Editorial: Pitt should be more open about its bomb threat response strategy

Needless to say, this is hardly an ideal time to graduate from Pitt. In addition to an… Needless to say, this is hardly an ideal time to graduate from Pitt. In addition to an unpredictable economy, the class of 2012 faces the very real possibility that a bomb threat will disrupt, perhaps even cancel, the April 29 convocation. And although one group has promised to stop sending threats, the University’s secrecy has kept us in a heightened state of anxiety.

As most readers are probably aware, Pitt withdrew its $50,000 reward on Saturday, a day after The Pitt News received an anonymous email claiming that the threats would cease if the University did so. Shortly thereafter, we received a second email announcing an immediate end to the “campaign.”

Incidentally, this wasn’t the first time “The Threateners,” as they refer to themselves, proposed such terms. On April 10, an email sent to the Post-Gazette contained the same offer, alongside a threat against Chancellor Nordenberg’s house. In that instance, however, University spokesperson Robert Hill said that the administration chose “to avoid any form of negotiation with anonymous correspondents claiming responsibility for the criminal acts that have disrupted the lives of our students and of the broader community.”

Although it seems likely that the reward withdrawal had something to do with the recent email, Pitt has yet to explain its actions. Unfortunately, that’s all too characteristic of the administration’s recent approach to public relations. Regardless of whether law enforcement agencies advised them against disclosing certain information, University officials should at least make their intentions clear. On April 11, for example, they needed to announce that “The Threateners” wanted them to repeal their reward, and that, after careful deliberation, they’d declined to do so. That alone would have been sufficient.

This lack of transparency extends well beyond this weekend’s turn of events, however. The University’s plans for finals week, for instance, should’ve been made public much sooner, especially since they entail new test locations and security measures.

More importantly, we need to know immediately how Pitt plans to handle its graduation ceremonies. If guards will be checking IDs at the doors, or if students will be required to present any other documentation, that information should be made public today. Otherwise, many seniors and their families might be unable to prepare for the new strictures in time.

We won’t speculate about whether or not withdrawing the reward was a smart move. What we can say for sure, however, is that the University has fostered a climate of suspicion and uncertainty by refusing to keep the community informed. We understand that the recent threats have placed Pitt officials in an extraordinarily difficult position, and that they can’t simply disclose every new lead they discover. But the administration has thus far remained unwilling to answer even the most basic questions. For a University whose motto is “truth and virtue,” that seems hard to justify.

How do you feel about Pitt’s response to the bomb threats? Visit our website, PittNews.com, to comment on the recent developments.