Running head: EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
EDUC 746 Final Exam:
Virginia Tech and Conflict Options
Deborah Davis
Liberty University
1
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
2
Abstract
One bright spring day, a troubled young man put into action a deadly plan he had been
manifesting for years. The nexus of the environment was ripe for the vulnerabilities of those
members of the campus, and the consequences were grave. Seung-Hui Cho was an extremely
quiet and apparently highly disturbed man. A Korean born immigrant who showed a high
intelligence and good grades in his schooling, Cho was never a prominent figure, but a shadowy
creature who stalked women, threatened his own life, and, at 23 years of age, ultimately killed 32
others before killing himself. The security and technology in place at Virginia Polytechnical
Institute was unprepared for the devastation he wrought. While we may never know how or if
this tragedy could have been prevented, the legacy of heightened security is one all members of
any school community must deal with as well as the public legislative consequences.
Keywords: Virginia Tech, shooting spree, immigrant mental health, mental health policy,
mass shootings, campus security
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
3
Virginia Tech and Conflict Options
Some of the “whys” and some of the “how comes” may never really be answered. That
would be the case in any event. The events that led to tragedy on the morning of April 16, 2007
on the campus of Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University (VA Tech) are no
different in that regard. The horror of Seung-Hui Cho as a mentally disturbed young man who
was distraught enough to kill himself is only compounded by the horrid things that made him kill
so many others in the process. While that is one of the unanswered questions, Kalish and
Kimmel (2010) suggest, “framing one’s suicide with violence and aggression may serve to make
it appear a more potent act” (p. 452).
On and Off Campus Reports
Litanies of reports from the campus and beyond provide a tale of drama and horror of that
day in retrospection. One website, http://www.virginiatechmassacre.com/, is dedicated
completely to the events of that day. Other websites, news outlets, and journals have chronicled
the events and speculated on the reasons behind the events of that sorrowful day.
The New York Times report from April 16, 2007 reported that a VA Tech shooting
leaves 33 dead (Hauser, 2007, n.p.). The accountancy of 33 dead was eventually determined to
be 32 murdered and the suicide of the killer.
A year later, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
(IACLEA) released its Overview of Virginia Tech Tragedy and Implications for Campus Safety
IACLEA Blueprint for safer campuses (iaclea.com, 2008, pp. 1-14). Not surprisingly, the first
point given is a recommendation for all campuses to review their own security systems. The
bulk of the recommendations surround the issue of communicating a threat to personnel around
the campus.
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
4
The New York Times then reported mistakes made in the procedures for security at the
VA Tech campus (Urbina, 2009, n.p.). These also focused around the issue of disseminating the
concerns. A third version of a report was released and disseminated according to USA Today
(Jones, 2010, n.p.). This third version corrected an error where a prior report indicated the
President of the University had been locked in his office, which was open at all times. Also,
where a prior report had indicated board members had advised their families prior to advising
staff and students of the emergency, this version reflected that it was administrative workers who
contacted family members, and not decision makers. The report CNN posted in December of
2010, reflect more confusion about the order and method of notifications (Mungin, 2010). This
report presumes that had notifications been timelier, the thirty deaths more than two hours after
the first two shootings would likely have been prevented.
The reports from the Clery Act require timely notification and reporting of security issues
and concerns. While they were widely published through the public news media, and the fines
varied in costs from as low as $27,500 plus $5,000 for a total of $32,500 (WJLA.com) to $48.2
million (Johnson, 2012) which was later evaluated to be the total costs of the massacre including
fines, fees, upgrades, and emergency response.
For whatever the discrepancies or facts presented in the many reports, there is no doubt
that Seung-Hui Cho had issues, and those issues led to tragedy.
Upbringing and Family of Origin
“He was born in South Korea and immigrated to the United States at age eight” (Kim and
Dickson, 2007, p. 939). “From elementary through high school, the shooter had been known as a
child who never spoke” (Kim and Dickson, 2007, p. 940). Kleinfeld (2007) reported in the New
York Times that Cho was an excessively quiet child whose parents had joined in an arranged
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
5
marriage back in Seoul. The family immigrated in 1992 to Detroit and settled in Centreville, VA
where the father worked as a presser in dry cleaning. Cho was exceedingly taciturn and
consequently was teased and bullied. Video games and basketball occupied his free time and
girls were only a distant focus.
In 2006, at age 22, three different female students were the focus of Cho’s attention to an
excessive degree – a degree that led to campus police telling him to stop bothering them. A text
message to a roommate let to a review for suicidal ideation at a Psychiatric hospital (Kleinfeld,
2007). He was held overnight, and seemed to emotionally retreat even further.
