The Student Life Editorial Board would like to express our sincerest condolences to the victims of Christchurch mosque attack and all those affected by the shooting. Places of worship ought to be safe and welcoming. For anyone to be made to feel unsafe while practicing their faith is vile.

On March 19, the Washington University administration issued a statement about the Christchurch mosque shooting. The statement, signed by Dr. Lori White, condemned the attack and offered sympathy to all those affected by the violence. In the statement, Dr. White also expresses regret that the response came five days after the shooting because she was out of town.

In short, the statement was too little. The statement that Wash. U. administration sent after the Tree of Life shooting in Pittsburgh in 2018 was unequivocal in its condemnation of bigotry. Chancellor Mark Wrighton didn’t mince words, and that was appreciated. The Christchurch statement was nowhere near as strongly worded. Rather than seeming like genuine expression of grief for the loss of life or an expression of anger that Islamophobia has claimed 50 innocent lives, the most recent statement came across as impersonal.

Similarly, the statement came too late. After the Tree of Life shooting, Wrighton’s message about the attack was sent on the same day. We understand that the attack took place during our spring break. However, five days after the attack and two days after the break has concluded is more than ample time to respond. Moreover, the break isn’t a reason why the statement couldn’t have been sent much earlier. In an op-ed written by members of the Muslim Student’s Association, it’s pointed out that in other tragic circumstances, there hasn’t been a delay like this in reply. Spring break doesn’t supplant Wash. U administrators’ obligation to making every student feel welcome and, in trying times like this, comfortable on this campus. The statement in response to Christchurch shooting came too late to serve its role as an extension of warmth towards affected students, and its attempts to excuse its own tardiness do little to help that fact.

Part of the problem stems from lack of clarity about who within the University is supposed to respond to tragedies like the one that occurred in Christchurch. Even if White was unable to write the message, surely someone in the administration was available to write something over the five-day period. We’ve seen Wrighton respond before. Could Provost Holden Thorp not have written a meaningful statement rebuking the attack? Or Chancellor-Elect Andrew Martin? It needs to be clear who will issue statements to students and under what circumstances, and those practices need to be consistent. If different circumstances are going to elicit different responses from the University, Wash. U. students deserve to know. The message sent by someone who isn’t the chancellor responding to a terrorist attack days after the event sends mixed signals about the University’s priorities. Clarifying why certain protocols are taken would help reduce that perception.

The problem with who responds could be reduced by simply having the statement come from the Wash. U. administration as a whole. No statement would seem to take precedence over another if all of them came from the entire Wash. U administration. Distributing the responsibility to address the student body to the whole administration would allow someone to respond quickly so that they are not hamstringed by unforeseen circumstances.

We want to believe that Wash. U.’s administration takes the interests of its Muslim students seriously. Unfortunately, the response to the Christchurch shooting doesn’t reflect that. We believe that the statements that Wash. U. sends to its students ought to be much stronger and written with urgency.