Campus Alert Archive
WFU

Active-shooter report near two campus buildings determined to be a swatting call

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
NCswattingemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Confirmed HoaxDetermined to be a hoax. The institutional response is documented because it reveals how the alert system performed under a perceived real threat.

On Easter Sunday, April 9, 2023, Wake Forest University was targeted by a swatting call to Winston-Salem Police claiming an active shooter near Reynolda Hall and Benson University Center. WFU University Police and Winston-Salem PD responded; the call was determined to be false and consistent with a swatting attempt. The incident came amid a national wave of campus swatting incidents in spring 2023.

Alerts
2
Response
—
Killed
0
Injured
0
Institution
Wake Forest University
Private R1 · NC
All WFU cases →
~9,100 studentsWake Alert
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

2 messages in sequence · 2 verified verbatim

INITIAL ALERTSMS
Verified verbatimOld Gold & Black (Wake Forest student newspaper) quoting the first Wake Alert verbatim133 chars
URGENT: WFUPD has responded to reports of shots fired in Reynolda Hall/Benson area. NO SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED. No one has been harmed.
The Winston-Salem Police Department received the swatting call alleging an active shooter and notified Wake Forest University Police, who issued the campus alert
Notable for the unusual two-message structure, the first Wake Alert reported the call but immediately stated 'NO SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED,' indicating police had already verified there was no real threat before sending the notification
The locations named (Reynolda Hall and Benson University Center) are central administrative and student union buildings on the Reynolda Campus, both heavily trafficked even on holidays
ALL CLEARSMS
Verified verbatimInside WFU (university editorial site) quoting the Wake Alert Emergency Update verbatim297 chars
Wake Alert Emergency Update: University Police, in coordination with the Winston-Salem Police Department, responded to a report of a swatting attempt on the Reynolda campus. The report has been determined to be false and consistent with a swatting call. There is no threat to the campus community.
Inside WFU's reporting on the swatting wave reproduced the Wake Alert Emergency Update text, including the phrase 'consistent with a swatting call', language that became WFU's standard framing for these incidents
WFU emphasized in subsequent communications that 'visible law enforcement presence' was deployed even though the report was suspected to be a swatting from the outset
This was Wake Forest's first major swatting incident of the spring 2023 wave that also struck Yale, Harvard, Cornell, and other private universities
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

