By Judy Polumbaum Updated: 2007-04-19 07:10 Details of the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus on Monday have unfolded to confirm that the gunman was a US resident originally from South Korea. He is Cho Seung-hui, who killed 32 people and then himself in the worst campus carnage in US history. Cho, a senior English major at the university who had come to the US at the age of 8, went about his murders methodically. Doors of one building where he opened fire on classes had been chained from the inside. Two hours earlier, a young woman and a resident hall assistant had been shot at a dormitory, a presumably related incident that police at first interpreted as a domestic dispute. Their assumption led to the calamitous delay in alerting the campus and community to the threat. The Virginia shooting inevitably brings back memories of a gunman's rampage one drizzly November afternoon more than 15 years ago on the campus of the University of Iowa, where I teach. The killer at Iowa was Lu Gang, a Chinese doctoral student in physics and astronomy. On November 1, 1991, just up the hill from my office, Lu shot to death one fellow Chinese, three professors and an administrator, and critically wounded an undergraduate student, leaving her a paraplegic, before killing himself. Undoubtedly, as more becomes known about the Virginia Tech shooter and his circumstances, people will reflect on what produced the sort of nihilistic rage that could lead someone to commit mass murder. Such rumination, among both Americans and Chinese, ensued after the Lu Gang shootings. Most of us on the Iowa campus, and US observers generally, viewed Lu Gang's crimes primarily as the actions of a deranged individual. In China, by contrast, people sought broader social explanations. A prolonged discussion carried out in the pages of the Beijing Youth News raised a variety of notions, including that Lu Gang's generation lacked good values due to defective early schooling during the "cultural revolution". A minority of readers suggested that the unfair pressure and discrimination that Chinese students suffered abroad was the root cause. Such analyses were contradicted, of course, by the story of the young Chinese colleague among Lu's victims. Shan Linhua, brilliant, outgoing, well liked, the son of poor peasants from Zhejiang Province, had flourished at Iowa, winning a prestigious dissertation award and a research job on campus after his graduation. Among the factors once again under discussion in the wake of the Virginia tragedy are an American "culture of violence" celebrated in mass media, a prevalence of "narcissism" among young people who lash back when they feel slighted, and shortcomings in provision of psychological counseling for troubled students. Ultimately, however, what enabled both campus killers to cut down other human beings was the easy accessibility of guns in the United States. After the Iowa shootings, Lu Gang was found to have purchased guns and practiced his markmanship at a local shooting range. Similarly, Cho Seung-hui wrought bloody mayhem with two guns and ample ammunition in hand. Reports say that five weeks earlier, wielding merely a credit card, he had paid $500 for a gun. Weapons fanciers among US bloggers and commentators are raising a hue and cry against using the Virginia episode as another argument for gun control. The zealots claim the mantle of the US Constitution, specifically, the Second Amendment. They selectively stress the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" while conveniently ignoring the larger context, which is to support society's ability to maintain a "well-regulated militia" for its security. Nothing could be less secure than a nation awash in guns. We speak of "random" violence in connection with these campus shootings, but such incidents are not random. They're a logical result of the doctrine that gun ownership is an unassailable personal right, along with the blithe attitude that trade in guns is simply another unexceptional form of commerce. Even in US states with stricter regulation, any lunatic who wants to buy a gun can find a way. The fact that both Iowa and Virginia shooters were of Asian heritage is mere coincidence. Their shared instruments of choice are not. Judy Polumbaum is professor of journalism at The University of Iowa -- Original Source:ChinaDaily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2007-04/19/content_853892.htm
one of the many trees around the drillfield
Ongoing support for Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:17:17 -0500 From: Virginia.Tech.news@vt.edu To: Multiple recipients <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.VT.EDU> Subject: Ongoing support for Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech Friday, February 15, 2008 The Virginia Tech community continues to reach out to those at Northern Illinois University. Throughout today, numerous university administrators, faculty and students have been in contact with counterparts at NIU to offer assistance, advice, and support. The university will continue to lend support as long as it is needed. Cook Counseling Center will be open Saturday, Feb. 16 and Sunday, Feb. 17 from noon to 5 p.m. Walk-in appointments are welcome to students who may wish to seek support should difficult memories of last year's event resurface. The center can be reached at 231-6557 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Employees seeking assistance can call 866-725-0602 anytime 24 hours a day. Hokies United is planning a candlelight vigil Monday night on Alumni Mall, near Torgersen Bridge. The event will be at dusk, approximately 6:30 p.m. Everyone in the Blacksburg and Virginia Tech communities are welcome. Hokies United is also asking everyone to wear red and black on Monday to show solidarity and support for the Northern Illinois University community.
Op-Ed: An open letter to President Hennessy
May 14, 2007 By Lisette Rimer Dear Dr. Hennessy, Thank you for your op-ed piece May 4th on preventing future tragedies such as Virginia Tech. It was forwarded to me byone of your students who suffered the loss of a friend, my son Patrick Wood. Patrick graduated from Stanford in 2005 with distinction in math. He loved the school, had many friends there, and was even treated for depression there. In January before he graduated, he was hospitalized for, as he explained to me, "having thoughts of suicide." He was committed to the Stanford hospital for five days, but proclaimed that he was OK, mostly bored, and didn't belong there. The psychiatrist in charge at the hospital agreed that Pat was OK and should be permitted to return to school as long as he continued therapy. He saw a therapist and a psychiatrist on campus and renewed his medication. His mood was up and down, but he continued an active social life and good communication with us. He was excited about an internship at Siemens in Berlin, Germany, which he began after graduation. He had applied for the internship through the Stanford Center in Berlin. He suspended his therapy for the summer with plans to return in September for the computer science co-term program, but he loved Berlin too much to leave just yet. Another friend from Stanford was arriving to work in the American Embassy there, and so Patrick obtained a leave of absence and continued to work at Siemens through the fall. All the while, he made many friends, spoke and wrote fluent German, went to concerts with colleagues at Siemens, and maintained close contact with the Stanford Center. He could often be heard playing the piano there just as he had done at Haus Mitt. He wrote about a "mini-depression" before he came home to Connecticut for Christmas vacation. We thought a medication refill would be the answer. His twin sister and older brother were home, along with cousins, aunts, and uncles. It was the usual busy but fun time. Pat later told friends it was "relaxing" and that it was good to get away from the city for a while. On December 27th, he went to New York City to see another good friend from Stanford. He returned to Berlin on the 28th. In January he wrote about a "mini-breakdown." We had many emails. I called, but could not contact him by telephone. His last email to me was on January 26th. Humboldt University had requested additional information on his application as a grad student there. He took it as rejection, told me he might be returning to Stanford, and asked me to wish him luck. He answered no more emails after that. He saw friends on the weekend of the 28th and 29th. He did not return phone calls after Tuesday the 31st. His friend, who worked at the American Embassy and who lived a block away, became worried. He called and went to Pat's apartment several times the following weekend. He called the Stanford Center on Monday morning. They called the police to break into the apartment. By that evening, the police found Pat. He had died of carbon monoxide poisoning on Tuesday, January 31st. Patrick was one of many graduates that June. He was one of many more who were