next »

[sikora]

Eh. Without the Benefit of hindsight it all adds up to some strange, somewhat weird behavior, but nothing that is really a red flag. It doesn't sound like these two female students were particularly scared of the guy. Certainly you can see a guy who was disturbed, depressed, lacked social cues and all that, but I don't think anyone really could have put the whole thing together. If schools do a bad job of dealing with students with problems, we shouldn't really be suprised. It isn't what colleges were designed to do. Furthermore, it isn't entirely clear to me just what could have been done. We don't comitt people involuntarily to phychiatric care unless they can be shown to be a threat to others or themselves. I don't want that to change.  I guess the more I learn about this guy, the sorrier I feel for him. It sounds like he really did need help. Of course, the problem was that he was so isolated, there wasn't really anybody to give it to him. If he had a friend, we haven't heard about it yet...

From Reuters:

"University Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said his officers approached Cho in late 2005 when two women students complained of "annoying" phone calls and instant messages from him.

"I'm not saying they were threats; I'm saying they were annoying. That's the way the victims characterized them, as annoying messages," Flinchum told a news conference.

After the second incident Cho's roommate told police he "might be suicidal," prompting them to issue a "temporary detention order" and send him to a mental health facility for evaluation, Flinchum said.

Authorities would not say how long Cho was evaluated."

Sending annoying messages and making annoying phone calls is not the same as stalking. 

How about using a camera to take photos of women's underwear by pointing the camera up their skirts while in class?

Histgradstudent:

You said exactly what I was trying to say earlier.  I think if Cho was socially integrated, he may have still be deviant, but at least there would have been people near to him who would have both called him on his behavior, and been his connection to a larger social order.  I believe that the most pathological thing I have heard about Cho is the word "loner." 

Here's what I said earlier:

Apparently, Cho was a marginal and deviant individual. There are marginal and deviant individuals in all communities. In an individualistic society, where most relationships are simplex in nature, there are fewer social controls  than in more collectivist societies, where social relationship are more likely to be multiplex.   

[warmaiden]

Surely there is a responsibility to remove students from campus once they've set fires, disrupted classrooms (cameras under the desk) and freaked professors out so badly they felt the need for GUARDS at tutoring sessions? Or are universities bound not to protect other students from willfully abnormal behavior? When you add it up, the combination of disturbing writing, depression, firesetting, stalking, harassment with phones in class and professor's concerns should result in a student's removal from the campus environment.

[gesualdo]

From Reuters:

"University Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said his officers approached Cho in late 2005 when two women students complained of "annoying" phone calls and instant messages from him.

"I'm not saying they were threats; I'm saying they were annoying. That's the way the victims characterized them, as annoying messages," Flinchum told a news conference.

After the second incident Cho's roommate told police he "might be suicidal," prompting them to issue a "temporary detention order" and send him to a mental health facility for evaluation, Flinchum said.

Authorities would not say how long Cho was evaluated."

Sending annoying messages and making annoying phone calls is not the same as stalking. 

That depends on how many messages and phone calls are made to the same person.  Repeated contact is what makes it stalking.  Even single messages or calls might be considered stalking if they happen in conjunction with certain other behaviors.

[sikora]

Surely there is a responsibility to remove students from campus once they've set fires, disrupted classrooms (cameras under the desk) and freaked professors out so badly they felt the need for GUARDS at tutoring sessions? Or are universities bound not to protect other students from willfully abnormal behavior? When you add it up, the combination of disturbing writing, depression, firesetting, stalking, harassment with phones in class and professor's concerns should result in a student's removal from the campus environment.

Your point is well taken. I am trying to address larger cultural and social issues that may create a "space" for violence and destruction.

As an aside, my radical right department mate is already talking about 1)  Cho could not have acted alone, because he did not have any military training and would have thrown up while trying to reload. 2) There's a cover-up.  The authorities are not telling us everything, and are trying extra hard to vilify Cho, to direct attention away from other issues.  3) It's a conspiracy to do away with the 2nd amendment, and some other basic rights. It's a bipartisan conspiracy on the part of both Dems and Reps.

I am not kidding, and I can hear on his radio where he is getting these arguments.

And they think I am crazy

Obscure, but still the first dog in space

[prytania3]

Surely there is a responsibility to remove students from campus once they've set fires, disrupted classrooms (cameras under the desk) and freaked professors out so badly they felt the need for GUARDS at tutoring sessions? Or are universities bound not to protect other students from willfully abnormal behavior? When you add it up, the combination of disturbing writing, depression, firesetting, stalking, harassment with phones in class and professor's concerns should result in a student's removal from the campus environment.

I heard something about him setting fire in a dorm. In my mind, arson would be cause for expulsion, but that's just me.

[neutralname]

I heard something about him setting fire in a dorm. In my mind, arson would be cause for expulsion, but that's just me.

There's a lot of second and third hand claims going around about what he did, and obviously they need to be considered with caution.  But if they are true, there's enough to make me think that if he had been in my school and I knew many of the details, I would be calling a senior administrator and recommending a careful scrutiny of his case, and suggesting that he should be told to go.  But as with prytania3, this would be based on his particular actions, not his mental state.  Damage to school property and harassment of other students are standard reasons to eject students.  Of course, they are not particularly unusual things for students to do. 

[spork]

I just think there are a lot of people who dropped the ball on this.  Cho was passed from office to office with the excuse "well we can't do anything."  The only people I'd say acted appropriately were Nikki Giovanni, who kicked him out of her class, and Lucinda Roy, who alerted university authorities.

