The U.S. Department of Education issued a final ruling on Thursday that Virginia Tech violated campus crime-reporting law in its response to the shootings there on April 16, 2007.
On that day a student fatally shot two others in a residence hall at approximately 7:15 a.m. The university issued a warning via e-mail at 9:26 a.m. Shortly thereafter, the same gunman began firing shots in an academic building, killing 30 more students and professors, and himself.
The Education Department determined that Virginia Tech failed to issue a "timely warning" as required under the crime-reporting law known as the Clery Act. Its campuswide e-mail, which mentioned a "shooting incident" but not any fatalities, was both too late and too vague, the department said. Also, it said, the university failed to follow its own policy for issuing timely warnings.
Virginia Tech officials responded sharply to those findings. "It appears the university is being held accountable for a new federal standard that was adopted after the April 2007 shootings," Lawrence G. Hincker, associate vice president for university relations, said in a written statement.
The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2008 required colleges to issue, beyond timely warnings of specific crimes, immediate emergency notifications in the case of active threats to the health or safety of students and employees. Some drafts of the bill included a 30-minute time limit on emergency notification, but campus law-enforcement officials argued that it would generate hasty misinformation and detract resources from a university's response to an incident. The law leaves the definition of immediacy more subjective.
Virginia Tech officials contended that Thursday's ruling would further confuse what constitutes a timely warning. "It appears that a timely warning is whatever the Department of Education decides after the fact," Mr. Hincker said.
The Education Department had issued an initial ruling against Virginia Tech in January, which the university made public in May along with its response. In that response, Virginia Tech listed several shootings and stabbings on or near campuses before 2008 in which colleges either did not issue alerts or waited up to a day.
However, the Education Department contested the university's characterization of those situations and found them incomparable to the discovery of the first two victims at Virginia Tech. That "is precisely the type of event for which the timely warning requirement was intended," the department said, suggesting that such a warning should have been immediate.
The Cost of the Ruling
Thursday's ruling also dismissed Virginia Tech's challenges to several initial findings by the department. The university had disputed the accuracy of statements such as which administrators had what information when, but the department largely maintained its timeline.
Now the Education Department will decide whether to impose fines or other sanctions. Virginia Tech may no longer appeal the findings, but Mr. Hincker indicated that officials would appeal any penalties. For violations of the Clery Act, the department can impose fines of $27,500 and, in theory, suspend a university's federal-aid eligibility.
The ruling may have further costs for Virginia Tech. Still pending is a lawsuit filed by the families of two victims of the shootings there, Julia K. Pryde and Erin N. Peterson. The Education Department's findings may be introduced into that case, said Carl W. Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond's School of Law. And in any negotiations toward a settlement, those findings may give the families more leverage, he said.
Comments
1. baracoa - December 10, 2010 at 05:57 am
To the end, unfortunately, to the very last instance, Virginia Tech will continue to insist that it was not culpable in any fashion. Its perennial naval gazing and focus on public relations (any school with a tag line that the future can be invented there is telling) continues to cloud any position that was staked out with a moral compass. Virginia Tech knows no shame.
2. jffoster - December 10, 2010 at 08:17 am
<Comment removed by moderator>
3. tptrekker - December 10, 2010 at 08:51 am
jffoster,
It may just be me, but I tire of reading your caustic remarks that have no link to any fact other than that you don't like whatever it is you are referencing. You don't like the DOE. Well, now that is so important for us all to know.
4. wvcurmudgeon - December 10, 2010 at 09:04 am
First, the incendent was very sad and I feel deeply for the families who lost their loved ones in this attack.
Before this incident occured, I do not understand how anyone could have predicted that the initial shooting would have led to 30 more deaths. And how do we know that an earlier more stern warning would have led to saving lives. Maybe while students were fleeing from their dorms and classrooms because of the warning, even more people could have been shot at by the shooter as they passed by. We just do not know what would have happened?
5. dank48 - December 10, 2010 at 10:27 am
This really seems to me to be blaming Virginia Tech officials for not being omniscient, using 20/20 hindsight, not to mention retroactive regulation. Doubtless mistakes were made in the heat of the crisis. I wonder how quickly and effectively the Department of Education would respond to an armed madman roaming their own territory.
Not to confuse the issue with trivialities and bearing in mind that comments are not always quite so polished as they might be, but the first commenter either is accusing Virginia Tech of staring out to sea or is writing faster than he or she can think clearly or is considerately providing an example of why a lot of folks outside of academia aren't automatically in awe of college professors.
6. greenhills73 - December 10, 2010 at 10:36 am
I totally agree with #4 that there is no way to know what would have happened given a different response. Of what benefit to anyone is this ruling against Virginia Tech? Could the DOE officials put themselves in the shoes of the VaTech administrators and claim that they, in the exact same circumstance, would have made the perfect decision, particularly when the "timely warning" phrase is not specific but rather is left up to interpretation? There is benefit to finding ways to avoid future occurences, but I see no value to imposing penalties on the University.
7. bdgriffi - December 10, 2010 at 10:50 am
The expectation that a warning or email about a shooting on campus would have led anyone to believe at the time that they were in danger in their classroom is absurd. Before this tragedy, no one would have thought that the shootings were random and that they were part of rampage against the campus community. The Va. Tech admin. responded the same way anyone would have before that event. The event changed expectations for response to such crimes. In fact, the expectations today are unrealistic, 30 minutes after any crisis the facts are not clear, making notifications in that timeframe can cause more harm than good. Professionals who know how the response happened know that reasonable procedures were followed and feel betrayed by DOE leaders with little experience in higher education playing Monday morning quarterback after a crisis.
8. a_voice - December 10, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I think that we are in overreaction mode in the USA. We seem to believe that we can prevent all bad things from happening. Any incident generates an onslaught of regulations and witch hunts. We need to do due diligence, but we may be overdoing it a bit.
9. profken - December 10, 2010 at 12:44 pm
"Now the Education Department will decide whether to impose fines or other sanctions ..." Ah. One more federal agency seeking to wield power it should not have. "Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss ..."
10. goodeyes - December 10, 2010 at 01:33 pm
Virginia Tech should have done better and for DOE to say otherwise would let all universities ignore this issue. Also, the campus should have been covered with university and local police right after this initial incident - this did not happen.
11. shariyat5 - December 10, 2010 at 09:23 pm
Oh please. If faculty reports an abusive student ( lets just say verbally ) they are considered incompetent and not able to manage their class. There are always warning signs but few will say anything for fear of loosing their jobs.Many of these studnets are combative and argumentative but we are told to be " respectful" to all of them. Give faculty back their power and move away from the student centered nonsense.Students are there to learn. If they choose not to,they should be told to come back when they are motivated to do so.Take the thumb screws off faculty and back on students where it belongs.No one deserves to be in an unsafe learning enviroment.
12. hamsandwich - December 10, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Holding a well-meaning university somehow accountable for their reaction to the premeditated and calculated actions of a well-armed madman is, well, madness... I would like for somebody at the DOE to realistically propose how Tech administrators, most of whom are academics like we are, could have handled this situation differently given the fuzzy details they had in the midst of a crisis on an enormous campus in a sleepy little college town with a local police force accustomed to writing parking tickets and a few disorderly conduct citations on the weekends... Come on, give me a break! Does anyone think that our military would have handled a surprise attack any better?
13. busyslinky - December 12, 2010 at 09:19 am
Our timely warnings are hours after the fact. I can't see how timely warnings can realistically appear be minutes after an event.
There are new alert systems that are being tested, but someone has to be at their computer when this event occurs. It's really a logistical nightmare and not easily and consistently applied.