|
Editorial: Threats must be taken seriously
The South Texan
In an age of tragic school shootings that seem to have become more commonplace, it is important to question what procedures are in place at our university to determine what steps should be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of the students, faculty and staff.
Recently, there have been a few alleged incidents in which students have heard about a bomb threat (on and off-campus) and a potentially armed student. In response, the Caller-Times released a story that provides an explanation for at least one of the alleged events involving a student and his alleged comment that was misconstrued and eventually transformed into the armed student story. “I understand why people shoot up or bomb schools in America..,“ was the alleged comment and is the explanation behind the aforementioned story.
For many students, the news of the alleged threat was not revealed until the Caller-Times reported on the story. Our students should have been the first to know.
The fact that none of these situations were deemed “threatening” enough is worrisome. It is disheartening to find that this university and the appropriate officials entrusted with the duty of assessing situations did not feel that at the very least students deserved some sort of clarification.
After looking at a number of other university policies and procedures, there was a clear difference in the approach and resulting actions required in similar situations. The University of North Carolina has in place a system that clearly states its stance on informing students and the procedures in place to alert building by building if necessary. Part of this policy is as follows—“When a safety or security emergency emerges on campus, we communicate the facts as quickly as possible to students, faculty, staff, parents, and others by choosing from a menu of available tools based on the situation (excerpt taken from a Fall 2007 News release issued by the University of North Carolina concerning safety and security questions).”
Utilizing this set of tools is critical in determining what the appropriate lines of communication should be and more importantly the more effective course of action. There is a menu of available tools used in notifying students, faculty, and staff. It would seem that in our situation here at TAMUK, a more comprehensive plan of action should be implemented. While university officials may claim that there are procedures in place and the instances students have heard about were not a justifiable cause for concern or perhaps an immediate threat, the fact remains that some sort of steps should have been taken to dissipate the situation.
Too often it seems that the risk of a chaotic situation takes precedent over the basic need to provide clarity. While it may be true that these events may not have warranted a full on emergency alert system to be used, it remains to be disproved that at the very least students, faculty and staff should have been made aware of the situation. Moreover, a simple e-mail providing an explanation of the current situation would have done wonders to provide a level of trust between the administration and the rest of the university community.
It is one thing to have a false alarm, but it is another not to point out to those concerned that there in fact was a false alarm. The university must take a more proactive approach and consider the consequences of inaction. Students, faculty, and staff must also continue to recognize the potential dangers that lurk around the next corner and continue to question until clarity is provided. Life is too precious to gamble with and even if there is no apparent threat, someone should be held accountable for their decision not to keep the community informed.