What if Pitt stopped evacuating buildings whenever it received bomb threats?

In the midst of… What if Pitt stopped evacuating buildings whenever it received bomb threats?

In the midst of such trying times, that question might turn stomachs, its idea striking as shortsighted, even callous. But we must acknowledge the danger of marrying ourselves to a single solution to this unprecedented problem. If our objective is to resurrect Pitt’s eroding learning environment, then we must instead commit to laying all options bare, to subjecting all ideas, whatever their emotional valence, to careful scrutiny and debate. Otherwise, we risk our educational institution perishing of self-inflicted wounds.

Each way of responding to these bomb threats carries unique combinations of benefits and costs, none of them satisfactory. Showing unquestionable courage and composure, our administration has chosen the response policies that glue behind-the-scenes investigation with entry-screening and no-exceptions “notify and evacuate.” As part of the debate that should be happening more broadly, I’m here to contend the latter policy is exacting huge costs that are too infrequently discussed. Hence, I believe Pitt — its leadership and community — should at least consider the merit of a less reactive alternative: Investigating after receiving bomb threats, sure, but not screening, evacuating, texting or emailing.

A contagion of fear has infected campus, and the successive, endless nature of bomb threat-related notifications and evacuations have amplified the hysteria, with the new security measures only lending credence to the fears. No comfort-minded appeals from Chancellor Mark Nordenberg, Dean Kathy Humphrey or The Pitt News columnists seem equipped to contain it.

In larger numbers, students are greeting additional emergency notifications with visceral reactions, often not based in reason. They invent theories, make inferences and draw spurious connections, all in an effort to gain psychological control over the uncontrollable. But, it should be noted, the real consequence has been a fear level rising much faster than the reason to be afraid. Despite the lack of hard, tangible evidence behind these vacuous threats, students are nevertheless looking over their shoulders, fleeing to their homes and dreaming about a Pittsburgh reenactment of the Virginia Tech shootings.

Through the medium of notifications, screenings and evacuations, the bomb threats have produced a pervasive feeling of being threatened, and this feeling has exacerbated the direct damage inflicted upon the basic functioning of the University. Besides the undue stress placed on faculty, who have to adapt syllabi to uncertain class meeting times yet still meet their other responsibilities, the current threat response has forced unpleasant ambiguity into grading, since the definition of “fair evaluation” becomes dubious when you mix fear with academic performance. More importantly, the screen-notify-evacuate-induced fear has already compromised Pitt’s long-standing goal to build a “safe learning environment.” Whatever the actual probability of violence, an environment in which students must worry about not only whether their classes will meet but also whether their classes will be attacked is not a “safe” one for learning.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the screen-notify-and-evacuate policy lies in its potential promise to sustain this fear, and its deleterious effects on our community, into the foreseeable future. Anonymous remailer services, which bounce emails off servers in multiple countries to minimize the chance of author identification, have delivered the most recent bursts of bomb threats, and sources tell the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that efforts to trace the emailed threats’ origin might prove close to “impossible.” But it’s more than the concern that authorities, for this reason, might not catch current perpetrator(s) until after finals; it’s that Pitt’s handling of the threats might unintentionally encourage more perpetrators. Knowing that the exercise of moderate technical know-how can force predictable, high-profile responses from a large university — with perceptively minimal chance of capture — might invigorate a select few. Pitt’s response protocol might reinforce the criminals by offering a perverse, easily obtainable “satisfaction,” and thus be self-defeating.

Any possible strategy for addressing these threats suffers from a fundamental flaw: The probability of actual violence, in this never-before-experienced situation, is inherently uncertain. Although, at the same time, there’s little reason to believe anyone who says that the threats indicate a greater risk of violence or that post-threat building evacuations protect people from bombings, whether a University response policy actually violates Pitt’s commitment to safety is up to interpretation.

Pitt might well be acting based on its own interpretation, but it’s also likely accounting for the interpretations of federal lawyers. Surely, it does not appear that Pitt is legally required to evacuate, as certain schools and universities have historically responded to bomb threats without evacuating. “I can’t think of a specific law that the University is required to follow,” Pittsburgh-based school and municipality attorney Megan Ott said, regarding evacuations.

However, regarding notifications, Pitt administrators might be trying to avoid the massive fine and negative public relations that could be imposed by a Department of Education lawsuit. The DOE enforces a 1990 federal statute called the Clery Act, which requires higher education institutions to “immediately notify the campus community upon the confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation,” and a recent DOE handbook lists under “other” significant emergencies the term “bomb threat.” Pitt could not name the laws guiding the screen-text-evacuation policy as of press time.

If indeed the Clery Act has prevented Pitt from fairly weighing all alternatives, then there is enormous justification for our University to work with the DOE to modify the department’s enforcement perspective. Given how much Pitt’s threat response has taken from our community, how can we continue defining every last evidence-less, empty bomb threat as a significant emergency?

As I cannot determine the risk of a violent activity, I cannot fully advocate one policy over another. All I can do is note the danger in the direction Pitt has hitherto decided for itself. What our University has told the world in the past few weeks is that we will allow a series of empty threats to fill students with fear and turn our learning environment upside down, that we will let our educational values be held hostage by the whims of amateur terrorists armed merely — as far as we can tell — with laptops.

Out of concern for Pitt’s community, brand and future, we must not be afraid to question the way Pitt reacts to bomb threats, paying special attention to the problems our current response might be creating.

Write Matt Schaff at [email protected].