I don’t feel very safe on campus anymore. 

Over two weeks ago, a TrojansAlert notification popped up on my phone — not an unusual occurrence — but the content of this warning diverged from the typical notice of “police activity”: A bomb threat was reported at Leavey and Doheny Memorial libraries at University Park Campus, and students were advised to “stay away from the area.”

I was beyond alarmed. Just four days later, and one day after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, student-run outlet Morning, Trojan broke the news of violent and derogatory threats made to Black students at USC — threats that also reached UCLA and forced at least seven historically Black colleges and universities into lockdown across the United States.

Though both were confirmed to be hoaxes by the Department of Public Safety, the lack of a formal response from USC amid such abrupt threats, as well as nationwide political disarray, instilled intense fear for many students. 

With the Sept. 11 threats toward Black students, clarity did not come directly from USC administration. Consequently, Black student organizations were forced to take matters into their own hands, and this vital information only circulated to other Black students because of the initiative to release a statement taken by several Black student groups. 

“As someone in leadership in a few [organizations], it’s one of those things where I very much feel a responsibility to have big conversations, like how we did earlier this morning, or try and provide that notice to people,” said Devon Njonjo to the Daily Trojan on Sept. 11. “There should still be in-place structures or care coming from the school, and it was just crazy to see that that’s not happening.”

These were separate incidents, but they share a glaring commonality: Both targeted our students with threats of violence without acknowledgement by University administration.

More appallingly, during the library bomb threats, at least one Doheny student worker was instructed to remain in the library until everyone else was evacuated, according to Annenberg Media. Regardless of what University administration says, student safety is not its top priority.

By failing to notify students of crucial information, the administration has deprived us of our autonomy. It should have been every Black student’s decision whether or not to come to campus in light of such turbulent threats. Weeks later, the University has still failed to address these terroristic threats. 

This silence is particularly upsetting compared to how quickly interim President Beong-Soo Kim provided a statement regarding Kirk’s assassination while failing to comment on issues on our campus. 

In a Sept. 10 statement to the Daily Trojan, interim President Kim wrote, “We welcomed Charlie Kirk to our campus last spring, and his murder serves as a tragic reminder that violence has no place on any university campus.” 

Such a statement would carry more weight if Kim assured the same level of campus safety by acknowledging the threats our campus has received. Of course, the issued statement is a part of the diplomatic responsibility that his role entails; however, the lack of urgency in affirming students’ safety on campus is irresponsible and unsettling. 

This comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed what the University deems as “serious” threats to campus safety. Notably, USC administration had a whopping 51 students arrested for participation in the peaceful pro-Palestine encampments in Spring 2024. These acts of free speech led to a militarized police force on campus that felt more threatening to those of us not participating in the protests than the protesters themselves. 

The following year, the University wasted an undisclosed amount of money on campus “safety” by adding checkpoints at each entrance, additionally installing temporary fences around Alumni Park for an entire year following the end of the encampments. 

It is clear that USC can and will take safety measures when it deems a situation threatening, even if the matter is nonviolent. It is bewildering how the University possesses the resources to suppress speech that goes against its “diplomatic” efforts, but is unable to assure its students, staff and faculty that they are safe coming to campus every day. 

We must make our voices heard. It is never acceptable for the administration to be negligent of our safety. No student should have to pay an ever-increasing cost of attendance to come to campus fearful or intimidated. 

We must urge the University administration to invest in students’ safety — not simply gating off green spaces, which does nothing to protect from genuine threats. They cannot wait until tragedy strikes, and must work to ensure our safety, beyond when it fits their narrative.