going on to graduate school. The school cannot be responsible for every student on campus or every new graduate. I am under no illusions about who was responsible for his treatment and for what he did. It was Patrick alone who decided to stay in Germany, who decided to suspend treatment, and ultimately who decided that suicide would relieve his depression. I have tried to retrace his steps continuously in my mind ever since we were notified on February 6, 2006. On that day, his friend and others from the Stanford Center identified him. They called a Stanford residential housing director in Palo Alto, and he called us. Both the Stanford School in Berlin and Palo Alto had memorial services for him in February and March of last year. As you can see, the school was very much involved in both the life and in the death of my son. Please do not mistake my comments for blame. Maybe no one could have prevented his loss, but I have learned that it is the very nature of his disease, and of Cho's at Virginia Tech, that should cause us to be hyper-vigilant. Students who are depressed, even brilliant and loving students like Pat, cannot function reliably because the source of their decision-making process is under attack. They are making flawed decisions because the very same mechanism used to make these decisions is malfunctioning. There is an anatomical difference between a healthy brain and a depressed brain. It is a detectable, visible difference, and yet it is only a part of the brain, for many decisions appear "normal." It is those normalities which lulled me into thinking that Pat would get help, that he would take care of himself, that he would certainly see how magnificent he was, that he had just graduated from Stanford with a 3.9 average and a major in math, that his friends loved him, that he had had the best childhood we could provide, that he had the brightest future of anyone. How could he not be happy? The answer is because depression does not operate on the same assumptions. I have had to change my own notions of well-being because they failed Pat. He did not get help in Germany because he could not. The decisions he needed to make were not possible with the oppression and pain he was feeling. Although he was physically able to get to a doctor or call a therapist, just as he had done at Stanford, those functions needed motivation, and it was his motivation which had been destroyed. All the drive, the talent, the brilliance that had won him a full scholarship to Pomfret School, that had gotten him perfect SAT's, that had made him a valedictorian, that had made him a merit scholar, that had gotten him into Stanford, that won him a scholarship there, that had gotten him into the Krupp Internship program in Germany and then into Siemens—all the motivation he needed to achieve academic and social success was no match for this disease. He had sought treatment, and it had not worked, so he turned inward until he isolated his thoughts, his wants, and his pain, until he was feeling nothing but the sense of control which suicide brings. I think your comments about psychological services are a welcome response. Pat's life was saved the first time he had major depression and was hospitalized by one of the counselors on campus, and I am deeply grateful. But I would hope, in the wake of Pat's agonizing loss and the frightening possibility of another Virginia Tech, that we come away with a few additional realizations. I have spent every day trying to do the same thing. Mainly I hope that we understand that suicide victims are not insane. They function as well as they need to function. Almost everything about Pat was normal on the outside, even the relationship problem that preceded his death. A truth I have learned too late is that we have to go to them. Pat needed someone to take him for help. Just because he did it the first time didn't mean he would do it again. As a matter of fact, there was less chance he would get help because he was weakened from the first depressive episode. Because I have learned that depression is a terminal illness, I would hope that we could change the meaning of the term from a saddened state of mind, to the dangerous, insidious threat that it is. Most people who commit suicide have been depressed and have attempted it beforehand. As I think Patrick and the Virginia Tech incident made abundantly clear, we are ill-equipped to detect the severity of the disease and, therefore, the likelihood that these victims will complete a suicide. Anatomical detection would give us empirical data that we need to make a more accurate diagnosis, certainly more accurate than relying on a patient to rate himself on a depression scale as is now commonly the case. How many other diseases have to be self-diagnosed when a patient is least able? And finally, a thought about treatment. A newspaper article last year pointed out that patients who were "cured" had to endure an average of four combinations of medication and therapy before finding one that succeeded. That means a great deal of trial and error at a time when any failure can be misconstrued as a reason for hopelessness and self-harm. The implications for a university are complex. How much do you reach out, especially if the patient does not seek treatment? How do you know the severity of the depression? If we are relying on averagely intelligent people to pick up on the cues, we will never succeed. I know because I am one of those failures. I will hate myself forever for what I did not know about depression, for what I missed, for what I did not do for my son, but I also know that there are a lot of people saying the same thing about Cho. They are all blaming themselves, just as I am, because what passes for non-threatening behavior before suicide becomes pockmarked with danger signs afterward. I should have gone to Berlin. I should have called his friends. I should have done a lot of things and so should they who knew Cho. But we don't because we don't know they are necessary. We don't know they mean life or death, and we will not know until we have reliable detection. Maybe the lesson that arises from Patrick, a favorite son of Stanford, is that students within Stanford programs should be better monitored no matter where they are. Whether they are in Palo Alto or Germany, follow-up and care (and this is most important) should be initiated by the school. Why? Because seriously depressed students are less likely to seek treatment. They consider themselves to be defective instead of legitimately sick because that's what depression does. It convinces them that there is no hope, and therefore no cure, but that is really depression talking. We have to break through that. We have to go to them, physically and mentally. If you go to the website for The American Federation for Suicide Prevention, you will see their advice for preventing suicide. The suicidal person cannot be expected to independently seek treatment. Somebody must take them. If we can come away with any insight from Patrick and Cho, it is that follow-up was woefully lacking. I shudder to mention their names in the same sentence, but similar questions in their aftermaths compel me. Why didn't the school follow up on Pat's treatment in Germany even though he was in a Stanford internship program? The answer: Stanford was relying on Pat, and so was I. That cannot continue. When students become patients, the school must monitor them as long as they are connected to the school and wherever they are connected. Depressed students — even the best, like Pat — are simply not capable. Depressed students don't seek treatment because they are, not surprisingly, depressed. This is how depression kills, and in the process, it robs functioning until there is very little on which to rely. How do we know when that functioning is gone? We don't, and that is why it is up to us to know more. It is simply in our own best interest to detect and treat more actively and accurately. If I have come away with anything from the loss of my beautiful son it is this: Depression will kill anybody, but the burden is on usto know whom. When Pat graduated in 2005, our whole family came to Stanford to wish him well: my husband and I from Connecticut, his older brother Colin and Colin's friend Julie from Washington State, his twin sister Libby from Vermont, and his grandparents Dr and Mrs. David Rimer from Los Angeles. We all came to congratulate him, and we were impressed with the beautiful ceremonies and meaningful events, but as I read your op-ed piece, the memory of meeting you at graduation stood out the most. You seemed like a caring person, even during the brief moments in which we had our photograph taken with you. We commented afterward how welcoming you and your wife had been, even though you were probably exhausted from shaking hands and posing for several hours. And now I write to ask you to bring that caring sensibility to the forefront of this issue. