The tragic shooting at Brown University raises troubling questions about campus security and the responsibilities of those tasked with ensuring safety. Just days before the incident, an observant custodian voiced concerns about the shooter, Claudio Neves-Valente, who acted suspiciously on campus. Derek Lisi, who had worked there for years, recognized that “something’s off with this guy,” yet his repeated warnings seemingly went unheeded.
The shooter, a 48-year-old former student at Brown, unleashed chaos on December 13, resulting in the deaths of two students and injuries to nine others. After committing these acts, Neves-Valente took his own life in a storage unit, evading capture for days. This marked a stark end to a life characterized by escalating behaviors that should have raised alarms.
Lisi’s observations paint a chilling picture. He described how Neves-Valente had been “casing that place for weeks,” lingering in hallways and peering into classrooms. Lisi assumed the man was attempting to steal something, believing that his presence compromised campus security. “Every time he saw me, I think he thought I was security, because he would always walk away,” Lisi stated, highlighting a predator’s awareness of potential oversight.
The broader security architecture at Brown also reflects significant lapses. Security Chief Rodney Chatman, whose radical leanings have come under scrutiny, oversaw a framework that failed to protect students from such a tragic outcome. Experts, like former NYPD officer Paul Mauro, highlighted fundamental oversights under Chatman’s direction. The inadequacy of surveillance camera coverage and an insufficient number of guards near major classrooms were identified as “ground ball issues,” indicating that these oversights could have been resolved with proper diligence.
The systemic failures in responding to Lisi’s concerns, combined with ineffective campus security measures, catalyzed a situation that culminated in violence. The fact that a custodian’s warnings were disregarded is particularly concerning. It underscores the critical need for attentive and responsive security protocols on college campuses. Had officials acted on Lisi’s reports, the devastating loss of life might have been prevented.
As the investigation unfolds, it is essential to examine the factors that allowed such a tragedy to occur. Neves-Valente’s actions prior to the shooting remind us of how critical it is to listen to those within a community—those who observe irregularities and express concern for the safety of others. The outcome of this tragedy should serve as a wake-up call to security administrations across educational institutions to prioritize the voices of vigilant staff and enhance protocols for recognizing potential threats.
"*" indicates required fields