[asleepforyears]

Even when they DO have info on a student, the 'required due process' can take a while.  And perhaps that would have set him off sooner (a point made by someone else on the forum-- I don't want to bogart it).

Another thing that bothers me is the whole "mental instability" thing-- the news is screaming left and right about how "the university should have KNOWN!"  I'm not sure that external mental health facilities have ANY reason to share records with the university.  Also, suicide threats are rather common... and I'm not sure most students are kicked out for expressing them. 

I'm getting really annoyed by the news people who are using this to ensure people are glued to their TVs for the next release of pictures of this guy, and speculation on why he did what he did or how or what contributed to the events, etc.  They don't get it, we don't get it, and they are loving to point fingers.

What I do think we need to do as administrators and faculty, is encourage students to COMPLETE their complaints to police, and press charges!!  Thinking about doing so, or having investigations is not enough.  From what I have learned from the news people, Cho stalked multiple women.  The multiple stalking incidents... there might have been something they could have actually bounced him out of the university for, if only there had been charges pressed.  :(

[diana_prince]

Document, document, document, and start a paper trail.

[spork]

Yes, documenting is a great idea, but what if no one higher up on the chain is willing to do anything with the information?  That's why I like what Nikki Giovanni did.  She set a standard for behavior and enforced it.

[asleepforyears]

Perhaps this is the time when policies need to be reviewed, and additional standards need to be put into place... behaviorally.  This is where the whole "conformity" and "eccentricity" thing comes into play.  If we're worried about identifying and then taking action on 'strange' behavior, the only way to do that is to set guidelines on what is acceptable strange behavior, and what is unacceptable. 

Perhaps limiting (I know this could be a very slippery slope) the ways students can make each other uncomfortable and taking action against students sooner for transgressions is the way to go.  I'm referring to the photographing women, and the email-stalking.  I know that administrators were notified, but in absence of a rule being broken, their hands were somewhat tied... so is this the point where additional rules need to be made?  Tip lines?  Swifter actions when people feel unnerved by the actions of another?

It's kind of a dangerous thought to be placing restrictions on what is 'acceptable' behavior, because there are thin lines between "disorder" and "strange," right?  Aren't mental illnesses and personality disorders rather socially constructed?  We determine what the guidelines are, and those change over time.  How is this dealt with on campus?  I think that returns us to our point that this started with-- how do you identify "potentially dangerous" students?  What behaviors CONSTITUTE potential danger?

[neutralname]

Perhaps this is the time when policies need to be reviewed, and additional standards need to be put into place... behaviorally.  ...  I think that returns us to our point that this started with-- how do you identify "potentially dangerous" students?  What behaviors CONSTITUTE potential danger?

But that's been asked and answered.  There are no strong predictors. 

We could make college campuses more like high school campuses, with stricter regulations, with professors and administrators empowered to impose more conformity to normality and we could increase the administration's power to expell students who don't conform.  I'm not enthusiastic about that option.

We could give Deans more power to exercise judgment, rather than requiring a laundry list of proscribed behaviors.  Actually, I think that is probably how it already is at many private colleges.  Still, that does not make those colleges immune to lawsuits. 

Personally though, I'd say that until we have a better idea of what led up to that dreadful day, and especially what happened with mental health services, it is rash to start planning to change campus policies.  I've heard reports that Cho was on antidepressants and was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward in 2005.  If true, that's reason to think that the treatment he received was unsuccessful. 

[notorious_xrd]

England seems far more tolerant of odd behavior.  For instance, identical behaviors noted by observers in American and English boys resulted in very high ratings of ADHD in the American boys and "high spirits" in the English boys.  We medicalize behaviors; the British normalize them.  I'll note that murder by firearm in England is much lower than in the US.  Perhaps more tolerance for odd behaviors would mute murderous impulses in the US, though I suspect that the lack of accessibility to firearms in England has more to do with the lower murder rate.

I don't disagree with this... but just because there aren't firearms (at least not as many, but this is changing fast in some cities) in the UK, doesn't mean there aren't murders. There have been several high profile and even mass casualty occurrences in the last couple of years. I understand your point, but let's not hold up England as some sort of last refuge for the entirely sane. We have troubled people here too, and many of them are violent (for all sorts of reasons, not just mental illness- alcohol springs to mind).

[anthroid]

England seems far more tolerant of odd behavior.  For instance, identical behaviors noted by observers in American and English boys resulted in very high ratings of ADHD in the American boys and "high spirits" in the English boys.  We medicalize behaviors; the British normalize them.  I'll note that murder by firearm in England is much lower than in the US.  Perhaps more tolerance for odd behaviors would mute murderous impulses in the US, though I suspect that the lack of accessibility to firearms in England has more to do with the lower murder rate.

I don't disagree with this... but just because there aren't firearms (at least not as many, but this is changing fast in some cities) in the UK, doesn't mean there aren't murders. There have been several high profile and even mass casualty occurrences in the last couple of years. I understand your point, but let's not hold up England as some sort of last refuge for the entirely sane. We have troubled people here too, and many of them are violent (for all sorts of reasons, not just mental illness- alcohol springs to mind).

Sure.  But the point is that gun murders like VT just don't happen.  They don't happen in Ireland, either, or Scotland, or Wales.  Most reports I've read indicate that the lack of handgun availability has a great deal to do with this in addition to the cultural toleration for "unusual" behavior.  Like, you guys find Benny Hill funny.  I don't.  :~)

[dr_stones]

They happen in Canada and Germany.