Moreover, the Community Services Board, through which Cho was supposed to be aided in seeking services has an unclear mandate.  It seems that the CSB should have been following Cho and ensuring that he went through with the outpatient requirement, but without a notice provision in the commitment order there was no accountability built into the order.  My experience with CSBs is that they are often very unclear of what exactly their role is in commitment cases, and I've been told things which are flatly wrong and counter to statute by people working for CSBs.  Clearly there is a failure in rulemaking, procedural guidelines, and training in the CSBs. 

Last, there really must be a provision for return to court and review of the order to see if the requirement for outpatient treatment has been complied with and to determine if additional services or inpatient commitment may be in order. 

Graduation was only weeks away but for Cho it was not an occasion for joy. Rather it was a time of fear and dread. He had never held a job in his life, not even during summer vacations from school. He did not want to go to graduate school as his parents had urged. The educational institution did not appreciate him. He would soon be facing the job market as a mediocre English major whose ideas and compositions as a writer had been rejected, while all those around him were planning careers with enthusiasm and great expectations. 

What would he ever do once he was out of the intellectual environment of college where his brain had at least some success? He would be turned out into the world of work, finances, responsibilities, and a family. What a frightening prospect. As graduation loomed ahead he felt even more inadequate. There was the probability of only more rejection ahead.

What a nightmare.

One thing I don't think was accounted for is that although he was a loner and suffered from "mutism", he switched from computer science to an English major -- seemingly going from a field that would be more forgiving of his "mutism" to a field where he would be expected to take part in classroom discussions on a frequent basis, if not daily. Even in creative writing courses, he would have had to read his own writings aloud, and participate in discussions of other students' work.  My speculation is that he was trying somehow to fix himself. 

The guns-on-campus advocates cited statistics that overall there are fewer killings in environments where people can carry weapons for self-defense. Of course if numerous people had been rushing around with handguns outside Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly. The campus police said that the probability would have been high that anyone emerging from a classroom at Norris Hall holding a gun would have been shot.

Data on the effect of carrying guns on campus are incomplete and inconclusive.  The panel is unaware of any shootings on campus involving people carrying concealed weapons with permits to do so. Likewise, the panel knows of no case in which a shooter in campus homicides has been shot or scared off by a student or faculty member with a weapon. Written articles about a campus shooting rarely if ever comment on permits for concealed weapons, so this has been difficult to research. It may have happened, but the numbers of shootings on campuses are relatively few-about 16 a year at approximately 4,000 colleges and universities, according to the U.S. Department of Education Campus Crime Statistics for 2002-2004. It could be argued that if more people carried weapons with permits, the few cases of shootings on campus might be reduced further.

On the other hand, some students said in their remarks to the panel that they would be uncomfortable going to class with armed students sitting near them or with the professor having a gun.  People may get angry even if they are sane,
law-abiding citizens; for example, a number of police officers are arrested each year for assaults with weapons they carry off duty, as attested to by stories in daily newspapers and other media.

Campus police chiefs in Virginia and many chief level officers in the New York City region who were interviewed voiced concern that as the number of weapons on campuses increase, sooner or later there would be accidents or assaults from people who are intoxicated or on drugs who
either have a gun or interact with someone who does. They argued that having more guns on campus poses a risk of leading to a greater number of accidental and intentional shootings than it does in averting some of the relatively rare homicides. (See Appendix K for an article about the recent discharge of a gun by someone intoxicated in a fraternity house. Although a benign incident, it illustrates the concern.)

To emphasize two key points:

1. "...the panel knows of no case in which a shooter in campus homicides has been shot or scared off by a student or faculty member with a weapon."

2. "...having more guns on campus poses a risk of leading to a greater number of accidental and intentional shootings than it does in averting some of the relatively rare homicides."

According to survivors, the first reaction of
the students and faculty was disbelief, followed rapidly by many sensible and often heroic actions. One affirmative judgment in reflecting on this event is that virtually no one acted irrationally. People chose what they thought was the best option for their survival or to protect others, and many tried to prevent the shooter from gaining access to their room. Unfortunately, a shooter operating at point-blank range does not offer many options.

[...]

In three of the four classrooms that Cho invaded and one more that resisted invasion, the instructor and students
attempted to barricade the door against Cho entering either on his first attempt or on a later try. They tried to use the few things available- the teacher's table, the desk-chair combinations, and their bodies. Some attempts to barricade succeeded and others did not. Cho pushed his way in or shot through some doors that were being barricaded. In the German class, two wounded students and two non-wounded students managed to hold the door closed against the return entry by Cho. They succeeded in staying out of the line of fire through the door. Two other rooms did the same. In one, Cho never did get in. At least one effort was made to use the podium, but it failed (it was bolted to the floor). Cho was not a strong person-his autopsy noted weak  musculature-and these brave students and faculty helped reduce the toll.

So much for the vicious smears by certain right-wing talk show hosts that students, indoctrinated by the heinous liberal education system, didn't fight back. 

The many R.A.s, students, and professors who encountered Cho every day were in full alarm mode about his long slow meltdown.  They reported numerous incidents by many different avenues to the many people in authority who could have intervened, and who were in fact directly responsible for intervening.

The only discernable results were that (1) Cho got special tutoring in one class, and (2) Cho spent one night in the hospital and was released early the next afternoon, with few questions asked and no follow-up whatsoever.  His parents didn't even know there was a problem.

