Threatening circumstances could have been handled differently

The recent threat by Frank Arriaga before the semester upset us in the newsroom.

One of the biggest problems we had was the way we found out. That day the newspaper staff was hanging out in the newsroom, trying to lazily finish the day before our holidays began, when a police officer came on the loudspeaker and said the campus was closed and to head to the nearest exit. Thinking they were just closing campus for the holidays there was no rush, and so we lackadaisically made our way off campus.

We had no clue there was the possibility of a threat to the campus or we would have departed with due haste. As we left a staff member was entering the campus, who we told the campus was closed. She entered campus anyway to go about her business, not knowing there were potential dangers afoot and the campus was in lockdown rather than beginning the holiday off-season.

We appreciate the speedy lockdown - around thirty minutes from threat notification to campus lockdown - but we would have liked to know up front that the possibility of a threat existed.

Also, we had to investigate to find the name and face of the man, when the face should be posted around campus so students can instantly recognize the danger if the gunman does follow through on his threat.

We understand not wanting to cause undue concern or scare anyone needlessly, but sometimes fear can save your life.

So, whereas the administration acted with vigilance and prudence, it could have been more forthcoming with information. In the wake of the recent Northern Illinois shootings, with the specter Virginia Tech's tragedy still looming on all of our brains, this is a day and age to eschew traditional protocol and err on the side of safety - just in case the worst happens.