URGENT: WFUPD has responded to reports of shots fired in Reynolda Hall/Benson area. NO SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED. No one has been harmed.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: it names WFUPD, the university police, as having responded, identifying the authority.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: It names "WFUPD" as having responded.
    2. present: It names "WFUPD" as the responding authority.
    3. present: It names "WFUPD" as the responding police.
    4. present: It names "WFUPD", the responding police authority.
    5. present: It names "WFUPD", the university police department.
    6. present: It names "WFUPD" responding, identifying the responding authority.
    7. present: It names "WFUPD", a responding police authority.
    8. present: It names "WFUPD" as the responding authority.
    9. present: The text names "WFUPD", the university police.
    10. present: It names "WFUPD", the university police department.
    11. present: It names "WFUPD" as having responded.
    12. present: It names "WFUPD", the university police, as responding.
    13. present: It names "WFUPD", the university police.
    14. present: It names "WFUPD" responding, the issuing authority.
    15. present: It names "WFUPD", the university police, as responder.
    16. present: It names "WFUPD", the university police department, as having responded.
    17. present: It names "WFUPD", the responding police authority.
    18. present: It names "WFUPD" as the responding police authority.
    19. present: It names "WFUPD" as having responded.
    20. present: It names "WFUPD" as the responding authority.
    21. present: It names "WFUPD" (police) as having responded, the authority.
    22. present: Names "WFUPD" as having responded.
    23. present: Names "WFUPD" as the responding police authority.
    24. present: "WFUPD" names the responding police authority.
    25. present: It names "WFUPD" as the responding authority.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: it names reports of shots fired, a specific threat, even while clarifying none occurred.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: It names "shots fired" reports while clarifying none occurred, a specific hazard.
    2. present: It names "reports of shots fired", a specific threat.
    3. present: It names "shots fired" reports, a specific threat.
    4. present: It names "shots fired", though it then says none were fired.
    5. present: It names "shots fired" as the reported threat, then corrects it.
    6. present: It names "reports of shots fired" while noting none occurred, a specific threat.
    7. present: It names "shots fired", a specific threat (though disconfirmed).
    8. present: It names "shots fired" though clarifying none were fired.
    9. present: It names "reports of shots fired", a specific threat (later said false).
    10. present: It names "shots fired" reported, though it clarifies none occurred.
    11. present: It names "shots fired" reports, a specific threat, though it says none occurred.
    12. present: It names "shots fired" while clarifying none were fired.
    13. present: It names "reports of shots fired", a specific threat, though it adds none were fired.
    14. present: It names "shots fired" reports, a specific threat, even while saying none occurred.
    15. present: It names "reports of shots fired", a specific threat, while noting none were fired.
    16. present: It names "reports of shots fired", a specific threat, though it says none were fired.
    17. present: It names "shots fired" reports, a specific threat, though later denied.
    18. present: It names "shots fired" reports, a specific threat, while clarifying none occurred.
    19. present: It names "shots fired", a specific threat, though clarifying none occurred.
    20. present: It names "reports of shots fired", a specific threat.
    21. present: It names "reports of shots fired", a specific threat, while clarifying none occurred.
    22. present: Names "shots fired" reports, even while clarifying none occurred.
    23. present: Names "shots fired", a specific threat reported, while stating none occurred.
    24. present: It names "shots fired" reports, a specific threat, though it clarifies none occurred.
    25. present: It cites "reports of shots fired", a specific threat (later denied).
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: it locates it in the Reynolda Hall and Benson area, a stated location.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    2. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    3. present: It says "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    4. present: It says "in Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    5. present: It locates it in "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    6. present: It specifies "Reynolda Hall/Benson area", a location.
    7. present: It locates it at "Reynolda Hall/Benson area", a specific place.
    8. present: It names "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    9. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    10. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    11. present: It specifies the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    12. present: It names the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    13. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    14. present: It names "Reynolda Hall/Benson area", a specific place.
    15. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    16. present: It names "Reynolda Hall/Benson area", a specific place.
    17. present: It names "Reynolda Hall/Benson area", a specific place.
    18. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    19. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    20. present: It locates it in "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    21. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area", a specific place.
    22. present: Locates it "in Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    23. present: Locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    24. present: It names "Reynolda Hall/Benson area", a specific place.
    25. present: It locates it in the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
  • Guidanceabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: it reassures the community but gives recipients no protective instruction, so guidance is absent.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    2. absent: It states no shots were fired but gives recipients no protective action.
    3. absent: It reassures no shots were fired but gives no protective instruction.
    4. absent: No protective action is directed at recipients, only reassurance.
    5. absent: It states no shots were fired but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    6. absent: It reassures the community but gives no protective action.
    7. absent: It reports no shots were fired but gives recipients no protective action.
    8. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective action.
    9. absent: No protective action is directed at recipients.
    10. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective action instruction.
    11. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    12. absent: No protective action is directed to recipients; it only states no shots were fired.
    13. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective action to take.
    14. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective-action instruction.
    15. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    16. absent: It reassures no shots were fired but gives recipients no protective action.
    17. absent: It states no shots were fired but gives no protective action instruction.
    18. absent: It states no shots occurred but gives recipients no protective action.
    19. absent: It gives reassurance but no protective instruction to recipients.
    20. absent: It states no shots fired but gives recipients no protective action.
    21. absent: It gives reassurance but no protective instruction to recipients.
    22. absent: Reassures community but gives no protective instruction.
    23. absent: No protective action is instructed to recipients.
    24. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective action instruction.
    25. absent: No protective instruction is given to recipients.
  • Timeabsent3/25

    Final assessment

    Strong consensus: no clock time, date, or recency cue appears, so timing is absent; a few read URGENT and has responded as recency.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    2. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    3. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    4. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    5. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    6. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    7. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    8. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    9. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    10. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    11. present: It opens "URGENT" and uses present-tense "has responded" indicating recency.
    12. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    13. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    14. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    15. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" appears.
    16. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    17. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    18. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    19. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    20. present: It says "has responded", indicating current recency.
    21. present: It opens "URGENT" implying immediacy, a recency cue.
    22. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    23. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    24. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    25. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
  • Impactpresent21/25

