After asking students to label Donald Trump’s speech as “anti-Mexican,” “anti-Muslim,” “anti-woman,” or “all of the above” on an exam, a veteran Cal State Northridge professor says she fears for her safety and accuses the university of doing little to respond to her concerns about threatening online posts that surfaced when a few of her test questions became public.

Karin Stanford, a political scientist who teaches through CSUN’s Africana Studies department, says she stopped teaching in January following certain online comments – including “somebody shoot her in the face” – and disturbing emails directed at her in the wake of the incident that stirred some controversy.

Stanford contends that she hasn’t received the guidance or support from university administrators she needs to feel safe on campus. But university officials say they have been taking her concerns “very seriously” and are committed to maintaining a secure and respectful environment.

“Why should I be forced to leave the workplace because of a concern for my safety and my students?” asked Stanford, who formerly served as chair of the Africana Studies department as well as associate dean of the College of Humanities, in a recent interview. “Why am I making this choice by myself?”

Meanwhile, CSUN spokeswoman Carmen Chandler said in a statement that they are “very much aware of the issues that arise in the current contentious political environment.” She said they are actively working to find solutions that will “balance the principles of academic freedom and free speech” while ensuring the safety of students, instructors and staff.

Stanford, a cancer survivor who has taught at CSUN for nearly 15 years, started receiving a series of emails earlier this year peppered with profane language, calling her derogatory names and in one case saying “cancer is too good for you.”

But the statement that most alarmed her was posted in the comments section of a Jan. 4 online article about the online exam she gave to students. The comment stated: “This is government abuse. Somebody shoot her in the face.”

The article was published by Campus Reform, a conservative news site that aims to expose liberal “bias” on college campuses. It cited an anonymous student who took issue with two of Stanford’s exam questions – the one about Donald Trump and another about Hillary Clinton – for her online African Studies class titled “American Political Institutions: A Black Perspective.” The student was quoted as saying the questions were “random and annoying.”

The question about Trump asked: “Donald Trump made statements of a ________ nature throughout this presidential campaign” and gave the choices of “anti-Mexican,” “anti-Muslim,” “anti-woman,” or “all the above” as options to fill in the blank.

The Clinton question asked the following: “In her 2016 concession speech, what groups did Hillary Clinton address in terms of breaking down barriers and bringing people together:” and gave the options of “races,” “religions,” “genders and sexualities” or “all of the above.”

Stanford, who has taught classes on campus as well as online, said she saw another comment elsewhere that said she should be fired “from a cannon.” Such comments made her feel anxious, she said, particularly in light of recent school shootings.

Stanford said she discussed her safety concerns with her department chair and, after a union representative suggested it, Stanford notified CSUN Police.

According to CSUN officials, campus police investigated the case and consulted with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office on Jan. 17.

“While these comments are disturbing, they were found to not rise to the level of a criminal threat and were considered free speech,” CSUN’s Chandler said.

But Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for the City Attorney’s Office, said that the appropriate members of their staff do not recall a conversation on this issue with campus police and “nothing was formally presented to our office.”

Brian Levin, a criminal justice professor at Cal State San Bernardino, said regardless of any potential bias in the exam, he believes the “shoot her in the face” comment warrants further investigation, including from the FBI. Such a comment could be considered incitement more than a criminal threat, he said. Levin also noted the statement may be difficult to prosecute.

Stanford said she brought up her concerns about safety with her department chair in mid-January after administrators had informed her of online articles critical of her exam. Stanford said she asked about the university’s protocols on handling such a matter but was later told the chair had gotten no response.

Stanford opted not to return to teach on campus, she said, until she received some guidance about how to protect herself and her students. She said she also wanted to know what, if anything, she should tell her students, who are often with her on campus, about these comments.

In the meantime, the worker’s compensation claim she sought until the issue is resolved was denied. Stanford has used her sick leave since January, she said.

The university said that they contacted Stanford in early January, as is their practice, to offer “support and guidance” after learning of online articles criticizing her exam.

“The Department of Africana Studies and the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences actively monitored the situation and have continued to monitor and communicate with Dr. Stanford,” according to Chandler’s email.

Chandler also noted that the campus provides “a variety of resources” for employees who feel threatened, including police escorts to and from offices and classes, as well as counseling and other support “to ensure safety.”

While Africana Studies chair Theresa White told Stanford she met with higher-ups in mid-January about the issue, White noted in a Feb. 27 email to the professor that she did not receive any official documentation from the interim dean of the College for Social and Behavioral Sciences, the vice provost or the head of Faculty Affairs regarding the concerns she had expressed, according to an email seen by the Daily News.

White did ask Stanford via email what specifically she needed to feel safe and also noted that they had funding to pay for consulting with a national expert to help the university navigate such issues.

The university did not produce a written policy for dealing with such incidents when requested by this news organization. However, CSUN spokesman Jeffrey M. Noblitt said in an email that “there are a variety of policies and procedures that may apply” depending on the case’s specifics. CSUN’s professional police department has a team that is specifically trained to conduct threat assessments, he said.

Typically, an employee would report the threatening statements to a supervisor or CSUN Police, which initiates an investigation, Noblitt said. Any action taken would depend on the circumstances.

There is no systemwide California State University policy that would govern threatening online posts against a professor but it’s generally the purview of the university police department to investigate, said Mike Uhlenkamp, spokesman for the CSU Chancellor’s Office. Universities can arrange for a professor to take leave under certain circumstances and make other accommodations – but that is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Erroll Southers, director of USC’s Safe Communities Institute, said it’s important that universities and other workplaces have formal protocols to deal with such scenarios.

When a violent threat is made, the university should offer guidance on what to do, as well as have a system of notification should another threat appear, Southers said. They should also discuss what kind of protective measures would be appropriate, including potential escorts from class to class or home to school and whether another law enforcement agency should be notified.

“These are things we do not want to take lightly,” said Southers, who noted that the front door of his Los Angeles home was shattered by a bullet a day after his op-ed critical of Trump, the then-presumptive GOP nominee, was published in a national newspaper in July of 2016.

“We don’t want something to happen and find out we had all these facts and ignored them or didn’t take them with the degree of seriousness required.”

Editor’s note: This article was updated from an earlier version to clarify that Stanford’s chair had reportedly gotten no response about protocols from higher-ups.