There is, predictably, lots of talk about whether the massacre at Virginia Tech could have been handled differently or even prevented: if the university should have moved more quickly to alert students after the morning shooting, if campus security protocols were adequate, and so on. One of the more interesting (and more troubling) strains of conversation focuses on Cho Seung-Hui, the gunman. Except for the fact that nothing in a tragedy like this is funny, it's almost laughable how predictably he's being described as a troubled loner who kept to himself. The more specific details, though, are worth pausing over. Cho was accused of
stalking two women in 2005, was referred to mental health services for suicidal behavior, and wrote a play that is nothing but warning signs. He wasn't out in normal public life, and wasn't a normal private citizen. He was a college student. So what, exactly, was the responsibility of his community? During an interesting discussion
moderated by Gwen Ifill on PBS, Allen Bova, the director of risk management and insurance at Cornell University, discussed whether not Cho should have been caught by the sytem.
GWEN IFILL: When you say "risk management," aren't one of the risks what the mood is of a troubled student? We now know that this student had warning signs. Is part of your managing risk tracking those warning signs?
ALLEN BOVA: Well, those warning signs are very, very difficult to really determine in a lot of cases. And I think what you're really talking about is profiling, and I'm not sure profiling usually works.
Certainly, I think that Virginia Tech, in this particular case, did identify the student. They did take the appropriate action by referring the student to counseling, but this was an extremely troubled individual. And I think too much is placed sometimes on what college campuses did, and not enough really is placed towards the actual person that committed this heinous crime.Is that true? Would this have been profiling? That's a buzzword, profiling, but only because it's usually discussed in terms of racial or ethnic profiling, which raises issues of racism and ethnic discrimination. But profiling on its own seems like an absolute necessity when it comes to predicting crimes. Otherwise, law enforcement becomes entirely reactive. Should all kids who fit the stereotype of the troubled, violent loner be subject to increased scrutiny? What would be the problem if they were? A little later in the discussion, Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, the president of George Washington University, gave a longer but still somewhat wobbly answer.
STEPHEN JOEL TRACHTENBERG: No institution is going to be perfect on [dealing with troubled students]. And it's a delicate balance, as has been indicated, between the rights of individuals, both their legal rights and concerns under the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and also the obligations of the university to the larger community.
If you have somebody who you think is a danger to himself or herself or to others, you obviously have some duty to act. And if it turns out you have inadvertently overacted, that's a lot easier to fix than having been too cautious. And so my attitude is, you'd want to protect all of your students, and you want to do it in a macro way, as well in an individual way.Is psychotic behavior considered a disability? Do students who live in college dorms and attend college classes have the same status as freely circulating adults? Are they truly private citizens in the same way? How would additional scrutiny -- more questions, closer watch, not less freedom but more care -- interfere with their legal rights? Obviously, crimes continue to happen, all across society, at all levels, despite the best efforts of law enforcement officials and private citizens. But in a closed (albeit large) community like a university setting, should there be less fear about balancing legal rights and the needs of the community? After all, college students aren't entirely finished becoming adults yet. That's one of the reasons they're in college. Troubled kids are a sad business if they are only hurting themselves. They're a horrible, painful business if they're hurting other people. None of this is to say that Virginia Tech did anything wrong. I don't know enough about how Cho's past behavior was handled. But is there a better way to talk about this issue than one of profiling?
(Brief promotional announcement: Mr. Greenman's acclaimed new book of fiction is about to be published.)
The "D.C. Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey, facing an almost certain jail term, hanged herself last week. She left behind two suicide notes, which have been published by The Washington Post. You can see them in their entirety here.
