A recently hired maintenance worker at Ohio State University who had already received a poor performance evaluation shot two other workers, one of them fatally, and then killed himself early this morning, the Associated Press reported, citing the campus’s police chief. The gunman, 51-year-old Nathaniel Brown, had been on the job since October. He arrived at work this morning, sometime before 3:30 a.m., armed with two handguns, and killed the building-services manager, Larry Wallington, age 48. An operations-shift manager, Henry Butler, 60, was wounded and is now in stable condition at the university hospital. The shootings took place adjacent to a classroom building, but no students or faculty members were injured, and classes are meeting today as scheduled.
Update (5:18 p.m., U.S. Eastern time): The AP subsequently reported today that Mr. Brown was told last week that he would be fired, effective this coming Saturday. Citing his personnel file, which the university released today, the AP said Mr. Brown’s supervisors complained he had been late to work, slept on the job, and did not follow instructions. The Lantern, the university’s student newspaper, has a video of a news conference earlier today at which Ohio State officials describe the shooting.
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
18 Responses to Custodial Worker at Ohio State U. Uses Gun to Kill Manager and Himself
willismg - March 9, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Not to sound too horrible in the wake of all that’s been happening, but one wonders how the tenure process can be tied into a rationalization of this act… With apologies where warranted…
drangie - March 9, 2010 at 4:15 pm
The tenure process? What could that possibly have to do with a custodial worker?
bemusedprof - March 9, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Willismg (#1) is correct. Ohio State does a performance evaluation of its service workers, and lays off those who do not meet minimum standards. This is just like the tenure process for faculty members. Thus, the reason for shootings is that people are asked to measure up to minimum performance standards. At least that is what I have learned from reading postings here.
greenhills73 - March 9, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Don’t most employers require minimum performance standards for their employees? Don’t most employees have to go through performance reviews with their managers every year? Doesn’t any company or organization get rid of employees who don’t meet minimum job requirements? I thought that was normal. I do not equate that with the tenure process.
rick1952 - March 9, 2010 at 5:17 pm
While I do not discount the negative impact of flawed systems of performance evaluation, we should not overlook the obvious – it is so easy for any person in our nation to obtain a firearm legally or illegally, that any person, no matter how mentally unstable, professionally incompetent or otherwise maladjusted, can obtain a gun and exact from others in society the vengeance to which he or she believes they are entitled. Persons denied tenure or dismissed from their jobs in any setting would be less likely to shoot others if it were not so easy to obtain guns.My heart goes out to the families and friends of yet more innocent victims of gun violence in our nation.As we know all too well, this is not a phenomenon restricted to campuses. Think about the recent shooting of police officers at the Pentagon subway station entrance by the mentally unstable man whose family tried to warn authorities about the risk he posed. No performance evaluation process involved in that situation based on what has been reported. Just easy access to guns by a person whose mental stability was clearly in doubt.While there are no guarantees in life, it just seems that we ought to be able to come up with some sensible regulations related to the sale and purchase of firearms could help reduce the risk of these tragedies. Of course, I recognize there is a lot of current, popular sentiment to reduce legal restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearms which is being supported by the Supreme Court. Placing the individual right to own a gun over the collective right to be safe from gun violence in our communities seems to me to be a fundamental problem. How long before gun rights advocates move from open display of firearms at coffee shops to open display on campuses as part of the effort to normalize the idea of an armed society? Are we going to devolve as nation back to the idea of the wild west where justice and safety depend on the person(s) who shoot first and most accurately?
swish - March 9, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I’m not sure, greenhills, but I think that might have been the point bemusedprof was making.
willismg - March 9, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Actually, I was making an observation on how quickly so many commenters on CHE seemed to want to blame the tenure system for the Alabama shootings a couple of weeks ago.
parsleylover - March 10, 2010 at 12:02 am
The ease of obtaining handguns argument is lost on me. This is about personal responsbility and taking ownership for one’s own behavior. If one wants to use a firearm in retribution, believe me, they will find a way to obtain one, ban or no ban. We have grown too soft on personal responsibility in academe. Institutions cannot be blamed for the irresponsible behavior of their citizens, whether they are in the tenure system (Amy at Uof A Huntsville) or not (a custodial worker).
chguk - March 10, 2010 at 8:22 am
parsleylover, let me try to make the argument clearer for you:In Europe, it is harder to obtain handguns than in the US. In Europe, one hears of fewer disgruntled employees shooting their coworkers than in the US.That’s it. Pretty simple really.Was the dead supervisor showing a lack of personal responsibility? Maybe he didn’t take sufficient ownership of his own behavior.What a crock.
mheyer - March 10, 2010 at 8:51 am
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people – with guns.
tridaddy - March 10, 2010 at 8:54 am
Don’t discount the comment by Parsleylover, whether you’re for restricted access to guns or not. There is this idea that has swept over the US over the last 40 to 50 years that a person should not be held responsible for his/her actions. Now, that’s a broad statement to be taken in general. But think how quickly in numeorous cases the perpetrator is turned into the victim with excuses like it was his environment or up bringing. Sure, these have an effect but when do we stop making excuses and begin to hold individuals accountable. This guy could have just as easily used a knife or waited until the supervisor was crossing the street and run him down with his car.