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for college students. It weakens parents' confidence in the safety of their children on campus — parents, who, by the way, are already feeling excluded from the well-beings of their children because of confidentiality. We cannot see grades, get psychiatric records, get tuition bills directly, or intervene on students' behalf. Everything is left up to the student, and, as we have seen with Patrick and Cho, we risk too much isolation. Again, thank you for your interest in this issue, and thank you for promoting the psychological well-being of your students. I appreciate your focusing Stanford's public attention on these avoidable catastrophes. Patrick loved Stanford dearly. He was grateful for the services you did provide, and now, in his stead, we are grateful for your continuing efforts to protect our children. I invite you to visit the memorial blog set up for Patrick by his Stanford friends at: http://patrickwood.blogspot.com/ Sincerely, Lisette Rimer, Pat's mom Pomfret Center, Connnecticut Comment on this article Jon Bell - 5/14/07 Ten day ago, a newly-admitted Freshman to Stanford went on yet another in a long-time-series of verbal abuse tirades against all the people who loved her; wished that they were all dead; that she hated all people, especially the rich--and that after Stanford she wanted a career in public relations. This person is now getting help--if she allows it. The University has been informed and has been fabulous. Ted Rudow III,MA - 5/14/07 There is no reason to doubt the generous impulse behind the work of professional psychologists and social scientists. Most of the experts who guide the psychological society have good intentions. But there may be reasons to doubt the competence of psychological helpers. A willingness to help does not guarantee a helpful result. Sometimes, as Thoreau wryly observed, the result is the opposite: "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." The fact that psychologists are trying to help people often keeps us from asking whether they know how to help. We think it's bad manners to ask a man who is trying to help us if he really knows what he's doing. Of course, it's not just manners that prevent us from questioning psychology. It's also faith--the kind of faith that makes us believe that school teachers are doing what is best for our children. Or the kind of faith that tells you that the man in the clerical collar won't knock you down and steal your wallet. Just the same, we ought to be asking if psychologists really do know how to help. A good deal of research suggests that psychology is ineffective. And there is evidence pointing to the conclusion that psychology is actually harmful. The first indication that psychology might be ineffective came in 1952 when Hans Eysenck of the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, discovered that neurotic people who do not receive therapy are as likely to recover as those who do. Psychotherapy, he found, was not any more effective than the simple passage of time. Additional studies by other researchers showed similar results. Then Dr. Eugene Levitt of the Indiana University School of Medicine found that disturbed children who were not treated recovered at the same rate as disturbed children who were. A further indication of the problem was revealed in the results of the extensive Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. The researchers found that uncounseled juvenile delinquents had a lower rate of further trouble than counseled ones. Other studies have shown that untrained lay people do as well as psychiatrists or clinical psychologists in treating patients. And the Rosenham studies indicated that mental hospital staff could not even tell normal people from genuinely disturbed ones. It is possible to go on with the list. It is quite a long one. But I hope this is sufficient to make the point that when psychologists rush in to help, they are not particularly successful. Ted Rudow III, Scientologist - 5/14/07 Hey Ted, what exactly do you mean by, "psychology is actually harmful." That's a pretty nice blanket statement there. What you're meaning to say is, clinical psychology isn't always effective. The studies you list aren't indictments of psychology as a discipline, but specific methods of treatment. And none of them conclude, "Therefore, nobody should trust any psychologists, because of what we have tried to show." Seriously. Neurosis is not as widespread or specific as depression. Psychotherapy was always hackery and has little to do with modern-day depression treatment methods. Children's developmental processes are also moot in this discussion, be they abnormal or normal or whatnot. There are lots of studies showing a lot of things. You have to look at the whole body of the discipline and then inform yourself, not take the good and pointed studies relating to specific areas and discount the entire field. Why did you even give her space? - 5/14/07 At some point, you just have to let go, lady. Get a grip. Stop projecting your woulda-coulda-shoulda parental replays to compensate for everything you didn't do, just to make yourself feel better and ignore what really did happen, most of which probably wouldn't have changed even with all the nannying you suggest. The Real BadgerNation - 5/14/07 I agree... and President Hannessy's fake smile and politically correct image are a clear sign that he cares. Same way G.W.'s visits to Iraq and shaking of those people's hands, taking pictures and putting up a big baboon smile show that he also cares... about sending America's sons to die. Why is this letter in the Daily? - 5/15/07 I agree with WDYEGHS - it's not very helpful to expect that CAPS could be able to 'follow-up' on GRADUATES (who aren't eligible for their services any more, anyway...*ahem*), not to mention when they are 9 time zones away. Aside from the logistical (think personnel, funding, time and money spent tracking down Stanford students abroad) impossibility of this operation, how would that be funded? A third of Stanford undergrads go to CAPS at some time in their career here - keeping tabs on them to follow up is just not feasible with the way the service is set up at the moment. Also, when would treatment end? If we were to promote a regime of following up on everybody after every psychological event had been resolved (something that closely resembles nannying...which health services can't do to people once they are of age without their consent) then it risks wasting the time of professionals who are already over-stretched and underpaid. Finally, CAPS psychologists are not permitted to practice in Germany because they are licensed in the state of California. This guy's story is really tragic and it makes me really sad to have read this piece, but the answer, if there was one, would not have lay at Stanford no matter what obligations the mother wants to impose on the university. A more sympathetic response... - 5/15/07 I think the three posts above me are not giving this well thought out article enough credit. I don't think she's advocating for a CAPS conselour to commute to Germany to make sure a graduate is doing ok, but some sort of follow up with the family or student to make sure they are getting some sort of help. Yes, a third of the student body may go to CAPS, but a much smaller fraction of the student body would require this follow up - - those who attempted suicide, were committed to the hospital against their will, etc. While this article does suggest that Stanford should have remained involved in Pat's mental rehabilitation, I think the more important thing to take away is the author's useful view into the life of a mentally depressed student, and hopefully raises awareness of what our peers are going through - peers who you see next to you at dinner, walk by in white plaza, sit next to in class. while pat did not take his life while at stanford, many others have, and that fact needs a lot more attention from ALL OF US at stanford. Alyssa O'Brien, PWR Instructor - 5/16/07 As a Stanford instructor who knew Pat as a student years ago in PWR "Comic Rhetoric," I am deeply saddened to hear of his death. My heart goes out to Lisette and to all Pat's friends and family members. I still remember his gentle smile and quick wit. I hope anyone reading this realizes that suicide is a lonely and terrible solution -- there are people who will grieve and miss you with a deep ache. May 17 is the first annual Stanford Wellness day. Make a pact on this day to reach out to others and not give in or give up. Grateful - 5/17/07 Thank you for sharing your painful and most personal experience. Your letter points out the difference between sadness and depression. Don't ever let go of your search for meaning and your determination to help others. Even if some miss the point (as evidenced by a few of the responses), to me and to others your words are precious. No man is an island. Thank you. Lisette Rimer - 5/20/07 Dear Mr. Hohmann, Thank you for being so generous with space in the Daily for Pat's picture and story. You gave prominence to an issue which has apparently