Last week, screenshots of a disturbing manifesto detailing threats to shoot Black members of the NYU community flooded Instagram stories. Students reposted the message with warnings to check on friends and be cautious when attending class. Unrest began to develop among students, however, shortly after an email was sent out from NYU Campus Safety addressing this sickening message with the subject line: “An Email Threat Against NYU.”
The misnomer of an “email threat” was used in place of “hate crime.” At the federal level, a hate crime is motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. While the email made reference to a “despicably racist threat of violence,” it made no mention of the specific threats or the kind of behavior students should be on alert for.
While the original shooting hoax email had been sent at 11 a.m., the student body wasn’t alerted until shortly after 1 p.m. Over two hours had passed since the threat circulated, well during the period the perpetrator warned he would act — which in the threat was only specified as “after brunch.” It took two hours for the university to communicate the potential impending danger of a racially motivated mass shooting to those attending class, commuting or hanging out completely clueless to the threat at Washington Square Park.
Despite the severity of the threatened crime, NYU chose to move ahead with in-person classes — a distinct reaction from other institutions, mainly historically Black colleges and universities, which implemented shelter-in-place lockdowns and canceled all “nonessential” school activities for the rest of the weekend. Some campuses, such as Spelman University in Atlanta and Florida A&M University, did not directly receive threats but locked down anyways due to their proximity to threatened schools. Compared to these other institutions that received the same threats, NYU’s response showed a lack of caution and initiative without giving students the option of attending some of their classes online.
The university did its part by contacting the FBI and New York City Police Department, but their error came with the lack of specific communications directed towards students. A few hours after their initial email, President Linda Mills and Campus Safety head Fountain Walker dismissed the email threat as “swatting,” or false threats of violent activities or plans. A follow-up email was sent out three days later, more directly condemning the hoax’s anti-Black intentions and directing students to NYU’s safety and wellness resources.
Over 60,000 students are enrolled at NYU — although vague, explicitly calling the email hoax a shooting threat could have led to chaos on campus, and in the event of actual danger, would’ve been both disorientating and challenging to coordinate. Yet, these are the necessary byproducts of warning students that their lives might imminently be in danger. The interests of safety and openness outweigh any desire to keep calm, especially considering the open nature of NYU’s campus stifles any risk of a stampede or dangerously panicked crowds.
A day before the shooting threat, Mills and Walker sent out a universitywide email concerning the defacing of a student’s door in Weinstein Hall with antisemitic graffiti. This incident similarly used disgustingly prejudicial language and imagery, yet unlike the shooting threat, was explicitly addressed as a hate crime in the email subject line.
This antisemitic graffiti was another unconscionable hate crime — but in this case, the university’s response and timeliness was both appropriate and commendable. At the absolute minimum, graffiti qualifies as a Class A misdemeanor. However, in New York City, a shooting hoax has the same legal severity, qualifying it as aggravated harassment in the second degree — also a Class A misdemeanor. So why were these incidents, occurring just hours apart, not treated with the same sensitivity?
We have a window to an alarming future. The administration’s untimely and imprecise communication decisions illustrate misguided priorities that compromise student and community safety. Although Walker assured that the threat was unlikely to be acted on, their hesitation to identify it as a hate crime and notify the community of its contents was an irresponsible choice and kept vulnerable students out of the loop.
What Mills and Walker fail to understand is that even before their formal outreach, students were already frightened — tethered by student-to-student communication rather than administrative action. Students were reliant on email updates rather than more succinct alerts sent on NYU Mobile or Safe NYU. No one is slogging through their inbox in an emergency.
NYU providing us wellness resources, guidance and support groups was well-intentioned, but instead of attempting to apply salve on a wound, the administration should have been direct with students immediately to prevent injury in the first place. The need to be informed outweighs potential for pandemonium, and Campus Safety needs to be clear and upfront in the wake of all security concerns.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
Contact Angela Dong at [email protected].
