The scene unfolded in the older section of Brown University’s Barus and Holley building, a stark contrast to the newer addition just steps away. This critical detail – the absence of surveillance in the area where two students lost their lives – emerged during a tense press conference as authorities searched for a person of interest.
Officials revealed a puzzling disparity: while the university boasts a $7.2 billion endowment and 1,200 security cameras across campus, the aging structure of the engineering and physics building lacked adequate coverage. The shooting occurred in the original 1965 construction, a section seemingly overlooked in security upgrades.
Attorney General Peter Neronha explained the building’s layout, highlighting the difference between the older, vulnerable section and the newer addition. Cameras were installed during a recent expansion five years ago, capturing the frantic aftermath as students fled into the more secure area.
The lack of interior footage from the shooting site has complicated the investigation, forcing authorities to rely on images captured outside the campus grounds. The person of interest’s movements before and after the tragedy were documented in the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Ironically, the president’s official residence, a historic home built in 1922, appears to be equipped with security cameras. This observation, noted in reports and visible in publicly available images, fueled questions about the university’s prioritization of security measures.
The Barus and Holley building itself is a substantial structure, encompassing 220,000 square feet across seven stories. It houses a vast network of academic spaces, including 117 laboratories, 150 offices, and numerous classrooms and lecture halls.
Neronha emphasized the location of the shooting, describing it as occurring on the “very edge” of both the building and the campus itself. This proximity to a residential area explains why crucial video evidence originated outside the university’s immediate control.
The university’s commitment to aesthetics is evident in its “Percent-for-Art” program, dedicating 1% of construction budgets to artwork. While enriching the campus environment, this policy raises questions about the balance between artistic investment and fundamental safety concerns.
The investigation continues, shadowed by the unsettling realization that a critical area within a prestigious institution remained largely unmonitored, leaving a void in the search for answers and accountability.