troubled Stanford both on and off campus and, judging by the responses to Pat's story, drawn the full range of reaction. I found it interesting that I shared all views at different times in my life. Before Pat died, I agreed completely that schools cannot be traipsing all over the globe to protect students from themselves, that we could not make students live if they didn't want to. As a matter of fact, it is probably that kind of thinking that put me in this situation today. Now that he's gone, I can only say from experience that the nature of the disease demands more from us. There is no better proof than Pat that depression is a terminal disease and that it operates outside the realm of logic. How do we know when a student has crossed that line? We don't, and so it stands to reason that we should take a conservative approach. As my doctor has told me many times since Pat's death, depression is like cancer, only worse in the sense that it attacks the very decision-making ability that students need to seek help. If you can't depend on the students, and the parents are three thousand miles away and getting the "I'm OK" side of the story, who is left? It is only the professionals who know that depression does not "heal" after the first "episode" Even on medication, it takes longer to recover with each setback. Severely depressed patients do not "learn" from past failures. They get worse. They become more vulnerable. They are chronically ill, and even if they sought hospitalization once, as Pat did, they may be less likely to do it again because they will think they are beyond hope. My therapist tells me we can assume one thing about suicide: the person is in so much pain that death is a mandate. It's not like they went to a psychological shopping mall and unexplainably picked that choice. I have learned that it is a severe, agonizing, psychological torture, which constricts them internally but allows enough external composure to carry out their plan. Pick up any book on the subject and then think about it as I have done every day for fifteen months. If the school is sincere in improving its psychological services, follow-up after hospitalization is essential. Nobody else is equipped to do it, and the consequences may be fatal. I am not removing blame from myself or from Pat, and I appreciate those who wrote and understood that. My letter is not about finding fault. It is simply stating a fact: the school must be proactive. The psychiatric services are excellent on campus. As a friend once told Pat, "Stanford is one of the best places to have a breakdown." Extending those services is simply a matter of a phone call, in Pat's case, to the Stanford Center in Berlin. Most importantly, thank you to "A more sympathetic response," "Alyssa O'Brien," and "Grateful." You knew Pat (Was it you, Mrs. O'Brien, who nominated him for a writing prize for his paper on Juvenal? He was touched that you liked it.), and you knew how depression works. It's a thief, and it robs you blind. You cannot see your prospects unless professionals pry your eyes open. Thank you, Stanford, for the wonderful care you did give, and thank you again for continually working to improve those resources. Lisette Rimer, Pat's mom Pomfret Center, CT 06259 -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - May 14, 2007
Permissions granted by James Hohmann Editor-in-Chief The Stanford Daily <jhohmann@stanford.edu>
May 4, 2007 By JOHN HENNESSY On April 16, 2007, our country suffered a terrible tragedy when a troubled student killed 32 members of the Virginia Tech community. Such tragedies are unfathomable. Words, as eloquent and sincere as they may be, fail to convey the shock and sadness we all felt upon hearing that news. At Stanford, I was struck by the deep and sincere evidence of sympathy and concern throughout campus, from the moments of silence at many meetings to the cards signed in dining halls to the moving ceremony at Memorial Church. Today, Stanford's condolences stand among those of more than 300 other colleges and universities on the Virginia Tech website. Ours is a caring community, and that fact was never so clear as it was on April 16 and the days immediately thereafter. Not surprisingly, I have been asked about emergency protocols here at Stanford. I want you to know that in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, a group has been convened by Vice President Randy Livingston to review all of our emergency protocols, as well as our methods of communication. Stanford has had an emergency management program in place for many years. The emergency plan has evolved from one primarily focused on earthquake preparation and response and now includes an "all hazards" approach. We practice annually for all types of emergencies, including intentional acts. In addition, we have various methods available through which to communicate with the entire campus, but we are seeking to improve the speed and efficiency with which we can do so. Our emergency protocols are good, but the realities of today's society demand that they be even better. As important as they are, emergency protocols are unfortunately after-event procedures, and therefore only part of a necessary dialogue. As has been made very clear in the days following the tragedy at Virgina Tech, the challenge of how society addresses mental health issues is serious and complicated. We pray that what happened at Virginia Tech was a horrible aberration that will not be repeated anywhere. We know in retrospect that more must be done to recognize the warning signs of mental distress, including its potential for violence. We know we must learn more about how and when to intervene appropriately. The deaths at Virginia Tech are a tragedy of national proportions, but college campuses are experiencing smaller, quieter, yet profoundly distressing tragedies every day — young people who have chosen to take their own lives. The Stanford community has been no exception in this regard. Since the beginning of the academic year, we have lost several Stanford students. As we think through the maze of mental health challenges, we must also confront the problem of suicide — openly, constructively and with determination. For many, the imponderability of suicide may make us feel powerless to know where to begin in addressing such a painfully personal issue. So perhaps the place to start is in the recognition that we all do indeed have a role to play. A university is a deeply intimate community — what touches one, truly touches all. That means that as a community we have a set of responsibilities to each other. We have the responsibility to understand, to comfort, to reach out and, in some cases, to act. Mental and emotional distress know no bounds of gender, background or color. I am hopeful for a day when the stigma associated with depression and other mental health problems — whether imposed by others or one's self — dissipates and goes the way of other misplaced fears and biases. Helping each other overcome that stigma is an important first step. This stigma, which often results in a reluctance to seek help, implies an additional responsibility: We must share a commitment to be compassionate, to not turn away from seeing and acknowledging a difficult circumstance, and then take the opportunity to reach out to help — or even seek help ourselves. There are many resources available at Stanford, including Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) at Vaden Health Center, the Bridge Peer Counseling Center, the Office for Religious Life, the community centers and residence staff, among others. But these resources can only be brought to bear if they are engaged. Last fall, Provost John Etchemendy appointed a group to examine issues around the psychological well being of our students and assess the services we offer in this area. Other colleges and universities are taking similar measures in the face of an increasing demand for mental health and well being services. Some of you will be asked to participate in focus groups this spring or to take an online survey, and I hope you will choose to participate. It goes without saying that one suicide is too many, and we must look within ourselves to be certain that we are doing everything we can to prevent such tragedies. I have been gratified by the strength and compassion of students, faculty and staff in the last few weeks. I hope and believe we can build on that to create an even healthier, safer and more caring community. John Hennessy is the president of Stanford University. -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - May 4, 2007
Teams line up at the opening ceremony before the balloons are released. Photo by Tarish Smith. -- Original Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarish/2344459376/
Orange and maroon balloons released at a Hokies United drillfield memorial service on the morning of Monday, April 23, 2007. -- Original Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cipherswarm/1484015158/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic.
