University of Tennessee trustees review recent swatting hoaxes, urge training and coordination across campuses

DeCosta Jenkins, chair of the Audit and Compliance Committee of the University of Tennessee System Board of Trustees, opened the committee meeting and asked chancellors to discuss public‑safety incidents this fall.

The committee heard that campuses have faced a wave of hoax “swatting” calls and at least one false active‑shooter alert. Brian Daniels, the system’s chief audit executive, said the incidents began in the first week of the fall semester and that a call on Aug. 21 targeted the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Daniels said more than 40 similar events have been reported nationally this season and described swatting as hoax calls to law enforcement that produce a large response.

Chancellor, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, told the committee the early‑semester call prompted a multiagency response that she described as a “textbook response” by campus police working with the Chattanooga Police Department, the Hamilton County sheriff’s office, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the FBI. She said as many as 250 law‑enforcement officers responded and that the campus is using the incident to assess coordination and training. “Even though it wasn't a real event, the response was real,” she said, adding the campus has implemented mandatory armed‑intruder training for all faculty and staff.

A separate call to Hodges Library in Knoxville produced a swift campus police response, the committee heard. A campus chancellor said police arrived in under a minute, reviewed 64 camera views of the building and noted that the campus’s VoltAI weapon‑detection system did not alert; after a floor‑by‑floor check the building was cleared and no one was forced to leave. The chancellor told trustees no campuswide Clery‑style text alert was issued because officials determined there was no confirmed incident.

Trustees discussed how campuses plan security for large events. Officials said student life typically organizes speaker events and that campuses use layered planning that can include plainclothes and uniformed officers and a three‑tier response model that names who will act first, second and, if necessary, the police. Several chancellors described periodic UTPD‑led exercises involving faculty, students and staff and said after‑action reviews are used to correct gaps such as unclear building‑level responsibilities.

Campuses also described outreach measures and training strategies. Officials said students routinely receive hazing‑and‑safety training in online orientation modules and first‑year courses, and campuses run “run‑hide‑fight” awareness campaigns endorsed by federal agencies. One campus reported that reports requiring investigation fell from 72 to 35 after expanded student education, though speakers said not all reports ultimately substantiated wrongdoing.

Speakers emphasized that training needs vary by campus. UT Martin, Memphis and others described annual trainings with local law enforcement and safety walks at dusk to identify lighting and other physical risks; UT Southern said it relies on part‑time security and is developing agreements with local police and sheriff’s offices and has purchased radios to improve dispatching. Trustees and chancellors said systemwide standardization may be inappropriate where geography and local response shape needs.

DeCosta Jenkins and President Boyd noted a plan to conduct another system safety and security tour in early 2026 to review best practices and grant‑funded improvements. The committee then moved to a nonpublic executive session under Tennessee Code Annotated §4‑35‑108 to review confidential items including audits, investigations and litigation.

The meeting record shows trustees debated response coordination, training gaps for employees compared with student preparedness and campus‑specific approaches to equipment and local agreements. No formal vote or personnel action on system policy was recorded in the public session.