The blaming game

By now, most folks who give even passing attention to the media have heard the short version of the VT report.

A few of my thoughts - because I know everyone is waiting for my take, right?

I totally agree that there should be a way for different offices to communicate without worry of privacy issues. Universities have a double layer of privacy concerns - HIPPA and the Buckley Amendment. The Buckley Amendment is a privacy act concerning educational institutions. My experience with colleges and universities is that they are primarily concerned with avoiding image issues and avoiding lawsuits. It also has been my experience that universities fear law suits from accused rather than accusers.

It also seems that there isn't a particularly good plan for dealing with the odd "scary" student. Colleges generally accept that students are in a period in their lives in which they are testing boundaries, defining themselves, and experimentation. Because of this, there is a pretty high degree of "unusual" behavior that is tolerated. (I, myself, spent much of my freshman year wandering around in homemade skirts, large scarves tied up as tops, barefooted, and with flowers in my hair. I'm not kidding.) However, this kid was setting off red flags, it would seem, with everyone.

On the other hand, I also wonder how much we will ever be able to intervene effectively without specific acts. Kicking the kid out of school because his writing was disturbing would effectively be creating "thought police." And, I suspect that a good segment of our society who will find that notion seriously disturbing too.

I don't necessarily buy that the fault lies with campus police. One, police really are designed to respond to crisis rather than necessarily anticipate it. Two, initially, the police were given information that would lead them to believe that the first shooting was by someone off campus. To send a limited police force off chasing down other leads could easily have been foolish. Three, whereas most college campuses have professionalized their campus security/public safety, most campus police forces don't really do a whole lot of responding to violence anywhere close to this type of thing. They take a few rape charges - but often those involve people who are acquainted and don't often involve violence beyond the physical assault of the rape or what was necessary to subdue a victim. They may respond to occasional fights - or some dating violence. There are some restraining orders that need to be enforced. But, most of what campus police respond to is property crimes or over indulgence of substances. Police officers are human. They have their own reaction - although usually more controlled than the average person - there has to still be some level of response to that level of violence.

I really feel that the bulk of the "blame" (beyond what must, of course, be assigned to the perp) should rest with the judge who refused to involuntarily commit him. When student mental health services finally acted to protect this guy from himself and the community from him - the judge dropped the ball. The involuntary commitment order would have entered this kid into a system where he would be forced, on some level, to talk to a therapist -- and more importantly, would have made it much harder for him to obtain his weapons. Perhaps the extra hassle would have delayed his rampage - and thus given him fewer victims. Or, maybe even, helped him handle his own mind and not go shooting in the first place.

But, that's the thing -- hindsight is always sharper. And, you can't necessarily know for a fact what crime you or anyone has actually prevented.