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
One of the items on display at the Alumni Center Art Exhibit. On 4/16/08, as part of the Day of Remembrance observance, the Holtzman Alumni Center Museum displayed examples of art, crafts, quilts, and other memorabilia contributed since April 16, 2007. This is one of over 60,000 items that will eventually go to Special Collections at Newman Library. A letter accompanying this doll said: "Dear Sir, My name is Linda Woodward and I have been making dolls for a while. I heard about the tragedy that happen last week. I am so deeply sorry about it. So I would like to send you a VT doll that I made with tears and sadness. There is a bow for every soul that died. Thirty three in all, all little bows. I am sorry again, Linda Woodward"
One of the items on display at the Alumni Center Art Exhibit. On 4/16/08, as part of the Day of Remembrance observance, the Holtzman Alumni Center Museum displayed examples of art, crafts, quilts, and other memorabilia contributed since April 16, 2007. This is one of over 60,000 items that will eventually go to Special Collections at Newman Library. A quilt accompanied by a letter that said: "My name is Jackie Wake. When the shootings happened in April my heart fell to my gut. This is what I do (make afgans) and the Lord laid in on my heart to do this for VT. Please lay it out and stand back so you can read all the names. We decided to take a trip to bring it down. We hope you can find a use for it. Jackie Wake 106 Macomber Ave. Auburn, MI 48611 989-662-7725"
This hand crafted glass bowl was made by Gene Messick of Restoration Glass. He sent it to President Steger to thank him for his leadership during the crisis.
Memorial stone of Juan Ramon Ortiz-Ortiz on 4/16/08. Photo by Brian Sewell. -- Original Source: http://flickr.com/photos/briansewell/2419985200/in/set-72157604577382666/
Othmer bomb threat perpetrator still unknown
By: Andy Boyle Posted: 4/23/07 An unknown man called in a false bomb threat to Othmer Hall around noon Friday. The engineering building was closed for about two hours to students, faculty and staff members while authorities searched for explosives. Kelly Bartling, a spokeswoman for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said on Friday a man called Dean of Engineering David Allen's office and told an assistant, "I planted a bomb in the building, you bitch." The secretary called University Police, who advised her to leave the building and pull the fire alarm. Garret Schram, a junior civil engineering major, was in the building "30 seconds after the call." People were crowded around a desk talking quietly, he said. Schram was in the office getting lunch tickets for an E-week event that college was hosting. E-week is an annual celebration put on by the engineering college. Schram then ran out of the building with everyone else. The college's E-week included an open house meant for recruiting, displaying presentations, checking out labs and meeting with businesses that came for recruitment, said Joey Schaefer, a junior mechanical engineering major. At a press conference Friday, UNL Chancellor Harvey Perlman said the bomb threat wasn't real and other campuses across the country have had similar threats over the week. "Unfortunately, these are to be expected when we had a major event like we had at Virginia Tech," he said. Othmer Hall contains the Biological Process Development Facility, which researches vaccines for biological warfare agents, according to the facility's Web site, www.bpdf.unl.edu. John Ballard, the associate dean of the engineering college, said he didn't know if there was a hazard involved because of the facility's research in biological warfare. Othmer Hall was the first building evacuated, said University Police Chief Owen Yardley. Connecting buildings Nebraska Hall and the Walter Scott Engineering Center were evacuated about 20 minutes later. The last previous bomb threat called in to the university occurred in late September when a man approached a group of sorority members at the parking garage at 17th and R and claimed to have a bomb. Yardley couldn't comment on how the search of Othmer was conducted. He also would not confirm that the caller was a man. Earlier, Bartling told the Daily Nebraskan the caller was a man. "We know it was a phone call that was received by somebody in the department," Yardley said. Police procedure is to attempt traces on the phone call and investigate who is involved, Yardley said. He said a bomb threat is be a felony charge. Perlman said if a student were involved, he would like them to be punished as seriously as the university allows. "I would hope that the campus community would take this seriously," he said, "and if anybody hears or sees anything that would help in this investigation, they would notify campus police or Crime Stoppers or provide us with information." University Police can be reached at 472-3555. The Crime Stoppers' phone number is 475-3600. -Daily Nebraskan senior reporter Johnny Perez contributed to this story -- Original Source: Daily Nebraskan - April 23, 2007
Josh Swartzlander <jdwriter19@yahoo.com>
Por Carlos Alberto Montaner 1 de mayo de 2007 Cuando Seung-Hui Cho fue a entrar pistola en mano en la clase de aeronáutica para asesinar a sus condiscípulos en Virginia Tech, el profesor Liviu Librescu, un anciano de 76 años, menudo de cuerpo pero dotado de un carácter firme, se lo impidió durante unos minutos mientras sus estudiantes huían por las ventanas. Finalmente, el joven asesino hirió de muerte a Librescu y siguió su recorrido en busca de nuevas víctimas. Librescu era el scholar con más publicaciones de toda la universidad. Un verdadero sabio en su campo de investigaciones. Esto sucedió el 16 de abril, precisamente en Yom Hashosha, el día en que se conmemora el Holocausto que arrasó sin piedad con seis millones de judíos europeos entre 1935, cuando Hitler promulgó ''las leyes de Nuremberg'', con las que despojó de derechos a las personas de esta etnia o religión, hasta 1945, cuando los aliados entraron en los campos de exterminio y, horrorizados, encontraron a un puñado de despojos humanos que habían logrado sobrevivir milagrosamente. Uno de esos sobrevivientes del Holocausto había sido Librescu, entonces un adolescente en su Rumanía natal, a quien el destino todavía le depararía otra experiencia monstruosa: el establecimiento de la dictadura comunista en Rumanía, también teñida por el antisemitismo, la irracionalidad y la barbarie. A fines de los setenta, afortunadamente, por una gestión de Menajem Begin, consiguió emigrar a Israel y, unos años más tarde, desembarcó en Estados Unidos donde acaba de morir heroica e inesperadamente a manos de un muchacho enloquecido. Traigo a cuento la historia triste y gloriosa de Librescu porque llega en medio de un debate mundial: ¿qué hacer con los canallas que niegan la existencia del Holocausto? En Canadá y en algunos países de Europa los parlamentos han aprobado leyes por las que sancionan a quienes niegan el exterminio masivo de judíos, alegando que esa falsedad estimula el odio racial, mientras en Estados Unidos la Primera Enmienda les permite difundir sus envenenadas informaciones porque el Estado no puede legislar en materia de libertad de prensa. Creo que hay dos buenos argumentos para asumir la posición norteamericana. El primero, es que en una democracia libre les corresponde a los ciudadanos y no al gobierno decidir lo que quieren leer y creer. Si cuatro imbéciles racistas, pese a las toneladas de pruebas y testimonios, se dedican a negar la existencia del Holocausto o de la esclavitud de los negros, hay que confiar en el sentido común de la sociedad y no en el de los censores oficiales, gente que acaba por ser muy dañina. Por otra parte, vivir en libertad exige aprender a tolerar la existencia de creencias y actitudes repugnantes. Las dictaduras comunistas, por ejemplo, le costaron a la humanidad cien millones de muertos a lo largo del siglo XX, pero en todas las sociedades libres hay tipos que todavía veneran a Lenin, Stalin, Mao o Fidel Castro, y no queda más remedio que coincidir con ellos pacíficamente en el ascensor o en la cafetería. Pero tal vez existe un argumento táctico para oponerse a las leyes contra la negación del Holocausto. Cada vez que uno de estos racistas abre la boca para mentir y difundir falsedades crea una oportunidad perfecta para recordarle al mundo que el antisemitismo está vivo y coleando y que no desapareció en la Cancillería junto a los huesos quemados de Hitler. Todos los síntomas señalan que hay un peligroso repunte del odio a Israel y a los judíos en diversas partes del mundo. Todo lo que se haga por denunciarlo y detenerlo es una forma de preservar la paz en el mundo. -- Fuente Original: El Instituto Independiente http://independent.typepad.com/elindependent/2007/05/otra_vez_el_hol.html