Indicators of Conflict, Aggression, and Mental Instability in Seung-Hui Cho’s Life
Before seventh grade, Cho received counseling at the recommendation of his sixth grade
teacher. The diagnosis was selective mutism (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). A further
analysis showed a report of severe social anxiety disorder. By the eighth grade, writings indicate
a fascination with the Columbine shooting. The writing was so compelling that his teachers got
his parents involved and Cho was given a psychiatric evaluation and spent about a year on
antidepressants.
At college, he was quiet, and wrote constantly and secretively, submitting a book idea
that was rejected near the end of his sophomore year. By October of 2005 his writing was
upsetting faculty and he was taking surreptitious pictures of classmates. This behavior led to
evaluation by counselors and he was advised to stop. In November and December, complaints of
stalking were filed but the women declined to press charges. By mid-December he was triaged
thrice by phone and finally in person where he was referred for in-patient evaluation. The intake
psychiatrist determines such was unneeded, and Cho is released with follow-up suggested, but
not arranged, nor medication assigned. By April of 2006, Cho was dropped from technical
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
6
writing for inappropriate content. In his creative writing class, his writing was characterized as
“remarkable for violence.” In the fall of 2006, his playwriting leads staff to refer him, again, for
counseling, which he declines. He started purchasing firearms and ammunition in early 2007,
and recorded his videos during early Spring of that year. All of this information is reported in
Virginia Tech Review Panel (2007).
A third or more of those who commit suicide are seen by a mental health provider within
two years (Silvermand & Berman, 2013, p. 420). Suicidal ideation is a nebulous construct, and
generally a better indicator of suicide attempts than of death by suicide (ibid). Belli and Ural
(2012) indicate that schizophrenia and other mental disorders are drastically higher in the
population of those committing aggressive violent acts, including homicides (p. 539). However,
that indicator does not necessarily indicate a direct linkage.
The severe isolationism Cho dwelt in, as evidenced by his excessively quiet nature and
lack of indication may indeed be an indicator of any number of mental disorders. However, his
mental health records reflect little more than a possible suicidal ideation in December 2005 that
was obviated by the psychiatric review prior to admission to hospital for a complete in-patient
evaluation (Leinwand, 2009).
His cognition of his actions was never in question; he knew what he was doing. Despite
his video, media packets, and notes, we may never know if or how much he understood the
effects of his actions. “Cho understood the power of brand establishment, evidenced by his
sending between his attacks the aforementioned media packet to NBC, which contained twentyfive minutes of video, forty-three photographs in a number of violent and armed poses, as well as
twenty-three pages of writing” (Kolenic, 2009, p. 1034).
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
FIGURE 1. Final theoretical model of serious youth aggression (Ferguson, San Miguel, &
Hartley, 2009).
As seen above, Ferguson, San Miguel, and Hartley (2009) have lain out a diagram of
factors that influence aggressive behavior. This drawing sets out a perceived desire to find and
answer for such behavior, and while neat and tidy, it may or may not be a diagram of factual
truth (Harwood, 2011). Harwood (2011) presents many examples in the writings and reports
about the VA Tech shooting where the issue presented is one of connecting the disparate dots
recognized by individuals to include: faculty, family, roommates, medical services, campus
security, and a plethora of other individuals and agencies. Each had a piece of the puzzle, but
none enough to see the whole picture. “The credible exercise of this metaphor implies two
premises: firstly that the dots are facts, and secondly, that these facts can and must be drawn
together to detect the troubled student” (Harwood, 2011, p. 599).
7
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
8
Timeline of the Shooting
Apparently, Cho rose before 5 AM on the day of the shooting. His normal grooming
routine proceeded – shower, shave, etc. (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). He then went to
West Ambler Johnston (WAJ) Residence Hall where he followed Emily Hirscher to her room
and killed her and Resident Aide Ryan Clark, who apparently came to investigate the noise
(Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). After this, he returns to his dorm, closing his computer
account, changing his clothes, and packaging the media kit he had previously prepared and later
mailed to NBC News. By 7:30, Cho’s accounts are closed, and the VA Tech Police Department
(VTPD) is aware of the first shootings. The Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Spencer, is
notified of the murders by a housekeeper. President Steiger is notified at 8:10 by which time, the
Blacksburg Police Department (BPD) has detectives on scene, the WAJ Hall is secured, and the
Professional and Continuing Education Center has locked down itself (Virginia Tech Review
Panel, 2007).
