I believe that those medical records should be given to the university. Maybe a lot less people had been killed then. Just speculating but could be just the case. The privacy laws are to tight in my opinion.

Events like mass shootings are hard to explain because they occur at such low frequency. How many people engage in mass shootings compared to how many people who don’t? Trying to predict who is likely to be a mass shooter is a little like trying to predict the weather, methinks. People want an explanation, I understand that, but I’ll admit that I’m sceptical that there is much of an explanation (that can be used in prediction) and I’ll also admit that I’m very concerned about the harms to others in some of the attempted explanations that are being offered.

My university DOES NOT know about any of my mental health problems and I want things to remain that way. There are a rather large number of people in my program who have some history of mental illness (around half) and each of them feels the same way - that they would rather the institution (supervisors and potential employers and the like) not know.

If the institution here had have known about my mental health history (and the mental health history of others in my department) then I’m fairly sure that none of us would have been selected to be in the department. How come? When you are looking at over 100 people for less than 20 places and everybody is qualified things get a little competitive and they are looking for any excuse to pass you over so they have one less application to tend to.

It might have been the case that Cho wouldn’t have been accepted at Virginia Tech if they had have known about his history of depression / anxiety. It might have been the case that that would have prevented the shooting. But then again it might not as he might have done it in a supermarket instead.

How many other people with anxiety / depression need to be discriminated against in our attempt to explain, however? The majority of people with a history of anxiety / depression do not engage in mass shootings.

I was horrified when I went to the ER for a psych-related issue and got a call the next day from my university’s student health department! It’s easier to take when it’s not happening to you. I understand the need to cover their butts, but even nearly a decade down the road, it feels like an incredible invasion of privacy. I really think it should be up to the person with the problem to decide whom to inform about it. My school totally did not need to know.

> It is illegal in the U.S. to discriminate against a person due to a disability, which includes both health and mental health issues. So if your institution decided not to accept you because of depression or anxiety, you and many others would have grounds for a nice lawsuit.

The trouble comes in having evidence to persuade a court of law that discrimination was the reason. You see… The way things work out… You get your acceptance letter or you get your rejection letter and you never really know why they decided the way they did. And since it is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ there simply aren’t grounds for further action.

I say: There are enough people trying to find help for mental health issues for us to not even have the resources to be able to provide that help to them. Why don’t we focus on these people rather than focusing on trying to ‘help’ people who just wish that we would butt right out? If I thought that any mental health history of mine would be given to employers and the like I would not present for help. Does this harm or help at the end of the day? Privacy is important to mentally ill people too and perhaps - given the current climate - even more so.

It is critical for a student’s disability to remain confidential. Any university which receives federal funds is required to make accomodations for students with disabilities if the student/parent chooses to share their disability with the university.

As a parent of a disabiled child, I feel it is imperative for the parent to communicate with the university to insure the student receives adequate accomodations and help. Unfortunately, the parents dropped the ball. I feel deep empathy for them because I can not even imagine the pain they feel. I pray for them to recover from this horrible tragedy. If anything can be learned it is that parents’ responsibilities to parent their disabled children does not end at high school graduation. They must be involed with students and colleges.

I also wonder how much Cho’s parents’ culture affected his condition and admission of disability to the university…..

I agree. Schools should have an idea about every student’s behaviors. Without it, they wouldn’t be able to understand their needs the moment those students have a hard time.

I’m not sure how I feel about a parent disclosing a students disability against the students will. When the student is not a minor then I guess I think it is up to the student to decide.

Halls of residence usually have some kind of duty of care to their students. How seriously they take that probably varies quite a lot depending on the particular Hall.

I have been in Halls where the staff looked out for people who had some kind of mental illness. How did they know they had some kind of mental illness? They didn’t… It just seemed obvious that these people needed some special care.

University staff are supposed to keep an eye on students grades etc as well. If someone isn’t doing so well in a subject then people are supposed to notice and have a chat to them about whether they really want to continue on with that subject or whether something else would be better suited to them.