Gabriel Gasave Reasearch Analyst Center On Global Prosperity The Independent Institute ggasave@independent.org August 01, 2007
ssue Date:Tuesday April 17, 2007 Section: Editorial Section By Monday afternoon, the nation was shocked by the tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech. At least 32 people were killed and more than 20 were left wounded in the nation's most violent school shooting ever. Though the campus of West Virginia University did not directly experience the tragedy, Mountaineer students found themselves anxious and alarmed as the news spread across the country. Some were distracted from their studies, while others waited with bated breath to hear word from their Hokie friends. Every student on every college campus is affected when an event like this occurs. As Virginia Tech mourns the loss of its students in the coming days, and some continue to mourn for many years to come, the staff of The Daily Athenaeum sends out our thoughts and sympathy to those who lost loved ones in Monday's shooting. When an event like this occurs, no matter what college campus you call home, you are taken out of your comfort zone. It's hard to fathom what Virginia Tech students, staff, faculty and families are going through. As a peer institution and ultimately a friend of Virginia Tech, we hope that they will be able to mend after such a horrifying occurrence. As the end of the semester draws near, it is hard enough to deal with the stress of classes, projects and final exams. Now, Virginia Tech students will be faced with even bigger obstacles. While we go through the next few weeks, take the time to remember those who were lost in this unspeakable tragedy. Enjoy every day, and take time to tell your friends and family that you care about them. It's unfortunate, but sometimes we are so wrapped up with our daily lives that it takes an event like this to bring us back to reality and remind us to be thankful. Again, our hearts and thoughts go out to those affected by the shooting. We will continue to think about you as we undergo the mourning process alongside college students across the nation. -- Original Source: The Daily Athenaeum http://www.da.wvu.edu/show_article.php?&story_id=27549
Emory's Campus No Place For Guns Issue date: 5/1/07 Section: Editorials The recent controversy concerning funding for a College Republicans' trip to a shooting range has brought the issues of gun control and campus safety to the forefront of the Emory discourse. Last Wednesday, College Council denied the College Republicans funding to help pay for a trip to a local shooting range. The College Republicans said they hoped the trip would promote safe and responsible gun handling and ownership. College Council legislators say they withheld the funds due to safety concerns, even going so far as to propose an amendment to the organization's monetary code prohibiting the use of College Council funds to purchase or rent firearms and ammunition. Generally speaking, we believe College Council should be able to fund activities like a trip to the shooting range. Shooting is a sport recognized by the NCAA, and shooting range sessions monitored by professionals are exceedingly safe. Amending the monetary code to prevent such trips is unwarranted. It's unfortunate that the shootings at Virginia Tech took place just weeks before the scheduled date for the trip, but given that the College Republicans had been planning this event for quite some time, we don't believe the shootings are an adequate reason for the trip to be cancelled. Although some could perceive the trip as insensitive, there is still an immense difference between safely firing a gun at a target and using a gun to commit mass murder. If the College Republicans want to take a trip to the shooting range, then they should receive the same support given to any other group. What we cannot condone is the College Republicans' plan to request permission from University President James W. Wagner to carry concealed weapons on campus. This idea was proposed by nationally syndicated radio host Lars Larson on whose show Tittsworth appeared to discuss the Council's decision to deny funding. Under current Georgia law, it is illegal for a civilian to carry any sort of weapon or explosive compound while on school property. There's a reason such a law was passed. We understand the need for protection and the value of feeling safe at school, but we do not believe that allowing more guns on campus will help foster the open learning environment we want at the University. Allowing guns on campus would propagate an atmosphere tinged with the spectre of possible violence. This would make us less safe, rather than moreso. The only people who should be allowed guns on campus are those who have gone through rigorous training to become certified in their use and have taken an oath to protect the citizenry - in this case, the Emory Police Department. The College Republicans should realize that by tying the issue of funding from College Council to the ludicrous question of concealed weapons on campus, they are only hurting their prospects of getting that money in the future. Who would want to give money for a shooting range trip to a group that has expressed its desire to carry concealed weapons on campus? As the Second Amendment states, there is a place for guns in our society. The shooting range is one of those places - Emory's campus is not. -- Original Source: Emory Wheel - May 1, 2007
"Christopher H. Megerian" <cmegeri@LearnLink.Emory.Edu>
We cannot begin to imagine what the community is going through, but we do know they stood strong in the face of terrible acts of violence. We would like to specifically recognize the Collegiate Times, the student newspaper at Virginia Tech, for its excellent news coverage as the rest of the University faced crisis. While the entire school was in a state of shock, the newspaper's staff managed to provide up-to-date information on the paper's Web site, and we want the paper to know their efforts did not go unnoticed. As student journalists, we can understand the horror of working through the greatest school tragedy in history. Many members of The Plainsman staff referenced that site throughout the day to get the latest information, and we are proud of these strong students. As the details of the tragedy continue to be released, we have confidence the newspaper will continue its excellence in reporting. While we watched in shock as the tragedy unfolded, we began to wonder what we would do if something like this happened at Auburn. We discussed the safety measures at Auburn, and we began to realize that is is almost impossible to prepare for an emergency situation of this magnitude. It is the kind of situation that takes one by surprise in the worst way imaginable, and we feel no amount of preparation could have completely prevented the events at Virginia Tech Monday. We commend everyone involved in the tragedy for the efforts they put forth to help the Virginia Tech community. Again, we offer our deepest sympathies to everyone affected by the events on Virginia Tech's campus, and you will remain in our thoughts. -- Original Source: Auburn Plainsman - April 18, 2007
