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 R2 · NC
All WFU cases →
~9,100 studentsWake Alert
Official alert policy
Read when and how WFU says it will use Wake Alert: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

2 messages in sequence · 2 verified verbatim

Confirmed wording is transcribed character-for-character from a primary source. Use Verify this quote under each message to open that source in a new tab and compare the text yourself.

INITIAL ALERTSMS
Verified verbatim154 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. No threat to campus.
Verify this quote
Old Gold & Black (Wake Forest student newspaper) quoting the first Wake Alert verbatimwakealert.wfu.edufind archived copies
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
DEEP AUDIT correct 2026-08-02: wfuogb.com does not reproduce full URGENT SMS. Official Wake Alert archive posts full text including trailing 'No threat to campus.' which archive omits. Correct to complete official artifact.
ALL CLEARSMS
Verified 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.
Verify this quote
Inside WFU (university editorial site) quoting the Wake Alert Emergency Update verbatiminside.wfu.edufind archived copies
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 Opus 5 (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. No threat to campus.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Present, unanimously. WFUPD is named as the responding department issuing the update.

    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: "WFUPD" identifies the university police as sender.
    2. present: It names "WFUPD" as the responding department.
    3. present: WFUPD is named as the responding department.
    4. present: WFUPD is named as the agency that responded.
    5. present: It names "WFUPD" as having responded.
    6. present: WFUPD is named as the responding police agency.
    7. present: WFUPD is named as the responding agency.
    8. present: WFUPD is named as the responding police agency.
    9. present: WFUPD is named as the responding police department.
    10. present: "WFUPD" is named as the responding department.
    11. present: WFUPD is named as the responding department.
    12. present: WFUPD is named as the responding department issuing the message.
    13. present: "WFUPD" is named as the responding police agency.
    14. present: "WFUPD" is named as the responding and reporting department.
    15. present: WFUPD is named as having responded.
    16. present: WFUPD is named as the responding department.
    17. present: WFUPD is named as the responding department.
    18. present: WFUPD is named as the responding department.
    19. present: 'WFUPD' identifies the responding police department as the source.
    20. present: "WFUPD" names the university police department as sender.
    21. present: "WFUPD" is named as the responding police department.
    22. present: "WFUPD" identifies the responding police department.
    23. present: WFUPD is named as the responding department.
    24. present: WFUPD is named as the responding department.
    25. present: "WFUPD" identifies the responding police department as sender.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Present, unanimously. Reports of shots fired are named as the hazard, even though the message goes on to refute them.

    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 "reports of shots fired", even while denying them.
    2. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific hazard, though it then denies it.
    3. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific hazard, though it denies them.
    4. present: It cites "reports of shots fired", a specific threat.
    5. present: It refers to "reports of shots fired", a specific threat, though unfounded.
    6. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific threat, even while denying them.
    7. present: Reports of shots fired names a specific threat, though later negated.
    8. present: Reports of shots fired name a specific hazard, later denied.
    9. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific threat, later negated.
    10. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific hazard even though unfounded.
    11. present: It references reports of shots fired, a specific named hazard.
    12. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific threat, though it denies them.
    13. present: It references "reports of shots fired", though it then negates them.
    14. present: It cites "reports of shots fired", later stated as unfounded.
    15. present: It cites "reports of shots fired", a specific hazard, even while denying it.
    16. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific threat.
    17. present: It cites "reports of shots fired", a specific hazard even though unfounded.
    18. present: It cites "reports of shots fired", a specific threat.
    19. present: It references 'reports of shots fired', a specific named threat.
    20. present: It cites "reports of shots fired", even while denying them.
    21. present: It names "reports of shots fired", though it then negates them.
    22. present: It cites "reports of shots fired", a specific hazard, though later denied.
    23. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific threat.
    24. present: It references "reports of shots fired", a specific named threat.
    25. present: It names "reports of shots fired", though it then negates them.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Present, unanimously. The Reynolda Hall and Benson area is identified as the location of the reports.

    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: The area cited is "Reynolda Hall/Benson".
    2. present: It gives the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    3. present: It cites the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    4. present: It gives the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    5. present: It gives the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    6. present: The location is the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    7. present: The Reynolda Hall and Benson area is specified.
    8. present: It cites the Reynolda Hall and Benson area.
    9. present: It names the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    10. present: It names the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    11. present: The reports are placed in the Reynolda Hall/Benson area.
    12. present: It gives the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    13. present: It names the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    14. present: It gives the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    15. present: The Reynolda Hall and Benson area is named.
    16. present: The area given is "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    17. present: It gives the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    18. present: It names the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    19. present: It names the 'Reynolda Hall/Benson area'.
    20. present: It names the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    21. present: It specifies the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    22. present: It names the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    23. present: The area named is "Reynolda Hall/Benson".
    24. present: It cites the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
    25. present: It gives the "Reynolda Hall/Benson area".
  • Guidanceabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Absent, unanimously. The message reassures rather than instructing, giving recipients no protective action to take.

