The recent shooting incident near Brown University has raised significant concerns about campus safety and the effectiveness of the university’s public safety leadership. On Saturday, gunfire near the Barus & Holley Engineering building triggered a campus-wide lockdown and a swift response from law enforcement. The prompt action of local police and campus security is commendable, yet underlying issues within Brown’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) have come to light, prompting scrutiny and questions about their preparedness and response protocols.
Video footage from the scene shows heavily armed officers moving with urgency. An emergency alert instructed students and staff to shelter in place, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation. The university’s Department of Public Safety issued a clear warning: “There’s an active shooter near Barus & Holley Engineering. Lock doors, silence phones, and stay hidden until further notice.” This standard emergency procedure reflects a growing reliance on specific protocols designed to manage active shooter scenarios.
While the immediate threat was neutralized with the suspect’s apprehension, concerns over the response reveal deeper issues within the DPS. Internal documents and testimony from officers, many of whom spoke anonymously for fear of retaliation, suggest a significant erosion of trust in leadership over recent years. Incidents in 2021 and 2023 highlight a pattern of mishandling security threats. In one case, officers hesitated to involve the Providence Police Department during a serious threat due to perceived delays from supervisors. The lack of timely communication during emergencies raises critical questions about the leadership’s ability to prioritize safety over reputation.
Among the most alarming are the accounts of officers expressing fears that the university’s leadership is more focused on maintaining a favorable image than on genuine safety. Michael Greco, a seasoned officer who left the department due to PTSD, commented bluntly: “Officers of this department, myself included, worry that Brown’s desire to protect its reputation, at all costs, leads to a willingness to gamble with our lives.” Such sentiments resonate deeply and paint a troubling picture of the environment within the DPS.
In August 2023, the officers’ union issued a formal vote of no confidence in Chief Rodney Chatman and Deputy Chief John Vinson, citing a toxic atmosphere and retaliation against those who raised concerns. These accusations reflect a profound disconnect between the leadership and the officers expected to carry out their directives amidst potential threats. Internal communications reveal that critical information regarding threats was often downplayed or altered, further complicating the relationship between the DPS and the campus community.
The university’s response to these allegations has often been defensive. Chief Chatman claimed, “Our officers are not only trained but expected to be emotionally and physically prepared to respond to any incident on campus.” However, many agree that simply having trained officers is not enough. The leadership’s response to previous threats calls into question whether those in charge truly understand the stakes involved when safety is at risk.
The investigation into the DPS’s conduct has not yielded clear accountability or transparency. Criticism has emerged regarding probes conducted by external firms lacking thorough oversight. Requests for public records concerning past threats have been met with redactions or outright denial, provoking legal action from organizations advocating for transparency. Such actions generate mistrust and skepticism, leaving the university community feeling vulnerable and uninformed.
On the day of the shooting, while officers acted diligently to secure the area, the underlying turmoil within the department cannot be overlooked. Students who sheltered in place experienced fear and confusion, only to later express frustration over the lack of information disseminated about the incident. One student remarked, “We’ve been told there’s a suspect in custody, but they’re not saying who it is, what happened, why it happened. We’re in the dark.” Such sentiments reflect a wider anxiety among students about their safety and the effectiveness of the institution’s response.
The fallout from this incident is expected to ignite a renewed debate about transparency and leadership within Brown’s public safety operations. The critical questions now facing the university are not only about immediate safety measures but also about long-term trust and credibility. How does an educational institution balance its image with the safety of its students and staff? How effectively should credible threats be communicated to those at risk?
For officers like Greco, who face the daily pressures of ensuring safety, the fear of being unprepared during crises is compounded by the reality of inadequate support from their leadership. Greco’s poignant observation that “they don’t give us the truth when our own lives are on the line” captures the essence of the crisis within Brown’s DPS. This latest event serves as a wake-up call, one that demands thorough evaluation and, potentially, a reexamination of how the university approaches public safety and crisis management.
While the bravery of law enforcement during the operation deserves acknowledgment, it is equally vital to address the deeper systemic issues that threaten the efficacy of campus safety measures. As the investigation unfolds, one thing is clear: Brown University must confront these challenges head-on to restore confidence among its students, staff, and officers.
"*" indicates required fields