The report chalks the results up to miscommunication, lack of information, privacy laws, etc.  Please read this section carefully and ask whether it is true that "no one could have known," or that "we can't predict dangerousness."

I don't believe either of those things are true.  I think we can and must predict dangerousness, and that we must provide meaningful treatment and protect the public.  The problem is systemic.  By failing to make treatment for the most dangerous, resistant, and seriously mentally ill the focus of our public mental health system, we assume the risk of such an occurrence.

No, maybe we could not have known that it would be this particular person, on this particular day.  However, when we let such clear alarms go unanswered, we obviously take the risk that one of these dangerous people will implode, as Cho did, and that those around him will get hurt or die.

By enacting the panel's recommendations and taking firm, progressive stances on the issues involved, Virginia can become a model of mental health reform, crime control and campus security.

RICHMOND - Governor Timothy M. Kaine released the following statement today as he accepted the Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel, which he appointed on April 19, 2007 to perform an independent, thorough, and objective review of the tragic events on April 16 at Virginia Tech:

"I charged this Panel with focusing on what went right, what went wrong, what practices should be considered best practices, and what practices were in need of improvement.

"The report we are releasing today meets that charge.

"The level of personal commitment by the Panel members, staff and counsel throughout the process was extraordinary. The report is the product of intense work and deliberation and the Commonwealth stands indebted to all who worked on it.

"While we will spend the coming weeks completing an in-depth review of the report, and making plans to implement its recommendations, there are several issues to which I would like to draw your attention today.

"First, there was an intense awareness within Cho's family, counselors and the Fairfax County School system that he was troubled, had contemplated violence, and needed some fairly intense services to be able to function. The system surrounded him with those services, and he succeeded.

"However, despite serious concerns about whether he would be able to continue to succeed at Virginia Tech, the university never received any information about his challenges and the strategies that had enabled him to succeed up to that point in his life.

"Second, while he was at Tech, many people became aware of Cho's difficulties - students, parents, resident assistants, teachers, administrators, the Tech Police  Department, and counselors.  But there was not an effective mechanism for compiling information and taking action, either to intervene in an effective way or even to contact Cho's family.

"Third, the response of the state mental health system in the one instance when it dealt with Cho suggests that there are problems concerning the way Virginia implements its mental health laws.  In particular, the absence of any official follow-up to determine whether the judicial order for outpatient treatment was complied with is significant.

"Fourth, the confusing nature of privacy laws and significant misunderstandings about what they cover and the circumstances where sharing information is allowed is relevant to these issues. Since violations of the law can create liability, laypeople who do not understand the law may simply default to a position that `we cannot legally share information.'  It is imperative that these laws be explored to give clear instruction to people working in the field about what information may be shared if doing so might keep people safe.

"Fifth, the Report discusses the clear value of campus police operations being managed at the highest standards of professionalism with specific focus on the need to coordinate those operations with other state and local law enforcement agencies. The Virginia Tech Police Department is certified and the report praises their professionalism and the extent of their cooperative relations with Blacksburg, Montgomery County and Virginia state law enforcement agencies. But the report also notes that there is a wide variation of security on our college campuses. This is an important area for further work.

"Sixth, in retrospect it seems clear that, in the immediate aftermath of the first shootings, the campus community should have been notified of the fatal shooting and the fact that the perpetrator was at large. There is no downside to providing prompt and accurate information to a community of adults who have the capacity to make decisions to keep themselves safe.

"The fact that the Virginia Tech Police Department did not have the ability to initiate such notice without convening an administrative committee and working through the wording of the notice was a problem.

"Seventh, most of the emergency response after the shooting was truly heroic. And, there was a tremendous outpouring of effort to help victims, family members and the Tech community in the days and weeks following the shooting. But, in dealing with the aftermath of this unparalleled tragedy, there were communication and coordination issues that created confusion and frustration, especially among the people most affected by the shooting.

"The communication issue between the State Medical Examiner's Office and the families who awaited word about the fate of their spouses and children was the most significant example of this issue. Without taking anything away from those who extended themselves to help, the coordination of services to victims in such instances has to be done in a more thoughtful and comprehensive way.

"As we move forward in the coming weeks, we will closely review all of the recommendations in the report to determine what will be required to implement them.

"The magnitude of the losses suffered by victims and their families, the Virginia Tech community, and our Commonwealth is immeasurable. We have lost people of great character and intelligence who came to Virginia Tech from around our state, our nation and the world.

"While we can never know the full extent of the contributions they would have made had their lives not been cut short, we can say with confidence that they had already given much of themselves toward advancing knowledge and helping others.

"We must now challenge ourselves to study this report carefully and make changes that will reduce the risk of future violence on our campuses. If we act in that way, we will honor the lives and sacrifices of all who suffered on that terrible day and advance the notion of service that is Virginia Tech's fundamental mission."

I have never, despite my bond with Virginia Tech, thought that the University had done everything it could.  We all knew that Cho had slipped through the cracks because people had not paid sufficient attention.  This report bears that out, and I am confidant that my fellow Hokies will see to it that the proper changes are made and a firmer adherence to regulations/procedures are followed.

I attended a training seminar last year on what happens when procedures that are in place to save lives are disregarded or become lax.  Inevitably somebody dies.  In this case, far too many innocents paid the price for administrators who let the rules slip.

I'm am more proud than ever of what those brave teachers and students did to try and save lives and stop a madman.  They are true heroes.  We Hokies will always be proud of them!

This report will have an impact.  Only vile men could turn aside uncharitably and say these reforms are not needed.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim