The second anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre is drawing near and the truth about what happened that terrible day is blurred in a flog of deceit, half-truths, and outright deception. The sad fact is that Virginia Tech is no safer today than it was on April 15, 2007.
Steger failed to act immediately following the first two shootings at West Amber Johnston. President Steger was told of the shootings by the Virginia Tech Police Chief Flinchum at 8:10am. The stories of the content of that conversation keep changing. At a minimum, Flinchum and other Virginia Tech police officers knew that there was no suspect, no witness, no weapon, and there were bloody footprints leaving the scene. Steger claims he was not aware that there was a person of interest until 8:40am—all the more reason Steger should have acted at 8:10am following his talk with Chief Flinchum.
Governor Kaine’s blue-ribbon investigation does little to clear up the questions and ambiguity about when and what President Steger was told by Chief Flinchum. Indeed, the governor has admitted that the time-line of events in the report is wrong. If something as elementary as a time-line in a criminal investigation is wrong, how can you believe anything in the report?
Steger’s defenders say that he doesn’t deserve the criticism he is getting. They call him a decent and honorable man—I am sure he is. They point to his accomplishments at Virginia Tech as a professor, as the dean of the College of Architecture and Urban Studies, as the vice president of Outreach and Development, and as president—I am sure these accomplishments are many. I would go even further, I am sure that he is a decent man who has devoted his life to educating others. None of this however, negates the fact that he made a crucial error in judgment—he was wrong in not alerting the campus. At that critical moment following the first two shootings he was an incompetent leader—none of his previous accomplishments can negate that fact.
If I made a poor judgment and ran a stop sign causing an accident and the death of 30 people, I could not stand in court and tell the judge I am not responsible because I am a decent person with a track record of many fine accomplishments. I would be held accountable for poor judgment. President Steger needs to be held accountable, he needs to go.
President Steger demonstrated, by his inaction, that he does not deserve to be in a position of leadership; a position that may call on him to make decisions in a crisis situation in the future. He flunked that test; he flunked it badly. No matter how many security systems are put in place to protect a school, if the individual responsible for activating the systems is incompetent, the school is not safe.
President Steger also needs to explain why the Virginia Tech Police Chief was put in for a 51% pay raise. Granted, the governor has frozen pay raises, but the 51% proposal itself needs to be explained. I am sure it is not the case, but the proposed pay raise could give the appearance of an attempt to bring Chief Flinchum into agreement with Steger on when and what the school president was told about the first shootings. Even in the best of times, a 51% pay raise needs an explanation!
Following any crisis of the magnitude of Virginia Tech, rumors abound. The school needs to deal with those rumors and put them to rest. The cutoff date for donations to be included as part of the memorial fund (HSMF) disbursement to the families was August 15th. Donations after that date were placed in the school’s general scholarship fund. That date, and the determination of the amount of donations intended for the families vs. the amount intended for the school, was established solely by Virginia Tech. The families had no say in the amount of money they were to get or the cut-off date. But what is most disturbing are unsubstantiated reports that individuals in the school’s administration quietly advised donors not to make their contributions until after August 15th . If true, this would go beyond disturbing, it would be disgusting and despicable. I really cannot think of words to accurately describe such actions. Please President Steger, please Virginia Tech, clear this up.
The one thing that the Virginia Tech families need is the truth. Their lives will never move back toward any degree of normalcy until all the questions are answered. President Steger’s unwillingness to admit his role in the tragedy as well as Governor Kaine’s apparent unwillingness to thoroughly reexamine the details of the shootings, point to either indifference to the families’ suffering, incompetence, or a cover-up.
When you couple the above with the fact that the Virginia Police “declined” to turn over pertinent documents related to Cho’s purchase of weapons, you are left gasping for air and wondering what kind of Orwellian world do we live in? The victims’ families and the residents of Virginia still need a thorough and complete explanation of what went on.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
VIRGINIA TECH: THANK YOU DAVID RESS
Thank you David Ress, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch, for your investigative reporting on Virginia Tech, and for your tenacity in trying to get to the bottom of that tragedy. I hope you and your newspaper will keep digging to find the truth. Please don’t listen to the nay-sayers who want to “move on.”
We cannot “move on” and feel that our schools are safe until all the information and facts about Virginia Tech are made public. We cannot “move on” until those who showed incredibly bad judgment, such as university President Steger, are removed from office. We cannot “move on” until the university releases all the documents related to the shooting. We cannot “move on” until the police agree to cooperate and turn over all documents related to Cho’s purchase of weapons.
As long as university and police officials refuse to be 100 percent cooperative in the investigation of the events of April 16, 2007, any report or analysis of that tragedy will be woefully lacking, if not dishonest. Keep digging David Ress, keep digging.