    Final assessment

    Yes; strong majority finds the swatting/active-threat framing conveys danger to people, with minor dissent.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Responds to reports of shots fired but states no shots were fired and no one was harmed, addressing the potential harm outcome.
    2. absent: It reports a swatting where no shots were fired and no one was harmed, explicitly stating no harm occurred.
    3. present: The text states no shots were fired and no one was harmed, addressing the harm potential explicitly.
    4. present: It reports a response to shots fired but explicitly states no shots were fired and no one has been harmed, conveying the consequence and severity.
    5. present: It responds to reports of shots fired but explicitly states no shots were fired and no one has been harmed, conveying the lack of harm.
    6. present: It states no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly addressing the potential harm even as it negates it.
    7. present: States no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly addressing the absence of harm.
    8. present: It states no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly addressing the absence of harm as severity information.
    9. present: States no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly addressing potential harm.
    10. present: It responds to reports of shots fired but explicitly states no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, conveying the harm outcome.
    11. present: It explicitly states no shots were fired and no one has been harmed, stating the harm outcome.
    12. present: Responds to reports of shots fired but explicitly states no shots were fired and no one has been harmed, clearly addressing harm potential.
    13. present: States no shots were fired and no one has been harmed, an explicit statement addressing potential harm and severity.
    14. present: States no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly addressing the absence of harm.
    15. present: States no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly conveying absence of harm.
    16. present: It explicitly states no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, characterizing the absence of harm.
    17. present: It states no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly addressing potential harm and confirming none occurred.
    18. present: It states no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly conveying the harm outcome.
    19. absent: Reports responses to shots-fired reports but explicitly states no shots were fired and no one was harmed, conveying no actual harm.
    20. absent: It reports a false shots-fired report stating no shots were fired and no one was harmed, conveying no actual harm or danger.
    21. present: States no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, which explicitly addresses the potential harm even while negating it.
    22. present: It responds to reports of shots fired but explicitly states no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, addressing potential harm.
    23. absent: It states no shots were fired and no one has been harmed, explicitly negating any harm.
    24. present: This responds to reports of shots fired but explicitly states no shots were fired and no one has been harmed, conveying the consequence.
    25. present: States no shots have been fired and no one has been harmed, an explicit statement about harm.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

On Easter Sunday, April 9, 2023, Wake Forest University became the latest victim of a spring 2023 wave of campus swatting incidents that targeted at least a dozen universities including Yale, Harvard, Cornell, and Boston University. The Winston-Salem Police Department received a call reporting an active shooter near Reynolda Hall and Benson University Center, the central administrative building and main student union on the Reynolda Campus. WSPD notified Wake Forest University Police, who issued a Wake Alert and responded with a visible law enforcement presence. After investigation, the report was determined to be false and consistent with a swatting call. The incident occurred within days of similar fake active shooter reports at Harvard, Cornell, and other elite institutions that same Easter weekend. Wake Forest's University Police published a follow-up note noting that the constancy and similarity of the calls suggested a coordinated effort, and reminded students that the use of FBI and police time on these incidents diverts resources from real emergencies. No suspect was publicly identified for the Wake Forest call.
Analysis

Key Findings

Wake Forest's April 9, 2023 swatting was part of an Easter weekend cluster of similar fake active shooter reports at private universities nationwide
The call specifically named two of WFU's most central buildings (Reynolda Hall and Benson University Center) suggesting the caller had at least basic geographic knowledge of campus
As with many campus swatting calls in spring 2023, no suspect was publicly identified, illustrating how difficult these calls are to trace
Wake Forest deployed a visible police presence even though the report was suspected to be a swatting call from the outset
Outcome
No injuries. After WFU University Police and Winston-Salem Police investigated and conducted a visible law enforcement presence, the report was determined to be false and consistent with a swatting attempt. No suspect was identified.
Provenance

Sources

  1. Official
    'Swatting' continues to plague college campuses (Inside WFU)
    inside.wfu.edu
    archived copy
  2. Official
    University Police (Wake Forest)
    police.wfu.edu
    archived copy
  3. Official
    Wake Alert (Wake Forest University)
    wakealert.wfu.edu
    archived copy
  4. News
    More than a dozen universities targeted by false active shooter reports (CNN, Sept 2025 retrospective)
    cnn.com
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Wake Forest University: Active-shooter report near two campus buildings determined to be a swatting call." Incident of April 9, 2023. Added May 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/wake-forest-university-swatting-2023-04-09/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
swattingnorth-carolinawinston-salemprivate-r1easter-2023-swatting-waveactive-shooter-hoaxreynolda-campusHoax
Added May 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion