Left Flank

Perhaps, I was a little harsh about the Massengill Commission back in May. Virginia's Governor Tim Kaine (D.) convened the Massengill Commission following the April 16 Virginia Tech shootings, in which Seung Hui Cho murdered 32 of his fellow students before committing suicide, and it has delivered its report. Virginia Tech's president, Charles W. Steger, has refused to resign. One one hand, university employees, some of whom implicated within the report, support him, but parents' groups do not. It's unfair for one man to be the fall guy when so many others erred, but he can in no way claim innocence.

The report offers over 90 recommendations, of which the most notable are:

1. «During Cho's junior year at Virginia Tech, numerous incidents occurred that were clear warnings of mental instability. Although various individuals and departments within the university knew about each of these incidents, the university did not intervene effectively. No one knew all the information and no one connected all the dots.»

2. «University officials in the office of Judicial Affairs, Cook Counseling Center, campus police, the Dean of Students, and others explained their failures to communicate with one another or with Cho's parents by noting their belief that such communications are prohibited by the federal laws governing the privacy of health and education records. In reality, federal laws and their state counterparts afford ample leeway to share information in potentially dangerous situations.»

3. «Virginia's mental health laws are flawed and services for mental health users are
inadequate. Lack of sufficient resources results in gaps in the mental health system
including short term crisis stabilization and comprehensive outpatient services. The involuntary commitment process is challenged by unrealistic time constraints, lack of critical psychiatric data and collateral information, and barriers (perceived or real) to open communications among key professionals.»

4. «Virginia is one of only 22 states that report any information about mental health to a federal database used to conduct background checks on would-be gun purchasers. But Virginia law did not clearly require that persons such as Cho?who had been ordered into out-patient treatment but not committed to an institution?be reported to the database. Governor Kaine?s executive order to report all persons involuntarily committed for outpatient treatment has temporarily addressed this ambiguity in state law. But a change is needed in the Code of Virginia as well.»

5. «The Virginia Tech police may have erred in prematurely concluding that their initial lead in the double homicide was a good one, or at least in conveying that impression to university officials while continuing their investigation. They did not take sufficient action to deal with what might happen if the initial lead proved erroneous. The police reported to the university emergency Policy Group that the «person of interest» probably was no longer on campus.»

6. «Senior university administrators, acting as the emergency Policy Group, failed to issue an all-campus notification about the WAJ killings until almost 2 hours had elapsed. University practice may have conflicted with written policies.»

One of the most compelling parts of the Massengill Report is Seung Hui Cho's mental health history, the subject of much speculation in both South Korea and the US. The most unsettling part of this section is the realization, that Cho was a very normal person. Contrary to speculation, he did not exhibit mental health problems before his family emigrated to the US from South Korea. He was shy, a characterization almost every person whom Cho came into contact used to describe him. His family was not poor, but financial problems did affect Cho's upbringing. However, Cho was traumatized by early physical health problems, and his reticence to discuss these feelings was an early sign of his later mental health problems.

The only other way Cho's mental health history is at all unique is, that he had difficulties adjusting to American life as an immigrant. The information presented places blame, not on Cho or his family, but on countless professional omissions and administrative oversights by American organizations. For example, his parents did not receive adequate translation services during school conferences. In short, Cho was a monster made by bureaucratic red tape and casual indifference typical of a modern society. But Cho was not a force of evil or a cultural «Other». Aside from his acculturation problems as an immigrant, any child could have become Cho. WaPo reinforces this argument when it subtitled its editorial, «An information breakdown in an information society.»

The fault here lies both in laws that limit the ability of educational institutions to share pertinent information regarding mental health and the misunderstanding of those laws by university officials. The review panel's report makes clear that while the laws are restrictive in some instances, they would not have prevented much greater sharing of information than took place in Cho's case. Here was a student whose writing and behavior in class alarmed several professors; whose inappropriate actions toward female students led to complaints to campus police; whose inability to interact socially or even to speak in class had been known and treated in high school; and whose suicidal statements triggered a psychiatric examination and a judge's order that he receive outpatient care. And yet the university did not act.

In the aftermath of such a devastating tragedy, it's easy to say, but nonetheless true, that public safety must trump privacy rights, particularly in a university setting where the population is young and vulnerable. Cho's dysfunction had been noted and treated by his high school counselors in Fairfax County, but they never communicated his condition to Virginia Tech. That makes no sense. As his problems intensified in his junior and senior years of college, his parents were never alerted. That makes no sense. Cho spoke with employees of the campus counseling center three times in 15 days in late 2005 and early 2006, but they failed to follow up and in fact treated his case lackadaisically. That makes no sense. Even when it came to sharing information with the review panel, university officials and state police failed to provide all relevant information. That makes no sense either.

What also makes little sense is the quasi-libertarian sentiments expressed by one blogger. A Western Heart's MK interprets the report's findings as advocating an » 'emergency grab ankles and find a desk to hide under' plan». The system MK disparages already exists. What the report advocates is making that system work better, not creating a lesser system where «...we cannot protect you, go and get yourself a gun, learn to use it, watch your back, grow a pair, make a stand, learn to draw fast, be prepared to fight for your freedom, it's hard but that's life.» That would be an overreaction worse than transforming Virginia Tech into a fortress.

Fables of the Reconstruction's Mithras takes a tack closer to my own.

What I am really afraid of here, in both cases, is overreaction. If this report is seen as credible, the next time there is a shooting on a campus, it will mean the whole place will shut down. I live near the University of Pennsylvania, an urban campus. Shootings here are not an infrequent event. And disturbed, even disturbing, behavior by students is an unworkable grounds for kicking people out of programs. Some writer will get too creative one day and the next find herself kicked out of school with a restraining order not to enter campus again ever. In both cases, I don't think it's wise or effective.

I'm worried about this, too. Mithras' first argument about the uncertainties surrounding the actual chronology of events on April 16 is well put. But, the events in Cho's mental health history reveal a pattern, not of overreaction, as Mithras argues, but of inaction. Seung Hui Cho is the product of this ineptitude. How could anyone fear some purposeful action by some earnest administrator, when that attitude was missing all along?

How many other immigrants are trapped, like Cho and his family, within the pretensions and the realities of the American Dream?