We cannot “move on” and feel that our schools are safe until all the information and facts about Virginia Tech are made public. We cannot “move on” until those who showed incredibly bad judgment, such as university President Steger, are removed from office. We cannot “move on” until the university releases all the documents related to the shooting. We cannot “move on” until the police agree to cooperate and turn over all documents related to Cho’s purchase of weapons.
As long as university and police officials refuse to be 100 percent cooperative in the investigation of the events of April 16, 2007, any report or analysis of that tragedy will be woefully lacking, if not dishonest. Keep digging David Ress, keep digging.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
PRESIDENT STEGER: IT’S TIME TO GO
As more and more details come to light concerning the April 16, 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech, the clearer it becomes that university President Steger failed miserably in his leadership responsibilities. If Governor Kaine will not take the lead in removing Steger, then Steger himself should do the honorable thing and resign or retire.
The sad truth is that President Steger fiddled for more than two hours after the initial shooting. He failed in his responsibilities to alert the campus—this lack of action played a role in the deaths of 30 students and professors at Norris Hall. There is no way to sugar-coat the harsh reality of Steger’s inaction. The university president must take some degree of responsibility for his failure to show leadership. His failure to act—to alert the campus, to close the campus down—doomed 30 people.
While Steger procrastinated, Cho prepared for his bloodbath at Norris Hall. While Steger waffled, others showed leadership—the school’s College of Veterinary Medicine locked-down. While Steger vacillated, others recognized the seriousness of the threat—the school’s Continuing Professional Education Center shut and locked its doors. While Steger fretted over what to do, others took the initiative—members of the University’s Policy Group were warning their family members about the shooting.
Unfortunately, President Steger showed himself to be woefully lacking in leadership skills on April 16, 2007—a man either unwilling or unable to make a fairly straight-forward—obvious—decision when confronted with two brutal murders. President Steger may be a good fundraiser, but his indecisiveness, poor judgment, and lack of backbone on that fateful day clearly demonstrate why he should not be in a position of authority; why he should not be the President of Virginia Tech University.
Charles W. Steger, do not compound your sins of inaction by continuing in office, do the honorable thing and leave. Your departure will not bring anyone back, but at least it will be a step forward in helping the families of the victims move ahead with their lives.
The sad truth is that President Steger fiddled for more than two hours after the initial shooting. He failed in his responsibilities to alert the campus—this lack of action played a role in the deaths of 30 students and professors at Norris Hall. There is no way to sugar-coat the harsh reality of Steger’s inaction. The university president must take some degree of responsibility for his failure to show leadership. His failure to act—to alert the campus, to close the campus down—doomed 30 people.
While Steger procrastinated, Cho prepared for his bloodbath at Norris Hall. While Steger waffled, others showed leadership—the school’s College of Veterinary Medicine locked-down. While Steger vacillated, others recognized the seriousness of the threat—the school’s Continuing Professional Education Center shut and locked its doors. While Steger fretted over what to do, others took the initiative—members of the University’s Policy Group were warning their family members about the shooting.
Unfortunately, President Steger showed himself to be woefully lacking in leadership skills on April 16, 2007—a man either unwilling or unable to make a fairly straight-forward—obvious—decision when confronted with two brutal murders. President Steger may be a good fundraiser, but his indecisiveness, poor judgment, and lack of backbone on that fateful day clearly demonstrate why he should not be in a position of authority; why he should not be the President of Virginia Tech University.
Charles W. Steger, do not compound your sins of inaction by continuing in office, do the honorable thing and leave. Your departure will not bring anyone back, but at least it will be a step forward in helping the families of the victims move ahead with their lives.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
GOVERNOR KAINE: RECONVENE, REANALYZE, REWRITE
The unfolding saga of mistakes, contradictions, and the intentional withholding of vital information, means that the report Governor Kaine’s blue-ribbon committee produced on the Virginia Tech tragedy is essentially not worth the paper it is written on. If review panels charged with investigating school shootings are to have any impact, they must have all the facts; they must be brutally honest in their analysis and recommendations; and they must hold individuals accountable for their actions and inactions.
It is imperative that the objectivity and the makeup of these panels be above reproach. From the outset, Governor Kaine’s panel suffered from at least three serious flaws:
--First, some members of the panel lacked objectivity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge publicly stated before the panel even met that the shootings probably could not have been prevented. If that is not a bias I don’t know what is. He should have said that he did not know if the shootings could have been prevented, that only a thorough analysis of the events before and during the tragedy could determine what should have been done to prevent the shootings.
--Second, vital documents were with held from the panel. The Virginia State Police and the ATF refused to give the panel documents related to Seung-Hui Cho’s purchase of firearms. This is both disgraceful and despicable. This pattern of withholding key documents in school shootings is not new in Virginia. Following the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia on January 16, 2002, the state police rejected requests from the dead student’s family to turn over documents related to threats the dead student had received prior to the shooting.