The 8 AM and 9 AM classes are held with some students advised of the shootings via
casual communication and most unaware. Policy Board members did get information posted
before 9 AM within the community, locking down the local public schools. By 9 AM, the
Veterinary College at VA Tech is in lock down mode. When 9 AM classes are beginning, the
trash pickup is cancelled by the school. The media package is time-stamped at 9:01 for mailing
to the NBC News, and Cho is observed around Norris Hall between 9:15 and 9:30. At Norris
Hall, of the Engineering School, the doors are chained (Cho’s fingerprints were found on the
chains) and a bomb threat is found and sent to the dean’s office about 9:30. By 9:30, a broadcast
email is sent to advise campus members of the shooting in WAJ hall. By 9:50, Cho has shot
students and staff members in four classrooms, police officers are entering in Norris Hall through
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
9
an outer door that could not be chained then blocked by an inner door that is chained, and
announcements play on the loudspeakers to warn everyone to stay inside and away from
windows. Cho shoots himself (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). Cho used 174 rounds to
murder 25 students, 5 faculty members, and injure 17 others. He killed himself by gunshot as the
police shot their way through the chains and into the Hall (Powell & Self, 2011).
Three days later, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine commissioned a panel of experts
to investigate the tragedy and recommend improvements to Virginia laws, policies,
procedures, systems and institutions to help prevent similar incidents in the future. The
panel was officially established in June through executive order. (Virginia Tech Review
Panel, 2007, p. 5)
Mental Health Providers
“At least one mental health professional thought he was potentially dangerous to himself,
and a judge regarded him as greatly needy of even involuntary treatment” (Lipsitt, 2007, p. 8).
One mental health professions was apparently not enough. Cho “might have had autism, bipolar
disorder, or even schizophrenia” (Kim & Dickson, 2007, p. 940). Addressing mental health
issues through retrospect is difficult at best and impossible at worst. Some would have
interpreted his shyness as Asian reserve, and others did not care, but simply teased him about it.
Cho did aid in the creation of a system for “intervening in the life of troubled students” (Virginia
Tech Review Panel, 2007, p. 70).
Faculty
It is noteworthy that "as many as eight of his teachers in the [previous] 18 months had
formed what one called a task force' to discuss how to handle him," and this group made at least
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
10
two pleas to University officials to take action” (Reiss, 2010, p. 25). Also, “one professor
considered him to be hazardous to her class” (Lipsitt, 2007, p. 8).
The head of the English Department was notified by a professor of writing that seemed to
be a “veiled threat.” She was advised to drop the student or tutor him privately, and she did tutor
him, but with a caution to an assistant to call security if she mentioned the name of a dead
professor. Further, he wrote two excessively violent plays that were submitted for review, but no
action was taken (Fernandez & Santora, 2007).
Law Enforcement
The first notice that VA Tech Police Department (VTPD) had of anything wrong was at
7:20 AM on April 16, 2007. Advised that a student may have fallen from a loft bed, an officer
went to investigate at 7:24 and discovered the shooting victims, then requesting further
assistance (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). By 7:30, VTPD officers were arriving at WAJ
hall. By 7:51, Blacksburg Police Department (BPD) was involved and investigating. By 8AM,
the Virginia State Police (VSP) were en route to aid in the investigation. Logically, VTOD and
BSP sought Hirshner’s boyfriend for questioning as a person of interest.
At 9:15, Emergency Response Teams (ERTs) were staged to intervene as needed. The
first 9-1-1 call from Norris Hall was received at 9:42 and officers were there by 9:45. It took a
full five minutes for them to shoot through the chains and access the building. The shooting took
place between 9:40 and 9:50. The last recorded shot, Cho’s suicide, was at 9:51 just as officers
entered the building. By then, the body count was 32, and Cho’s suicide made 33 dead (Virginia
Tech Review Panel, 2007).
University Administration
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
11
The first person of administration who was aware of the shooting was Resident Aide
(RA) Ryan Clark. He went to investigate the noise in the next room and discovered Hilscher
dead, and Cho shot Clark. The time was about 7:15 (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). The
next administrative note is at 7:30 when a housekeeper contacted Dr. Spencer (Associate Vice
President for Student Affairs and member of the Policy Board). Dr. Spencer walked to WAJ and
called Dr. Hikes (Vice President for Student Affairs). It was 8:10 before a secretary notified
University President Steger (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007).
Apparently by 8:45, the Policy Board knew enough to share the information, with a
caution not to release the information. While Blacksburg Public Schools locked down at 8:52,
there is no information about how they knew what was going on at VA Tech. While Byers
(Executive Director of Government Relations) locks his doors on campus, President Steger does
not. Emails to all students, faculty, and staff go out at 9:26, 9:50, 10:17, and 10:52 (Virginia
Tech Review Panel, 2007).
