I think that Brown University is making a mistake.
Once an institution advertises (or allows it to be known) that it has:
- Extensive camera coverage
- Card access logs
- Campus police
- Integration with city law enforcement
it implicitly creates an expectation that post-event reconstruction should be fast and decisive. Silence invites speculation that they know more than they’re saying.
Law enforcement can plausibly cite an “ongoing investigation.” Universities cannot do so as easily. They are not neutral actors. They are reputational actors.
Any institution that relies on public trust and stakeholder confidence (donors, alums, students, faculty, etc.) is taking a substantial risk. It invites speculation that the institution knows more than it is saying, even when that may not be true. In a high-information vacuum, narrative fills the gap, and rarely in the institution’s favor.
