A small percentage of aberrant people in society is willing to prey on human fears in order to terrorize others. Last week a bomb threat directed at the Lillis Business Complex shut the building down for the duration of the day. No bomb was recovered, leading many people to speculate that the threat was made simply to cancel class. As cynical as this outlook may seem, it was exactly the motive behind a threat against the Knight Library three years ago.
In 2004, over the span of a few months, two bomb threats shut down the Knight Library and Lawrence Hall. Neither threat resulted in the recovery of a bomb, though the person who made the threat to the Knight Library, former graduate student James Evangelista, was apprehended by authorities and sentenced to 20 days in jail. Police learned that Evangelista called in the threat to avoid going to a class he had in the building.
On Tuesday, the day after the Lillis threat, the University admitted that there was a second bomb threat, and it was later discovered that this one had been directed at six buildings on campus. These buildings were not closed, because the University deemed the threat not to be credible. There was an e-mail sent to students, but it was not specific about the threat’s nature.
Many students, including those on this editorial board, were perplexed. How could a similar threat result in a different response from the University? How could we be certain of our safety?
Closure of the University is clearly the purview of the University administration, but the standards the University uses to determine the credibility of bomb threats are unclear. When one threat warrants the closure of campus and the second doesn’t, a question arises: What standards does the University use, if any? Or do the standards simply change based on the situation?
After the second threat, many students demanded answers, but information was scant.
The event illustrates the difficulty of balancing the public’s right to know during matters of public safety with the possible repercussions of revealing too much. If they University explained exactly what made one threat less credible than another, potential copycats could be armed with information about how to make their threats seem more or less credible to reach a desired result.
On the other hand, students are left in the dark and are essentially forced to make a choice: Regardless of what the University advises, do I risk my life and go to class or play it safe and stay home?
Nevertheless, we as a campus need more. Whether it’s more information or more security, we need it to be certain that we can safely learn on this campus.
When threats occur, the University needs heightened security – a visible sign of vigilance. No one should be asked to give up his or her individual rights simply because threats are made, but people also cannot expect to cower in fear, afraid to attend class. This may only help peace of mind, but that is important in making sure that students know that the University is taking measures to protect them.
Threats illuminate issues faced by media, authorities
Daily Emerald
May 13, 2007
0
More to Discover