The administration’s post-incident activities could be a model for tragedy everywhere.
That same day, classes were cancelled for the remainder of the week. A family assistance center
is opened; convocation is held, and a candlelight vigil is held (Virginia Tech Review Panel,
2007). Students were allowed, even encouraged, to grieve and to meet with counselors.
Local/State Law
Schildkraut and Hernandez (2014) stated “As a result of the failed reporting to the NICS
of Cho’s temporary detention order and court-ordered outpatient treatment, he was not flagged
when he went to purchase his firearms.” Under Virginia law, those voluntarily or involuntarily
admitted to a hospital for mental health issues, or subject of a temporary detention order was to
alert the Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) which would in turn alert the National
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
12
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Cho fell through the cracks because his
recommendation to inpatient status was usurped by the psychiatrist who deemed him not a threat
to himself or others (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). A NICS Improvement Amendments
Act was designed to better coordinate between state and federal agencies with an eye toward
rapid handling of situations like Cho (Schildkraut & Hernandez, 2014). Again, however, Cho
was inpatient for mental health only the night of December 13, 2006, prior to being screened by
the psychiatrist and therefore unlikely to have been highlighted under the law to preclude
purchase of firearms. Schildkraut and Hernandez (2014) posit that “Cho violated the Gun
Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Law by purchasing guns after multiple members of the
medical community had declared him mentally ill” (p. 370). While NICS would highlight those
who were adjudicated as mentally ill, presuming reported according to existing legislation, there
is a question requiring limiting the rights of those who experience mental illness. If, indeed,
mental illness is disease, then a cure should restore rights to those otherwise limited. While not
inclusive to the issue of the VA Tech shooting, this point would be appropriate for further
research.
Role of Technology/Campus Safety Procedures
Had there been a method to lock down the campus upon discovery of the first two victims
at 7:24AM, the bulk of this tragedy might have been averted. As it was, the technology lapse
that caused a delay in notifications was perhaps a factor in the deaths of so many. That delay
was only about 30 minutes, but they were critical minutes. The Policy Group attempted to send
the notice at 8:50, but did not get released until 9:26. Students might have gotten the message
and not gone to the 9AM classes (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). However, in 2007, while
many students had laptop computers that might have received and email, smart phones were few
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
13
and far between, and personal data assistants were too expensive for the average student. As a
consequence, those classrooms might not have been full of students when Cho arrived with his
murderous intent. What might have been will never be known.
Campus Safety Procedures
The individual schools – engineering and veterinary science – put themselves into a lockdown mode as they learned of the shootings. Obviously, the school had limited access to dorms
where the swipe cards would admit some and exclude others during night hours. From each
report of a problem, the VTPD response was prompt and appropriate. When the first victim was
discovered, the BPD was brought in and VSP was quick to follow. It would appear that the
action plan in place was followed, but that there were gaps in the plan.
It would also appear that doors that can be chain-locked are not a good idea. To the
troubled mind, those open handles made for a quick and easy locking solution. Perhaps the
faculty member finding a chain on one of the doors of Norris Hall on April 14, 2007, should
have pushed the matter for security at that time (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007). The open
campus of VA Tech was built to open the doors of learning. It was never intended to shut out
anyone.
Personal Observations/Lessons Learned
The world is full of hurting people. In Job, we are reminded that “Yet man is born unto
trouble, as the sparks fly upward (Job 5:7, KJV). Trouble cannot be escaped. So, too we never
know what plans our Father has for us, but we are reminded, “For I know the thoughts that I
think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected
end” (Jeremiah 29:11, KJV). Cho was obviously a hurting person, with unresolved issues from
this childhood. Whether it was the trauma of his early ill health, the move to the United States,
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
14
or a psychological/physiological foundation that made him predisposed to such an extreme form
of introversion, we will never know. The true sorrow comes when there was no method in place
to recognize and treat his illness. In short, he fell through the cracks.
