Virginia Tech tragedy raises questions, concerns


	Edward M. Stern, J.D., has a private law practice in Newtonville, Mass. Stern serves as assistant dean for pre-law advising at Boston University and is a visiting lecturer for the University of Massachusetts/Boston Department of Sociology.

By Edward Stern, J.D.

In last month's edition of New England Psychologist, this column was entitled "Schools need a plan to deal with suicidal students." After that column was written, the horrendous events at Virginia Tech occurred which vastly broadens the inquiry into the roles of psychologists and other professionals who deal with troubled students in school settings. The broader issue is how to handle or control those who are a threat to themselves or others in an educational setting.

Blacksburg, Virginia, the location of Virginia Tech, appears to be an idyllic setting. It is a small, quiet community. As with many other academic settings, Virginia Tech may have felt itself to be a safe cocoon prior to Monday, April 16, 2007.

As most people know, Cho Seung-Hui, age 23, killed 32 other people at the campus and then killed himself. A number of similar events occurred previously at colleges, high schools and, even middle schools. This event is most similar to the University of Texas incident when an older student shot other students from the university tower in the center of campus. In the Virginia Tech and the University of Texas events, one person inflicted death and fear on others. Other similar incidents often involved two or more people working in concert to create this havoc. How do those who perpetuate these events get involved in such horrific conduct? Is this dangerousness to others predictable? Can similar situations be avoided?

Cho Seung-Hui was troubled. He came to the attention of the school and of the courts on prior occasions and he was still able to be on campus and he was still able to acquire the guns and ammunition, which resulted in causing such carnage. What was his history? Had he more recently experienced an emotionally upsetting event which provoked the final assault on others? Had he found that he had no support systems available to him on which he could rely?

In looking at his history and at others similarly situated, it is surmised particularly in hindsight that what occurred was foreseeable. That might be true, if we knew enough. Do we ever know enough? Does every person who has his history respond by committing a massacre of this proportion? Probably not. Are we, as a society, prepared to limit everyone's freedom of action in order to limit the potential of some of these possible events in the future? (Isn't this the Patriot Act argument following the events of 9/11?)

Most of the "facts" about Cho Seung-Hui are unverified. The New York Times reported in its April 20, 2007 edition that he "received outpatient psychiatric care ordered for him after he was involuntarily hospitalized and reportedly suicidal in late 2005." The article continued, "…Mr. Cho had a long history of disturbing and menacing behavior." To accomplish an event of this enormity, Mr. Cho would need both the inclination and the opportunity to do it. Can we eliminate either the inclination or the opportunity? If so, how is it done? Either of these two factors is difficult to control.

In Virginia, the law, which has been changed since April 16, apparently did not report Cho's psychiatric treatment because the only court ordered treatment was outpatient. The ready availability to the weaponry was problematic in this situation. With the change in the law, he would have been on the list that was available to gun sellers that included psychiatric patients.

Virginia Tech seems to have taken the position as stated by Christopher Flynn, director of campus counseling services and reported in the earlier cited article that "the university is not part of the mental health system or the judiciary system." Even if there was agreement that Cho had some "right of privacy," the university has some obligation to others on its campus to maintain an educational environment. Although not all people who are a threat to themselves or to others, which is the issue in this matter, will necessarily disrupt the educational environmen. Are there things a school can do to limit either the inclination or opportunity for these events short of excluding a student from the location? In this case, the university might have required that Cho see a professional counselor or psychologist on a regular basis. The court had ordered this outpatient treatment but, as reported widely by CNN and The Washington Post and others on May 7, 2007, Cho never went to this treatment and his lack of treatment was never reported.

In the future, schools could mandate that students see a professional for counseling in order to remain enrolled and in campus housing. There might be a role for the dormitory "resident assistant," who in this situation was killed in the earlier of the two killing sprees that day by Cho. Could a "resident assistant" search a room for weapons without probable cause? Could a resident assistant have monitored Cho's mental health? Many schools already have metal detectors and safety phones. Is improved hardware the answer? Is there a budget or the personnel to do what is required for everyone in need?

The most horrible concern here is that although there may be some incidents that could be averted, probably not all can be stopped without a great curtailing of freedom of movement and the changing of the atmosphere at educational institutions. But there is a need to be more vigilant when someone is identified as having mental health or emotional needs.

Virginia Tech tragedy raises questions, concerns (June 2007 Issue)

By Edward Stern, J.D.

Virginia Tech tragedy raises questions, concerns
(June 2007 Issue)