I generally feel safe on the Brandeis campus. I would guess that most students here feel the same way-and with good reason: A look at Security on Campus Inc.'s Web site reveals that overall, we enjoy an atmosphere remarkably free of crime, compared with other well-heeled universities. Brandeis students can also feel at ease about the fact that no incident has ever arisen that necessitated the use of a firearm and that could not be addressed by the Waltham Police Department, whose officers carry firearms. Although we use our own public safety officers, the Waltham Police have jurisdiction here, just as they would anywhere else in Waltham. We can feel secure knowing that, should something occur, the police can be here in as little as two minutes.Considering all of the above, I find it hard to imagine a situation that would justify the recent decision by University President Jehuda Reinharz to arm public safety officers. Obviously, the history of past incidents of crime on campus is not the whole guide by which to judge the merits of arming. The decision is meant to provide for an uncertain future.

The administration believes that public safety officers ought to be armed in order to protect Brandeis in the type of situation in which firearms are needed and in which the Waltham police are, for some reason, unable to respond. Well, what sort of situation are we talking about? I spoke with one of the two undergraduates who sat on the Firearms Advisory Committee, which ultimately issued the recommendation in favor of arming to Reinharz. The scenario he presented is paraphrased as follows: "There has been a nuclear attack, and all of the police in Waltham are busy; in that window of time, someone opens fire on campus. Brandeis public safety officers, being unarmed, would be at a disadvantage, so who would respond?"

I question whether this is an adequate argument for arming public safety officers.

I can appreciate that the administration is trying to ensure our safety, but it seems irrational to prepare for such an unlikely scenario. If there is any benefit to arming, it is slight; the decision feels more like a gesture made in the wake of recent events on other campuses.

Indeed, the tragedy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute weighed heavily on the conclusion of the Firearms Advisory Committee. But committee members failed to consider what happened there in context. First of all, Virginia has much looser gun laws than Massachusetts. Second, the security officers at Virginia Tech were armed when the shootings occurred. Lastly, the crisis there could have been averted by focusing more attention on the mental health of the students. Had these factors been discussed, I wonder whether the argument for arming would have held as much force for the committee. While its recommendation was made with good intentions, it was misguided and narrow in scope.

But ultimately, this decision is not about the worst-case scenario that is being held up as its justification. The reality of the decision to arm public safety is that it will affect everyone on campus, every day, when no violent crimes are being committed at all. The presence of guns changes the dynamic of the campus atmosphere by creating an air of intimidation and fear for those students, faculty and staff who work, live and study in the presence of armed security guards. Unfortunately, harassment and abuse by public safety officers are not unheard of at Brandeis. Students-especially black, Hispanic and GLBTQ students-have reported inappropriate conduct over the years. It's not hard to imagine the extent to which the situations in question would have been exacerbated if the offending officers had been carrying firearms.

That said, our campus public safety officers have, over the decades, proved capable of competently protecting our campus without recourse to guns. While a concern with further ensuring our security is entirely healthy and rational, we must not take extreme measures that will paradoxically serve to heighten tensions and increase risk.

The writer is a member of the Class of 2010 and a campaign coordinator for Democracy for America.