The shooting at Virginia Tech is undeniably one of the worst tragedies American students have ever faced. Stories of heroism make their way out of the situation, but the media is focused on the death and destruction caused on the campus of Virginia Tech University. One thing, however, should give Virginia Tech students, and Americans throughout the country, something to be proud of. In the absence of professional newsmen, students took control of the media, showing an unprecedented ability to shape the coverage regarding their event. In the wake of the worst campus massacre ever in the United States, dozens of news organizations flocked to Virginia to cover the tragedy. Before they arrived, however, the mainstream media relied on reports from those already on the ground: the college students themselves. Armed with the video and still cameras on their mobile phones, dozens of students set out to create their own coverage of an incident that was very much their own. The first audio and video accounts of the incident aired by CNN came from iReport, their citizen journalism program. The video, shot on a Nokia smartphone, made its way around the networks, all courtsey of a Virginia Tech student named Jamal Albarghouti. Dozens of similar stories are to be told. In the hours preceding the arrival of professional reporters, Virginia Tech students had, unfortunately, the opportunity to shape the world’s news. Their coverage helped to show the world how terrible the massacre was and helped to qualm some fears about students that were safe. Twitter, a “stream of consciousness” blogging tool by Obvious Corp (utilized mostly by web celebrities such as Robert Scoble and Thomas Hawk), served constant updates to the internet, courtesy of a user named Tom Markiewicz. Chris Pirillo, a web celebrity in his own right, helped to stream live coverage with a tool called UStream.tv. His conversation with Planet Blacksburg, a new student-run publication from Virginia Tech, captured nationwide attention as sections were aired on various evening news programs. What most surprised me, however, was the caliber and tenacity of the coverage coming from the students themselves at Virginia Tech. Via the aforementioned Planet Blackburg, they helped to broadcast news of the tragedy throughout the world, becoming the go-to site for immediate updates. The Web2.0 movement, which many experts see as a bubble ready to burst, finally showcased its effectiveness yesterday. YouTube has showed its staying power by drawing users in to watch videos on their website. The entire citizen journalism movement, however, displayed its prominence yesterday with the Virginia Tech shooting. Never, in years past, would internet surfers be granted the same hard-hitting coverage as Planet Blacksburg provided yesterday. In this day and age, everyone is a reporter. Yesterday, as CNN broadcast video from a student’s cellphone video, and as Planet Blacksburg updated faster than the almighty network news, it became apparent. The “new media” is here to stay, and, from the looks of it, it’s ready to provide better coverage than had ever been imagined. The shooting at Virginia Tech has caused incredible sadness and grief. It has, however, caused something else: the birth of a new generation of reporters. News of the incident continues to stun the staff here at New School Politics. In the coming days, we’ll be doing everything we can to help, but for the moment, the best we can do is to give our condolences to those involved in the tragedy at Virginia Tech. On April 30th, we’ll be participating in One Day Blog Silence, a day of quiet on the blogosphere dedicated to the memory of those who lost their lives in this terrible tragedy. Date : 19 April 2007 Categories : Liberal Content, media, culture, education, tragedy, web2.0, Virginia Tech -- Originally posted by Zach Sims on the New School Politics blog: http://www.newschoolpolitics.com/liberal-content/out-of-darkness-comes-light/ Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Overview of the findings and recommendations of the April 16 tragedy internal review committees
By Larry Hincker BLACKSBURG, Va., August 22, 2007 -- On May 9, 2007, Virginia Tech President Charles Steger directed three internal reviews in the wake of the April 16 tragedy on the Virginia Tech campus. He directed the chairs "to look at strengths and weaknesses of our existing systems/infrastructure and how they may be improved or augmented to address emergency situations that might arise in the future." These reviews are internal in structure and focus and not intended to be forensic in nature. Says Steger, "I asked for the creation of two different, but concurrent review processes. The external review commissioned by Governor Kaine is essentially investigatory in nature, while ours is a forward looking review of university policy, resources, and infrastructure through the prism of April 16." The Security Infrastructure Group was charged with examining the university's existing security systems and recommending changes that would enhance the university's ability to respond quickly and effectively in situations where the safety of the campus community is jeopardized. This group was also directed to identify strategies that might decrease the probability of such situations occurring, looking at both technological and behavioral aspects. The Information and Communications Infrastructure Group analyzed and inventoried the communication infrastructure and information systems used during the crisis period, evaluated their performance, and identifies tactics and strategies for improvements. The Interface Group evaluated the relationships between the university's student counseling services, academic affairs, judicial affairs, and the legal system. It was charged with examining the existing systems and the interface between them and determining what constraints, legal or otherwise, hamper effective interactions in order to respond to and support at-risk students. Security Infrastructure Group Among its findings the security infrastructure group found good cooperation and sound agreements between Virginia Tech and local police, fire, and EMS jurisdictions including ongoing training exercises; sound emergency communications; robust communications infrastructure; a sound emergency preparedness plan; engagement of the leadership in campus emergencies; and a nationally accredited campus police department. The security group recommends enhancements in physical infrastructure, emergency communications, emergency preparedness, and selected protocols. Infrastructure recommendations include modification of building door hardware, installation of locks on general assignment classrooms, evaluating the utility of centrally controlled electronic key card access to key academic and administrative facilities (such as the system currently in place on all residence halls), constructing a public safety building combining the university police and rescue squad, and evaluating installation of centrally monitored video surveillance cameras. Communications recommendations include mass notification techniques within classrooms and other locations, message board in key or high profile public areas and along major vehicular thoroughfares, a people locator system, and further articulation of the recently adopted VT Alerts notification system. Emergency preparedness recommendations include updating the emergency preparedness plan, more frequent emergency exercises or drills, creation of building coordinators for emergencies, and identification of backups for the policy committee (university leadership with oversight of an emergency). Protocols include increased education of the university community about appropriate emergency response actions and creation of a comprehensive security master plan and campus security committee. Read the full Security Infrastructure Group report (PDF) ›› Information and Communications Infrastructure Group Broadly defined, telecommunications comprises the university's data network, telephone systems (university and/or vendor owned), cable TV, educational systems, and centralized information services. They were dramatically stressed but performed adequately during the crisis. The university on-campus phone system was not degraded but was affected by external problems. External cellular telephone systems and the Public Switched Telephone Network (hardwire