As educators, we have a responsibility to read the assignments our students submit. The
teachers at VA Tech did so, and tried to get help for Cho. The “system” was non-responsive. In
Spring, 2013, there was a woman in one of my classes who wrote a paper dealing with suicidal
ideation. It was so vivid that I spoke with her about it. She admitted a prior attempt. At that
time she was in counseling and on antidepressants. Later in the term, she wrote a paper dealing
with the long term effects of psychotropic medication. She admitted that she had decided to quit
her medication. I strongly encouraged her to discuss that option with her counselor and her
doctor. I alerted our counseling center. She dropped my class. I pushed our counseling center
to find her. They did so, just in time to have her hospitalized and her stomach pumped to remove
her pills. She tracked me down in my office to swear at me that she would never forgive me for
intruding into her business. I let her words wash over me and quietly responded that had I not
done all I could, I would not be able to forgive myself. In my courses, I generally have twenty
students each term. Over the years, I have read hundreds and hundreds of papers. I pray for all
my students. I listen when there is a check in my spirit about a student. When I believe there is
an issue, I do what I can to get help for a student. Our school system is set up to allow interface
with appropriate authorities in any emergency.
Since the shooting, every campus has emergency plans in place to address such tragic
events. With the advancement of technology, those methods are becoming more and more rapid.
Back in 2007, not every student had a phone, particularly not a smart phone. Also, in those days,
the phones at the schools were not as prevalent in classrooms nor did they usually receive emails.
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
15
So, students who had gone to class that day would likely not have received an email or text until
after classes. At my school, a disruptive student button is available send an alert to Security and
quickly the alert is passed to every phone and email on campus. Home phones start ringing with
automated responses equally quickly, and the alerts are followed by updates as available. While
tragedy will come and sorrow will fade, the Father’s plan will prevail.
Conclusion
It is easy to ask, “Why?” It is easy to ask, “How come?” There are answers that never
will be known. What is known is that a young man with a history of sadness and isolation wrote
many stories, plays, and poems about a violent and murderous rage. That rage seemed to simmer
to a point where his carefully planned and prepared plot was placed into action. It would seem
the conflicts within the English Department should have pushed for a more direct requirement
for counseling. Had the counseling center been more closely advised by the police department of
Cho’s infraction perhaps they could have taken more specific action. Perhaps not.
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
16
References
Cornell, D. (2010). Threat Assessment in College Settings. Change, 42(1), 8-15.
Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth
violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence.
Journal of Pediatrics, 155(6), 904–908.e3.
Geller, E.S. (2008). The tragic shooting at Virginia tech: Personal perspectives, prospects, and
preventive potentials. Traumatology 14(1), 8-20.
Hauser, C. (2007, April 16). Virginia Tech Shooting Leaves 33 Dead. Retrieved November 28,
2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cndshooting.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Harwood, V. (2011). Connecting the dots: Threat assessment, depression and the troubled
student. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
Curriculum Inquiry 41(5), 586-609.
Johnson, J. (2010, April 2013). Report: Virginia Tech massacre cost $48.2 million. Retrieve 24
November, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campusoverload/post/report-virginia-tech-massacre-cost-482million/2012/04/13/gIQAdDmxET_blog.html
Jones, B. (Ed.) (2010, January 6). Third version of Va. Tech massacre report released. Retrieved
26 November, 2014, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-06virginia-tech-shooting-report_N.htm
Kim, S. G. and Dickson, G. (2007). Revisiting mental health issues in young immigrants: A
lesson learned from the Virginia tech massacre. Issues In Mental Health Nursing, 28(9),
939-942.
EDUC 746 FINAL EXAM
17
Kolenic, A. J. (2009). Madness in the making: Creating and denying narratives from Virginia
Tech to Gotham City. Journal Of Popular Culture, 42(6), 1023-1039.
Leinwald, D, (2009, July 23). Va Tech gunman’s mental records found. Retrieved 23
November 2014, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-22-vatech_N.htm
Mungin, L. (2010, December 10). Report: Virginia Tech too slow to spread word about shooter.
Retrieved 26 November, 2014, from
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/10/virginia.campus.shooting.report/index.html.
Powell, L. l., & Self, W. R. (2011). The rhetoric of sacrifice in the "rantings" of the Virginia
Tech killer. Journal Of Communication & Religion, 34(1), 24-36.
Reiss, B. (2010). Madness after Virginia Tech. Social Text, 28(4_105), 25-44.
Schildkraut, J., & Hernandez, T. (2014). Laws that bit the bullet: A review of legislative
responses to school shootings. American Journal Of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 358-374.
doi:10.1007/s12103-013-9214-6
Silverman, M. M., & Berman, A. L. (2014). Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I:
A focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk. Suicide & Life-Threatening
Behavior, 44(4), 420-431. doi:10.1111/sltb.12065
Urbina, I. (2009, December 4). Mistakes in Virginia Tech Shootings Revealed in Revised
Report. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/12/mistakes_in_virginia_tech_shoo.htm
l
Virginia Tech Review Panel. (2007). Mass shootings at Virginia Tech, Report of the Review
Panel. Richmond: Commonwealth of Virginia.