    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 gives reassurance only and asks recipients to take no action.
    2. absent: It reassures rather than instructing recipients to take any protective action.
    3. absent: It offers reassurance only and gives recipients no protective action.
    4. absent: It only reassures, giving recipients no action to take.
    5. absent: It only reassures and gives no protective action for recipients to take.
    6. absent: It gives reassurance only and asks nothing of recipients.
    7. absent: It reassures rather than telling recipients to take any action.
    8. absent: It gives reassurance only and no protective action for recipients.
    9. absent: It gives no protective action to recipients, only reassurance.
    10. absent: It offers reassurance only, with no protective action for recipients.
    11. absent: The message only reassures and gives no protective action for recipients to take.
    12. absent: It offers reassurance only and gives no protective action to recipients.
    13. absent: No protective action is requested of recipients; it only reassures that there is no threat.
    14. absent: It offers reassurance only and gives no protective action for recipients to take.
    15. absent: No protective action is requested of recipients anywhere in the text.
    16. absent: It offers reassurance only and gives recipients no protective action to take.
    17. absent: It offers no protective action, only reassurance that there is no threat.
    18. absent: It reports what police did and reassures but gives recipients no protective action.
    19. absent: No protective action is requested; it only reassures that there is no threat.
    20. absent: It gives reassurance only, with no protective action asked of recipients.
    21. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective action to take.
    22. absent: It only reassures and gives no protective action for recipients to take.
    23. absent: It only reassures readers and gives them no action to take.
    24. absent: It reassures but gives recipients no protective action to take.
    25. absent: No protective action is asked of recipients, only reassurance.
  • Timeabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Absent, unanimously. No time, date, or duration appears in the text.

    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 word is present.
    2. absent: No clock time, date, or recency marker is present.
    3. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word appears.
    4. absent: No time, date, or recency marker appears.
    5. absent: No clock time, date or recency cue appears.
    6. absent: No time, date, or recency marker is given.
    7. absent: No clock time, date, or recency term appears.
    8. absent: No time, date or recency wording is included.
    9. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word appears.
    10. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word is given.
    11. absent: No time, date or recency word appears.
    12. absent: No time, date, or recency indicator appears.
    13. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word is provided.
    14. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word is present.
    15. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    16. absent: No time, date, or recency cue is included.
    17. absent: No time, date, or recency cue is given.
    18. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word is present.
    19. absent: No time, date, or recency phrase is included.
    20. absent: No time, date or recency cue appears.
    21. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word appears.
    22. absent: No time, date, or recency cue appears.
    23. absent: No time, date, or recency cue is included.
    24. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    25. absent: No time, date or recency reference is included.
  • Impactabsent10/25

    Final assessment

    Absent by majority. A substantial minority counted the explicit negation of harm as an impact statement, but most reads held that stating no one was hurt describes no consequence.

    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. absent: It explicitly says no one was harmed and there is no threat, conveying no impact.
    2. present: It states the consequence explicitly: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    3. absent: It states the opposite of harm: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    4. absent: It explicitly negates harm, saying no one was hurt and there is no threat.
    5. present: It explicitly conveys severity by negation: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    6. absent: It explicitly negates harm: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    7. present: It explicitly states no one has been harmed and no threat to campus, conveying severity as nil.
    8. present: It states no one has been harmed and no threat to campus, conveying consequence explicitly.
    9. present: It states "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus", explicitly addressing consequence.
    10. present: It states consequences explicitly: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    11. absent: It explicitly negates harm, saying no one has been harmed and no threat to campus.
    12. absent: It states "No threat to campus", so no harm or severity is conveyed.
    13. absent: It explicitly denies harm, stating "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    14. present: It affirmatively states "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus", addressing consequence.
    15. absent: It affirmatively denies harm, so no consequence or severity is conveyed.
    16. absent: It explicitly denies harm, saying "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    17. absent: It explicitly denies harm, stating "No one has been harmed."
    18. absent: It explicitly negates harm, saying "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    19. present: It explicitly addresses consequences: 'No one has been harmed. No threat to campus.'
    20. absent: It explicitly denies harm: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    21. present: It explicitly addresses consequence: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    22. absent: It affirmatively denies harm rather than conveying any potential consequence.
    23. absent: It affirmatively denies harm, so no consequence or severity is conveyed.
    24. present: It explicitly addresses consequences: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."
    25. absent: It states the opposite of impact: "No one has been harmed. No threat to campus."

Coded by Claude Opus 5

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

Every claim on this page is meant to be checkable. Open the links below (and the Verify this quote control under each confirmed alert) to read the original university, news, or archive page yourself. Hostnames are shown so you can see where you are going; archived copies survive when live pages move or disappear. See also our methodology.

  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
  5. News
    Old Gold & Black (Wake Forest student newspaper) quoting the first Wake Alert verbatim
    wfuogb.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 August 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 August 2026Via ingestion