I was surprised to hear that Universities get immunisation records from students. That simply doesn’t happen over here. I think the notion is that if you have some condition then you are supposed to take steps to not put others at risk. If you have AIDS, for example, then it wouldn’t be responsible for you to play contact sports. I don’t see how your immunisation status affects OTHERS.

I’m very wary of the government knowing personal information about me. There IS a lot of discrimination against people with mental illness. You don’t notice it if you want to screw the lids on glass jars for a living, but you surely notice it if you want to be a doctor or a lawyer or…

And each should be judged on their merits… And people should look out for people and notice when they need a little help. The paternalism for the mentally ill… Is something that I simply don’t understand.

I believe that it is necessary for schools to question things like that to prevent further incidents. We definitely don’t want the Virginia Tech shooting incident to happen again.

ANALYSIS OF VA TECH REPORT, TEAM CALLS FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS

The SERAPH Research Team consisting of education and law enforcement experts has assessed “The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report”, http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html KEY FINDINGS [Chapter II, pages 17-19]

Note: Starting in 2000 the SERAPH Research Team has at the request of members of Congress supplied three reports on school safety.

SERAPH Virginia Tech Report Assessment

The review panel isolated seven critical problems with Virginia Tech’s emergency response, emergency management and administrators’ response.

The reports’ summary states that, “The Emergency Response Plan of Virginia Tech was deficient in several respects”. The following is a list of each issue and the SERAPH response.

1. “It did not include provisions for a shooting scenario.”

Since the Columbine massacre in 1999, police departments across the United States have been training in “active shooter” response. This has been a well established practice for use in public schools.

However our survey of colleges and universities security directors and police chiefs shows that few have had this training. Two reasons were given for this, the first was the cost, administrators did not want to pay for the training and second administrators barred campus security / police administrators from seeking out the training because they did not want a “militaristic campus atmosphere”.

2. “…did not place police high enough in the emergency decision-making hierarchy. The police had to await the deliberations of the Policy Group, of which they are not a member, even when minutes count.”

The report indicates that administrators who had no training in security or police operations micromanaged the security operations of the campus. This is problematic because of the obvious delay it causes in response time and the fact that under Virginia law it is illegal.

Virginia criminal code 18.2-460 A, Obstructing justice: If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The Policy Group as it relates to police operations on campus is in violation of this law. And from the report it is equally obvious that on the day of the shooting the administrators obstructed the police in their investigation of the original dorm murder and their response to managing the campus with a murder suspect on the loose.

3. “It also did not include a threat assessment team.”

Threat assessment as a science has existed in the United States since the early 1940s. Predication and prevention of violence is a critical aspect of campus security and one that in SERAPH’s experience is seriously lacking on higher education campuses. All Resident Assistants, security / police and department administrators should be trained to identify violent behavior in students, staff and visitors.

4. “The Emergency Response Plan… was out of date on April 16”

An emergency plan is only as good as the data in it and the ability of key personnel to use it effectively. This did not happen at Virginia Tech.

5. “The training of staff and students for emergencies situations at Virginia Tech did not include shooting incidents.”

Training is important for the effective management of an emergency by key personnel. You cannot ask untrained people to do what trained people do.

6. “No security cameras were in the dorms or anywhere else on campus on April 16.”

A lack of systematic monitoring of a campus contributes to crime.

7. “A risk analysis needs to be performed and decisions made as to what risks to protect against.”

A proper security audit is vitally important to campus security. However our survey of security directors / police chiefs indicates that most college administrators will not allow these assessments to be done. Two reasons for this refusal is the fear of liability exposure and the chance that the audit would require changes in management systems.

The Review Panel ironically found,

“That the VTPD statement of purpose in the Emergency Response Plan does not reflect that law enforcement is the primary purpose of the police department.” Again the report indicates that university administrators who had no training in security or police operations micromanaged the security operations of the campus through policies that control the actions of the campus police force.

Lastly, the report found that this attitude was consistent throughout the Virginia college and university community.

“It was the strong opinion of groups of Virginia college and university presidents with whom the panel met that the state should not impose required levels of security on all institutions, but rather let the institutions choose what they think is appropriate. Parents and students can and do consider security a factor in making a choice of where to go to school.”