The incident at an upper-secondary school in Fagersta where a pupil attacked other pupils with a sword has once again turned the spotlight on security in Swedish educational environments. The fact that yet another school attack occurred, just over a year after the mass shooting at Campus Risbergska in Örebro, provoked a strong reaction from Peter Liljenstolpe, Head of Security at Mälardalen University and chair of the expert group on security issues at the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions (SUHF).
“I thought ‘no, not again!’ At the same time, I’m afraid I’m not very surprised. Many people are struggling mentally and channelling their distress in this sort of way. Sadly, it has also become more common in this country.”
Following the school attack in Örebro last year, Mälardalen University reviewed its procedures. The security department provided guidance on how to respond to serious violent incidents, and training sessions were held for both teaching staff and student representatives.
Cooperation with student health services, occupational health services and the student union was also reviewed in order to help identify people who are struggling as early as possible. This is perhaps the most important security measure, Liljenstolpe explains.
“You might see signs that a student is really not well and expressing it in a way that feels unsettling. We had one such case last year, and we called in the police.”
He does not, however, see further locking of buildings and corridors as the primary way to increase security. The university already has a zoned system with different levels of access. Of greater importance is a strong security culture, where staff and students are vigilant about who they let in.
The attack on Campus Risbergska also triggered a comprehensive security review at Örebro University. After the incident, many employees requested training and drills, explains Head of Security Erik Nilsson.
Among other things, the university reviewed its procedures and looked into the possibility of locking more premises. The proposals resulted in tasks being assigned to several parts of the organisation.
“We are now at a stage in the process where we are moving from words to action,” says Nilsson.
One change under discussion is a division of the premises into different security zones, similar to the system in place at Mälardalen University. Public areas would remain open, while student areas might require access cards. Then there are areas designated for staff and premises requiring special protection, such as laboratories.
“We don’t think it’s reasonable for our higher education institutions to be as open as they are today. It’s quite clear that we will move towards having more locked premises than before the incident in Örebro happened.”
He also wants to see more organised training for staff on how to respond to an ongoing violent incident, similarly to how higher education institutions have long worked with fire safety. Such training initiatives are also being carried out at Mälardalen University.
The fact that the perpetrator in Fagersta was a student himself highlights the limitations of locked doors. In the attack on Campus Risbergska, however, the perpetrator did not have authorisation to be on the premises.
“It doesn’t provide 100 per cent protection, but locking doors can make this type of incident more difficult to carry out. At the same time, it’s important not to focus purely on the physical environment. Staff and teachers must also know what to do if something happens.”
Mälardalen University and Örebro University have also collaborated on guidelines for security work within the sector.
Recently, a student at the Swedish Defence University was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, including for the crime of preparation to commit destruction causing public endangerment. According to the court’s verdict, the man had manufactured pipe bombs and acquired weapon parts. His motive and intended target are unknown. The university has not yet been decided whether it will seek to have the student expelled from the programme.
The Swedish Defence University differs from other higher education institutions in that it is a protected site and has its own security organisation. A large presence of security guards is one of the measures.
“Our security guards focus primarily on visibility and measures to foster a sense of security, so that they form a natural part of the university’s activities and can thus detect at an early stage anything that deviates from the norm,” says Head of Security Elisabeth Wall.
Training is also a part of the university’s preventative work. Students and staff are encouraged to report behaviour, situations or objects that deviate from the norm. Rules and procedures have also been drawn up to deal with concerns arising from incidents like those in Fagersta and Örebro.