chguk - March 10, 2010 at 9:00 am
tridaddy, I take your point about victimhood, but no-one has claimed that the perpetrator is a victim here. On the other hand, I think you’d agree that his supervisor is.But you are very wrong to say that the perpetrator could “just have easily” have knifed his victim, or run him down. The whole point is that it is harder to kill someone in this way.You might just as well say that there’s no reason to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as they could “just as easily” annihilate Israel using conventional weapons. I’ll say it again, perhaps even more clearly: In Europe, it is harder to obtain guns. In Europe, there are fewer instances of off-the-cuff murder of coworkers.
midtownlabgeek - March 10, 2010 at 9:26 am
He was going to be fired for poor performance. Times being what they are, that would probably have made it impossible for him to get another job anyway – certainly soon, possibly ever. Now he’s got a roof and three squares a day, possibly for life, certainly for the months until his trial. And he “got even” with the supervisor who “ended” the custodian’s “life”. (I’m not at all condoning what he did; just pointing out that The System is sort of set up to reward this particular behavior in certain ways.)
wagamama - March 10, 2010 at 10:02 am
I agree with ricki1952. I have read news story after news story in the past months about public shootings, and am utterly amazed that the issue of easy access to guns (because in almost all of these cases the perpetrators had obtained their firearms legally) and the connection between this fact and the occurrences of these murders is never, ever raised by anyone.
johntoradze - March 10, 2010 at 10:54 am
Had an effect … had an effect …. NOT had an affect! Dear god people. I’m a scientist; The Chron postings are the bonfire of the humanities? That said following the predictable “How easy is it to get a handgun”: “Regarding suicide, the U.S. is in the middle of the pack, with 35 of the 86 nations having higher rates (38 using the most recent U.S. figure). Compared to the U.S. rate of 11.9, Russia has a rate of 41.2, Hungary 32.9, Denmark 22.3, Switzerland 21.4, France 20.8, and Japan 16.7. In general, Northern and Eastern European and Asian nations tend to have high suicide rates, while countries in Southern Europe and Latin America tend to have low rates.” “We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.”"The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22 percent. This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the early 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.”www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
lakemendota - March 10, 2010 at 10:56 am
At most institutions custodians and food service workers are held to higer standards in terms of expected behvior and performance than faculty. And btw, how many custodians get seven years to prove themseleves?
wagamama - March 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Maybe it’s me, johntoradze, but I don’t find the fact that the U.S. has a lower homicide rate than, say, Colombia, Mexico and the Philippines (known hotbeds of instability, political and otherwise) anything to brag about.
rick1952 - March 10, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Johntoradze – while the data you provide help put the level of homicide (and suicide) in a context (the USA vis-a-vis other nations) I am not sure the data address the concern I raised: how easily mentally unstable persons can access guns in our nation. The most helpful information the source you cite provides us in terms of the issue I raise is the effect of certain laws on homicide. I would welcome more information on the positive impact of certain laws on the use of firearms to commit homicide. The source you cite also states: “To study the effects of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct for all the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is known to do this.” So, while we have an ability to compare homicide rates in a broad sense, we do not have the ability to make specific comparisons. The data you share is useful but not definitive.That said, I remain concerned that whatever relative place the USA occupies vis-a-vis other nations with respect to gun violence, it still seems to me that it is too easy for a mentally unstable person to acquire and use a firearm with fatal consequences for innocent people. That is the heart of my concern. If we truly wish to reduce this risk our society needs to reconsider how we address access to guns.I am not naive on this issue. For most of my life (I am almost 60) I have lived in cities which had or continue to have extremely high rates of gun violence. Over the years members of my extended family as well as friends have been killed, injured or threatened by persons with guns. Members of my immediate and extended family have served in combat in the US military in every war since WW II. Some family members and friends have served as police officers. I have not lived in a community that is isolated from guns or gun violence. I am heartsick over the carnage caused by gun violence, especially over the loss of so many innocent lives. And I am aware that not all homicides are committed with firearms.The source you cite concludes by stating: “In short, we must all admit that we have much to learn about the causes of violence. This requires more intellectual honesty than looking to the government to pass yet another law. America is hardly the most violent nation, and our homicide rate has fallen recently, but WE ARE MORE VIOLENT THAN WE USED TO BE – AND THAN WE SHOULD BE.” (Emphasis mine.)So, even taking into account the data you share and the challenge the author makes regarding the utility of new laws, I wonder why sensible gun regulations (with concommitant enforcement) would not help reduce the chances that a mentally unstable person will acquire and use a gun to harm innocent people. Can we agree that sensible gun laws that place priority on protecting the community at large from firearms violence do not have to result in the loss of individual rights or lead to a totalitarian state? Might not such laws help establish the cultural atmosphere that would help reduce gun violence in the USA (cultural atmosphere being one variable your source suggests may account for lower levels of violence in some countries)? When all is said and done, I am pleading for a combination of common sense and respect for the value of human life which subordinates the right to access to a gun without repealing the Second Amendment or creating a totalitarian state. I would like my children and grandchildren to live in a nation that is less violent and where they are less likely to be shot by a mentally unstable person who was able to access a gun.