Over the past two weeks, more than a dozen U.S. universities, including Villanova, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, University of Arkansas, University of Colorado Boulder, University of South Carolina, Iowa State, Kansas State, Northern Arizona University, and others, were targeted by “swatting:” false active-shooter hoax calls or bomb threat calls designed to provoke an emergency response.
Related Article: Surge in Swatting Incidents: U.S. Colleges Continue to Be Targeted by False Active Shooter Reports
These hoaxes often featured fabricated details such as sounds of gunfire during the call, triggering immediate lockdowns and traumatic responses on campuses. In one case, Villanova University endured two separate false calls within days—one during an orientation Mass and another in a dormitory, causing panic and disruption.
In Arkansas, over 340 calls were placed across seven campus buildings before authorities confirmed the hoax.
Other targets included the University of South Carolina, where students were evacuated from a library after false shooter reports; all-clear notifications followed within 30 minutes.
The FBI has opened investigations and is coordinating with law enforcement to counter these coordinated hoax threats, though attribution remains challenging.
Swatting’s Impact on Campuses: Psychological Trauma and Strained Resources
Swatting not only endangers the campus community’s sense of safety but also stretches emergency response resources and undermines institutional trust. Oftentimes, these hoax calls are intended to disrupt normal operations; however, there always remains a potential that these calls have a more sinister purpose in attempting to assess the institution’s response strategies.
Related Article: School Swatting Threats: How Common Are They, and What Do They Cost Taxpayers?
Although no lives were lost in these recent events, the impact has been profound. Students relived childhood active shooter drills, hiding under desks or barricading themselves, reacting as though the threat were real. A journalism student at Arkansas described her panic: “As of right now, I’m safe. I love you,” she told her grandmother.
The emotional and psychological fallout is serious. Many students couldn’t sleep after the scare, and experts warn that repeated false alarms may foster desensitization or chronic anxiety. Emergency resources were also diverted from possible real crises, straining first-responder capacity and budgets. In the worst-case scenario, such a hoax could escalate tragically—as seen in a 2017 swatting incident in Wichita, where a man was fatally shot by responding police.
Clery Act Requirements for Campus Emergency Notifications
The Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act mandates clear protocols for campus alerts related to emergencies. The Act distinguishes between two core alert types:
- Timely Warnings, for crimes (Clery Act–defined) that pose a serious or ongoing threat, and
- Emergency notifications are for confirmed, immediate threats to campus safety.
Developing Strategic Hoax Response Protocols
While there is an inclination to notify the campus community of such a threat immediately, campus safety leadership should lean into their responsibilities to confirm a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving a threat to the health or safety of students or employees occurring on campus prior to “pushing the button” to activate their institution’s emergency notification system.
Related Article: The Critical Role of Visual and Audible Alerts in Campus Fire and Intrusion Security
Generally speaking, institutions should not issue an emergency notification based solely on an unverified or potentially fraudulent report. In other words, a notification must be issued only after confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to students or employees, for example, a confirmed active shooter incident. Institutions must therefore gather evidence and validate reports before notifying the campus community.
Call Handling and Verification Procedures
The time is now for institutions to develop a strategic approach to responding to potential hoax calls. For this plan to be successful, it must result from a collaborative effort by campus safety stakeholders (campus safety, student affairs, communications, human resources, etc.) that includes a clear, pre-defined protocol to verify the legitimacy of an active shooter report. While the ultimate responsibility for validation will reside with the institution’s chief security officer (police chief or public safety director), all stakeholders must be trained to act quickly but responsibly, avoiding undue delay while preventing false alarms.
Institutions must establish clear, standardized protocols for handling telephone calls related to active shooters to ensure accurate information is gathered quickly and relayed to the proper authorities (university police, local police). Call takers—whether campus security, emergency dispatch, or administrative staff—should be trained to remain calm, gather essential details such as the caller’s location, description of the suspect, weapons observed, and the direction of movement, while keeping the caller on the line if safe to do so.
Related Article: Combatting Misinformation During a School Emergency
Universities should also implement a call-triage system that ensures any such report is treated with the highest urgency, immediately escalated to campus police or local law enforcement, and simultaneously activates internal emergency communication channels upon confirmation. In order to best assess these calls, it is recommended that anyone who may receive such calls be familiarized with the characteristics of hoax or false reports: calls from VoIP services, callers unfamiliar with the facilities they are reporting from, and background sounds inconsistent with other noise or sounds are fake.
This training is imperative not only for campus safety dispatchers but should also include anyone in a position to “answer the phone” or receive the message within the institution, particularly those who work in high-profile locations (office of the chancellor, provost, or president) as well as large capacity venues (student centers, athletics venues, and libraries).
Legal Compliance and Community Protection
Swatting and active shooter hoax calls represent an escalating and dangerous tactic, exploiting mass alert systems to sow fear. In response, colleges must anchor their emergency communication in responsible verification, guided by the Clery Act’s clear rubric: confirm first, then notify.
Institutions protect their communities by establishing robust, mutually agreed-upon protocols, training empowered responders, documenting decisions, fostering transparency, and upholding legal compliance. The ability to discern real from hoax is not just prudent but essential to maintaining trust and safety on campus.
Michael J. Rein, CPP, is a Principal Consultant with COSECURE, a professional services firm specializing in providing tailored security solutions to a diverse range of industries, including Corporate, Education, Healthcare, Hospitality, Manufacturing, Non-Profit & Social Services, Office Buildings, Retail, and Religious Centers. Before joining COSECURE, Michael served as a police officer at Rutgers University, retiring in 2022 as the Deputy Chief of University Police. Michael also served as an assessor and assessment team leader with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) for 14 years.
Note: The views expressed by guest bloggers and contributors are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Campus Safety.
