When Bad Comms Makes Things Worse

An explanation of how words can do more harm than good in times of crisis

“Early Tuesday morning, tensions on our campus rose to new heights when a small group of protestors broke into Hamilton Hall, barricaded themselves inside, and occupied it throughout the day. This drastic escalation of many months of protest activity pushed the University to the brink, creating a disruptive environment for everyone and raising safety risks to an intolerable level.”

These are the first words of the statement released by the President of Columbia University on May 1, 2024. What's striking is the lack of balance in the university’s communication. There was no acknowledgement of the issues the protestors were raising or how occupying a building represented an “intolerable risk to safety.” Instead, the entire next paragraph was a one-sided account of all the efforts the university undertook, from their perspective, to engage in dialogue.

The third paragraph continues: “Because my first responsibility is safety, with the support of the University’s Trustees, I made the decision to ask the New York City Police Department to intervene to end the occupation of Hamilton Hall and dismantle the main encampment along with a new, smaller encampment.” Again, note how there is no explanation of what the safety risks were or how the university would achieve “safety” by having police in riot gear remove the protestors.

Buried deep in the statement, we get to the heart of the issue and the real reason the university took such drastic action: “But students and outside activists breaking Hamilton Hall doors, mistreating our Public Safety officers and maintenance staff, and damaging property are acts of destruction, not political speech. Many students have also felt uncomfortable and unwelcome because of the disruption and antisemitic comments made by some individuals, especially in the protests that have persistently mobilized outside our gates.”

Whether you agree or disagree with the protestors or the university is irrelevant. What is clear is that the university’s communications failed to articulate why putting the lives and safety of students and police officers at risk was necessary. Instead, the statement cites feelings and inconvenience.

Undoubtedly, the protests were inconvenient, disruptive, and damaging to Columbia University's brand and image—as most protests are. The damage to the university’s brand, though, makes this communication just bad.

There are two fatal flaws an organization can commit in a crisis: circling the wagons and short-term decision-making. This statement reflects both of these in abundance. By making the crux of the statement about how the protests impacted Columbia University, they preached to their own choir, missing the opportunity to make the message resonate beyond those who already agree with them. They circled the wagons and made it all about them.

More troubling is the short-term thinking reflected in this and previous statements. Concerned about the upcoming final exams and commencement activities, the university repeatedly cited the impact of these protests on imminent events. This short-term focus caused an unnecessary escalation of the situation. When put into writing, it is obvious for anyone outside their echo chamber to see what this was about.

There is a marked difference between crisis communications and a mass comms strategy. Having a communications expert who understands the arc of a crisis, knows how the news cycle works in a crisis, and applies the crisis communication triad is critical to ensuring your brand and reputation survive long after the crisis is resolved.

Here, they failed to expand their reach, neglected to support their decision-making with factual evidence (destruction of property and a threat to safety are not and never will be the same thing), and did not promote the values of the organization in a meaningful way. They failed to establish each component of the triad.

This analysis isn’t opinion; there is proof that this statement failed the basic principle of crisis communication: Do No Harm. The next day, the university staff called for a vote of no confidence against the university president, further damaging Columbia University’s brand, image, and reputation. On May 6, 2024, the Speaker of the House of Representatives called for the removal of Columbia University’s president after she canceled commencement.

Columbia University is not alone here. Dozens of universities and colleges across the country took similar steps and are now facing the same consequences. With this movement showing no signs of stopping, it is incumbent upon communications professionals to do a better job of messaging during times of crisis. If they don’t know how to communicate in a crisis, they should partner with experts who understand how crisis communications work. Their brand is at risk if they don’t.