telephone systems off campus) experienced huge demand increases and experienced some blocking of calls during the initial periods of the crisis on April 16. Other university systems experienced some loading, which were quickly identified and rectified, and performed well with no significant problems. For example, the university website www.vt.edu saw a 3,000 percent increase in traffic on April 16, Virginia Tech Police dispatch experienced 450 percent increase, and the university switchboard experienced a 300 percent increase in calls. Emergency Responder Radio Communication continues to suffer nationally and locally from "interoperability" issues because they use a variety of radio systems and frequencies. Radio systems typically do not support mobile data, encryption, GIS, or other advanced capabilities. Indicative of relatively common signal penetration problems in large buildings, emergency responders reported that radios did not work in some areas of Norris Hall. This group provides a series of strategic and tactical recommendations. The full report details more than 120 tactical recommendations. Two major strategies emerge: 1) Installation of a new fully integrated digital campus architecture for all telecommunications functions based on Internet Protocol (IP). The new system, based on a diverse optical core and including wireless and wired access, would fully integrate all telecommunications functions including voice, video, data, entertainment, and educational systems. This system could remediate every problem and enable every innovation identified by the study committee. 2) Make selected research and administrative IT capabilities available to local first responders to improve radio communications capabilities. In addition to improving interoperability problems, the new systems would be integrated with IP based information architecture allowing new applications such as GIS, identity management, sensor networks, location awareness, high-speed links to criminal information databases. Read the full Information and Communications Infrastructure Group report (PDF) ›› Interface Group The Interface Group looked at policies, procedures, capabilities and interdepartmental relationships and communications for the selected areas related to identifying and supporting at-risk students. By its nature the system was found to be logically connected and responsive. The Division of Student Affairs is at the core and supported by and interacting with law enforcement, the academic enterprise, and other university resources offices. Consistent with the national findings of the federal report commissioned by President Bush, the Interface Group found some confusion about applicability and interpretation of privacy laws among some offices or faculty. To some extent, this created internal silos and feedback problems preventing some offices from having salient information on students at risk. The "system may not be robust enough to provide the kind of analysis that is warranted by more complex, high risk cases... with need for significant mental health services." The committee makes a series of recommendations under three broad themes: 1. Expanding Capacity in the System Refining and expanding the Care Team, a key SA group that identifies and responds to students at risk (among other responsibilities), including addition of VTPD to standing membership and connecting academic personnel to deliberations where appropriate. Creating a Threat Assessment Team charged with examining the most complex cases of distressed students and empowering it to act quickly, when necessary. Expanding Case Management Capacity by adding case managers to the Dean of Students office and Cook Counseling Center to improve follow-up with students and to improve information flow through appropriate units about students at risk. 2. Improving Communications in the System Improve Communications in the Systems with particular emphasis on privacy law education throughout the university, clarifying policies for communications with external agencies, establishing a central university contact with a clear picture of distressed students. 3. Connecting Strategies for Identifying and Supporting at Risk Students to the Broader University Plan for Campus Safety Expanding Training of Administrators, Faculty, and Staff in Violence Prevention recognizing the campus safety is the province of all university employees to some extent. Extending the University-wide Violence Prevention Policy to integrate the numerous university-wide efforts to enhance campus safety. Building Community to Promote Individual and Community Well Being Virginia Tech has a strong, supportive, and vibrant community which is essential in creating a safe campus environment with very good policies and support systems. However, it is recommended that a more systematic approach be instituted with campus well-being as a goal. Read the full Interface Group report (PDF) ›› Read and/or listen to formal statements regarding the reports: Charles W. Steger, president (MS Word) | Listen James A. Hyatt, executive vice president and chief operating officer (MS Word) | Listen Earving L. Blythe, vice president for information technology (MS Word) | Listen Jerry Niles, retired dean, College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences (MS Word) | Listen Contact Larry Hincker at hincker@vt.edu or (540) 231-5396. ##07433## -- Original Source: Virginia Tech News http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2007&itemno=459
16 kpbs MP3 6.9 MB April 22, 2007 What more can be said about the shootings that left 33 dead at Virginia Tech last Monday? About 42 minutes' worth, apparently. We ask questions about a few details that bother us about the tragedy, which include a federal "stand down" order to local police and EMTs, the jamming of local cell phone service, and differing descriptions of the shooter. We also talk about Wednesday's shooting on the streets of Columbia, less than a mile from the bunker. What all will come of this? Well, we expect to hear calls for tighter restrictions on handguns and mandatory mental health screening for elementary school students. Sounds good, but it ultimately means more government control over our lives and our children. Links: • Sources: Feds ordered VA police to stand down • Cell phones intentionally jammed at Virginia Tech by authorities • Virginia Tech shooter was autistic: Relative • Karan Grewal tells CNN's John King he and others were handcuffed • Differing descriptions of VT shooter • PID Forum: Cho's Sister an Intel Asset? • Is this a picture of 'Ismail-AX' (a.k.a. Cho Seung-Hui)? The original blog post and the photo at Flickr have since been deleted. As far as we know, Connecting the Dots is now the only place you'll see this picture. • Columbia shooting suspect had just left jail • Gunman at NASA • April: The Cruelest Month? • Gates says Washington to sell smart bombs to Saudi Arabia • Air Force fills Army ranks • Russia plans world's longest tunnel to link to Alaska • Cuba: Posada prosecution in US or extradition to Venezuela • Fallen Angel • Pet food contamination: Melamine now found in rice • Australian officials puzzle over missing yacht crew -- Original Source: P.I.D. Radio http://pidradio.com/?p=357 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License
P.I.D. Radio 4/29/07: Peter Levenda - What Made Cho a Killer?
16 kpbs MP3 6.9 MB April 29, 2007 Today we feature audio from a radio interview Derek conducted Friday, April 27th with Peter Levenda, author of the excellent three-volume set Sinister Forces: A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft. Simply put, Peter is as bothered by certain details of the Virginia Tech massacre as we are, and he's concerned that the major media's superficial analysis of the case is leading us to accept Cho Seung-Hui as nothing more than the latest in a long line of lone gunmen. Links: • Peter Levenda's website • Peter Levenda's blog • "Making No Sense of a Massacre" by Peter Levenda • "Tales From the Darkside" by Peter Levenda -- Original Source: P.I.D. Radio http://pidradio.com/?p=358 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.