hazardous materials from Harvard’s division of Environmental, Health and Safety. And, unlike some other college police forces—like Brown’s—HUPD officers are armed.

Overall, Riley says he is “comfortable” with the current level of security, which balances a potential threat against the need for open access to the University.

“I wish that I could tell everyone that there’s no reason to worry, but I can’t. I don’t want to lull people into complacency,” Riley says. “The fact that people are being watchful and vigilant isn’t entirely bad.”

—Staff writer Garrett M. Graff can be reached at ggraff@fas.harvard.edu.