Some issues which have yet to be adequately addressed:
Warning signs were recognized, they were voiced, but were not effectively heeded;
Cho was enrolled in a course presumably taught by a professional well versed in the characteristics of antisocial behavior but was not profiled as a potential sociopath; and
As the tragedy played out, profiling seems to have been relied upon to the detriment of security.
I share a common interest with thousands of Virginians as August closes. I have a son returning to college this week. I am pleased to see that the University of Richmond, VCU, and VUU are working to improve campus security. I am not satisfied that the effort described by the Richmond Times Dispatch in a front page, headline article on 11 August is a solution to the threat. It described officers from UR and VCU practicing responses to gunman scenarios. I am even less satisfied that Virginia Delegates like John Welch view HB 3064 as affecting this kind of threat in any way. After mixing the constructs of safety and security, he told an audience in April that there is evidence that Virginia has been proactive in preventing such incidents. He characterized his bill's effect as ensuring that college staff and faculty must be trained to recognize suicidal tendencies, "mentally ill behavior patterns, so that something --never anticipating Blacksburg-- ...like that would have never happened." Hopefully, he added, it would prevent something like this from ever happening again.
I don't see it that way. The facts surrounding the Blacksburg tragedy point to neither of these efforts as effective prevention.
A number of Virginia Tech faculty members recognized Cho's unusual behavior without the benefit of HB 3064's mandated training. Just what does the administration do after that behavior is recognized? Harder decisions than mandating training must be taken so that more thoughtful policies will be in place. Institutional policies requiring difficult decisions are required. Every student who experiences depression in some form cannot be sent home. But how does the institution monitor those who get "profiled?"
Is there even any hope of effectively profiling such potential mass murderers? Cho was enrolled in "Social Deviance" last semester. Talk about a laboratory. As it happens, my son will take that course this semester at his university and I have every confidence that his professor will be challenged to answer this very question. The answer bears upon the first issue. And, along with the next issue, weighs heavily in any argument about preventing future tragedy.
As events unfolded that April morning, the circumstances seem to have been handled routinely. But that routine looks to have relied heavily upon techniques that include profiling. When murders/homicides occur, it is more often than not true that they are committed by someone who knows the victim. Often they are crimes of passion. This translates to husband, wife, significant other. A male friend of one of the first victims looked vaguely similar to Cho. When that male friend was apprehended by police, two pieces of information may have pointed to a conclusion that they had their man. One was wholly theoretical; the other may not have even been certain. Nevertheless, there was a letdown of security. Officers called to the scene and otherwise available were not deployed to observe the campus while validation of a suspect's involvement was made. It looks as though a reliance on profiling played a role in dropping the guard.
So you see the profiling paradox. HB 3064 seems to rely upon some profile that staff training will provide. But a profile that was employed the morning of the tragedy identified the wrong suspect. By the way, despite the characterization by Delegate Welch, not all security risks involve "mentally ill" students. The only way around the unreliability of profiling is to depend upon the skills evinced by those professors who pointed Cho out as a result of their life experience and personal observations and to discuss campus security in total. I appreciate that a response to a crisis is required, but that demonstration of capability has not a thing to do with preventing the crisis. Interpersonal skills and deans who won't accept that there is nothing that can be done are the first line of prevention. Thus far, I see very little to indicate that this call has been answered on any campus.
Cross posted at VBDems.org - Blogging our way to Democratic wins in Virginia Beach! Go RK!
But what do they have to do to get thrown out? Apparently intimidating your classmates, refusing to sign class rosters, stalking fellow students, non-participation in campus activities, no known friends, or writing murderous "creative" writing essays aren't enough. Neither is signs of deadly mental illness.
Universities have a mission of education and acculturation. They are not places to park your sick puppy while s/he finds their way. Attending university is a privilege that should be easily revoked from those that show no signs of contribution. It is time for all universities to raise the bar for behavior.
'That I May Serve' is Virginia Tech's motto and it should be a guiding principal for continuing attendance.
In fact, the CSB did not even attend Cho's involuntary commitment hearing. When informed that the law required the CSB to monitor compliance with involuntary outpatient treatment orders, a representative of the CSB said "that's news to me."
After the Tech tragedy, the local and state public mental health agencies with the responsibility to protect the public from these kinds of incidents responded by shifting the blame, passing the buck, and insisting on the confidentiality rights of a dead man. While that may be standard operating procedure for these agencies, it is time to insist that these SOPs change, and that the CSBs and state Department of Mental Health focus their efforts and services on the most dangerous and seriously mentally ill, who are often the last to receive treatment.
The problem of potentially violent mentally ill individuals goes far beyond college campuses. It affects all of us, particularly law enforcement officers. When the mental health system breaks down, as it has in Virginia, the results are felt in many other areas. We are way past the point of a band aid solution. Trusting the flat earth, anti-tax wing to figure a way out of this mess is just not an option. They do not even accept that this is a public responsibility, although that was established in the mid-1800s. Their misguided parsimony has cost us dearly in increased violence, deaths, injuries, fear, wasted lives, and wasted dollars.
Confidentiality rights belong to the patient, not to the public agency. They shouldn't be misused by public agencies to hide what a lousy job they are doing, particularly when lives are involved.