Kerby Anderson

I think most of us understand that if you want to prevent some human action, the most effective way to accomplish that is through deterrence. We can put up signs designating the speed limit, but we know that people are much more likely to stay within the speed limit if they have some expectation of being pulled over by law enforcement. We can post signs at our border telling potential immigrants that they must come into this country legally. But we all know that we need to do more than post signs if we are to adequately protect our border. Victor Davis Hanson in his op-ed on deterrence explains that President Trump’s “proposed wall on the border with Mexico and beefed-up patrols are a sort of insurance policy in case immigrants do not heed appeals to follow the law. Deportation and even the threat of deportation also serve as deterrents to persuade others not to enter the U.S. illegally.” He also applies this principle to what is happening on college campuses. “Currently, there are no real repercussions on campus for students who disrupt public discourse or prevent invited speakers from presenting lectures.” First, we had a riot at the University of California that resulted in violence and property destruction. The police did not take action during the riot, and the administration did not take action afterwards. Some form of deterrence would have prevented future such actions on the University of California campus. Instead, the inaction established a precedent that likely allowed the conflict at Middlebury College. As I have discussed in previous commentaries, students not only shut down the lecture, but they assaulted one of the campus professors. Once again, no significant action was taken against the students and outside agitators. Signs and rules are fine, but you also need to enforce what is written on the signs and regulations. If there is no punishment, then there is no deterrence and you end up with anarchy.