This content is brought to you by the Association for Christians in Student Development (ACSD), a volunteer membership organization committed to equipping and challenging faithful professionals to infuse their Christian faith into student development practice and scholarship. Thoughtful content such as this is made possible by volunteer contributions and the financial support of membership dues. Interested in becoming a member for more awesome content just like this? Join today by clicking here!
Picture this: You’re settling in for another episode of Blue Bloods, watching the Reagan family gather around their dinner table for yet another spirited debate between the District Attorney’s office, Erin, and Police Commissioner Frank. The conversation centers on the “Broken Windows” theory – the idea that addressing small infractions prevents larger crimes from taking root. As Frank makes his case for proactive policing and Erin counters with concerns about due process, something clicks.
These aren’t just police procedural talking points; they’re fundamental questions about how we create environments where people thrive versus merely survive. For those of us working in student development, this dinner table debate suddenly feels less like entertainment and more like a mirror reflecting our daily decisions. How do we balance accountability with grace? When do we address the “broken windows” in our residence halls, student organizations, and campus communities? And perhaps most importantly for Christian student development professionals, how do we embody both truth and grace in our approach to student conduct? These questions don’t have easy answers, but they’re exactly the kind of conversations that make our work in student development both challenging and deeply meaningful.
The Broken Windows Theory
The theory Frank was advocating for has deep roots in criminology and urban policy. The Broken Windows Theory, developed by Wilson and Kelling (1982), assumes that visible signs of disorder and neglect in neighborhoods – such as broken windows, graffiti, and minor crimes – signal a lack of social control and can encourage further disorder and more serious criminal activity. The theory suggests that maintaining order through addressing low-level offenses can prevent escalation to major crimes.
It is important to note that this theory has faced substantial criticism from researchers and civil rights advocates who argue it lacks solid empirical evidence, with recent comprehensive studies finding no consistent proof that neighborhood disorder actually causes crime (O’Brien et al., 2019). Critics contend the theory has methodological flaws, enables racial and class bias through subjective definitions of “disorder,” and oversimplifies crime causation by ignoring underlying socioeconomic factors like poverty and unemployment that are more fundamental drivers of criminal behavior (Harcourt, 2001; Taylor, 2001). Additionally, multiple factors likely contributed to New York’s crime decline, including economic improvements, demographic changes, and increased police force size, making it difficult to attribute the reduction solely to broken windows policing.
Despite these valid criticisms, the core questions the theory raises about environment, prevention, and community standards remain relevant for those of us working in student development.
From Broken Windows to Broken Community: Rethinking Student Conduct Through a Restorative Lens
The parallels between broken windows theory and student conduct work are compelling and cautionary. Like urban neighborhoods, our residence halls, campus quads, and student organizations develop their own cultural realities through the accumulation of countless small interactions and decisions. When we ignore the “minor” policy violations like the noise complaints that go unaddressed, the alcohol violations that receive inconsistent responses, or the disrespectful behavior that gets dismissed as “college kids being college kids,” we may inadvertently signal that community standards don’t really matter. But here’s where our work must diverge sharply from traditional broken windows policing: our goal isn’t punishment or removal, but transformation and restoration.
Nathan Harris, our Director of Counseling Services at Bryan College, often challenges us to reframe our approach by drawing on Dr. Bruce Perry’s work on trauma and brain development. Perry and Winfrey (2021), in their collaborative work What Happened to You?, advocate for shifting our fundamental question from “What’s wrong with you?” to “What happened to you?” This reframe transforms everything about how we approach student conduct. Instead of viewing policy violations as character defects to be corrected, we begin to see them as potential windows into a student’s story, their struggles, and their unmet needs.
This reframe transforms everything about how we approach student conduct. Instead of viewing policy violations as character defects to be corrected, we begin to see them as potential windows into a student’s story, their struggles, and their unmet needs.
This perspective aligns beautifully with biblical wisdom that calls us to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2) and to approach others with the same compassion Christ showed us to see beyond surface behaviors to the heart. When Jesus encountered the woman caught in adultery or the tax collector Zacchaeus, He didn’t lead with condemnation but with understanding, grace, and an invitation to new life! Our conduct practices should reflect this same spirit of redemption that seeks restoration rather than mere punishment.
This raises critical questions about how we approach conduct in Christian higher education. Are we being consistent in our responses, not for the sake of rigid legalism, but because predictable, fair processes communicate care and safety to our students? When we address policy violations, are we primarily asking “What rule was broken?” or are we also asking “What happened to you that led to this moment, and how can we walk alongside you toward healing and growth?” Perhaps most importantly, are we equipping and supporting our front-line staff – particularly our Resident Assistants – with the tools, training, and trauma-informed understanding they need to address small issues with accountability and compassion?
The tension is real: we want to extend grace while maintaining standards, show mercy while upholding justice, and create space for redemption while protecting community wellbeing. Are we being intentional about addressing small issues before they become larger problems? Are we creating environments where positive community norms are clearly communicated and consistently reinforced? Most importantly, are we fostering the kind of transformative environments where students don’t just follow rules, but flourish as whole persons created in the image of God? Rather than focusing on broken windows, curiosity, compassion, and care within the conduct process allow us to peer deeper into the lives of students, while challenging us to examine how our approach to “minor” violations can serve our students in experiencing a flourishing community.
References
- Harcourt, B. E. (2001). Illusion of order: The false promise of broken-windows policing. Harvard University Press.
- O’Brien, D. T., Sampson, R. J., & Winship, C. (2015). Ecometrics in the age of big data: Measuring and assessing “broken windows” using large-scale administrative records. Sociological Methodology, 45(1), 101-147.
- Perry, B. D., & Winfrey, O. (2021). What happened to you?: Conversations on trauma, resilience, and healing. Flatiron Books.
- Taylor, R. B. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows: Baltimore neighborhoods and the nationwide fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. Westview Press.
- Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29-38.