Third, the victims’ families were not represented by one of their own or someone of their choosing. Instead they were “represented” by the governor’s candidate—this is a conflict of interest.
The deficiencies and discrepancies in Governor Kaine’s report just continue to grow. The following are just a few of the inconsistencies that need to be cleared up:
A. The police identified the boyfriend of the first victim as a “person of interest” 45 minutes later than originally reported. What was Virginia Tech President Steger doing during that time? He told victims’ families that he found out the police were pursuing the boyfriend at 8:40am—a full half hour after the panel report claims Steger receive this information. If the timeline is so badly flawed on this point, how can we believe any of it?
B. Two members of the University Policy Group felt the initial shootings were serious enough to warn their children, but not serious enough to warn the student body. I have to wonder, how can these people live with themselves?
C. The contradiction over whether members of the Policy Group discussed whether or not to close the campus needs to be cleared up.
D. There is an unsavory suggestion that needs to be investigated—the suggestion that the University “wanted” the first two shootings to be a “domestic dispute” because that would be easy to explain and would not distract from their preparations for the largest on-campus fund raiser in the school’s history. The question has to be asked, did the school want to suppress the incident in hopes that it would not undercut the fund-raising initiative? It is important that the events and actions between the two shootings are nailed down, otherwise there is a nasty specter of self-serving greed on the part of university officials.
No matter how much time or how much money it takes, the state of Virginia must leave no stone unturned to get at the bottom of the events of April 16, 2007. AND, state officials must have the backbone to hold individuals—both school officials and members of the police forces—accountable. Until people are held accountable, no progress can be made in stopping the shooting tragedies on our school grounds.
It is imperative that the objectivity and the makeup of these panels be above reproach. From the outset, Governor Kaine’s panel suffered from at least three serious flaws:
--First, some members of the panel lacked objectivity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge publicly stated before the panel even met that the shootings probably could not have been prevented. If that is not a bias I don’t know what is. He should have said that he did not know if the shootings could have been prevented, that only a thorough analysis of the events before and during the tragedy could determine what should have been done to prevent the shootings.
--Second, vital documents were with held from the panel. The Virginia State Police and the ATF refused to give the panel documents related to Seung-Hui Cho’s purchase of firearms. This is both disgraceful and despicable. This pattern of withholding key documents in school shootings is not new in Virginia. Following the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia on January 16, 2002, the state police rejected requests from the dead student’s family to turn over documents related to threats the dead student had received prior to the shooting.
Third, the victims’ families were not represented by one of their own or someone of their choosing. Instead they were “represented” by the governor’s candidate—this is a conflict of interest.
The deficiencies and discrepancies in Governor Kaine’s report just continue to grow. The following are just a few of the inconsistencies that need to be cleared up:
A. The police identified the boyfriend of the first victim as a “person of interest” 45 minutes later than originally reported. What was Virginia Tech President Steger doing during that time? He told victims’ families that he found out the police were pursuing the boyfriend at 8:40am—a full half hour after the panel report claims Steger receive this information. If the timeline is so badly flawed on this point, how can we believe any of it?
B. Two members of the University Policy Group felt the initial shootings were serious enough to warn their children, but not serious enough to warn the student body. I have to wonder, how can these people live with themselves?
C. The contradiction over whether members of the Policy Group discussed whether or not to close the campus needs to be cleared up.
D. There is an unsavory suggestion that needs to be investigated—the suggestion that the University “wanted” the first two shootings to be a “domestic dispute” because that would be easy to explain and would not distract from their preparations for the largest on-campus fund raiser in the school’s history. The question has to be asked, did the school want to suppress the incident in hopes that it would not undercut the fund-raising initiative? It is important that the events and actions between the two shootings are nailed down, otherwise there is a nasty specter of self-serving greed on the part of university officials.
No matter how much time or how much money it takes, the state of Virginia must leave no stone unturned to get at the bottom of the events of April 16, 2007. AND, state officials must have the backbone to hold individuals—both school officials and members of the police forces—accountable. Until people are held accountable, no progress can be made in stopping the shooting tragedies on our school grounds.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
ARCHANGEL GROUP—PART THREE
The Archangel Group, Ltd. is a private consulting group “providing training and consulting to U.S. military, law enforcement and government agencies, in addition to schools of all levels in the fields of terrorism, security and combat tactics.” Following the shootings at Virginia Tech, the group took the initiative to investigate the Blacksburg tragedy. No government agency requested or paid for the group’s research. Their findings were published on September 5, 2008, in a report entitled: “AFTER ACTION REVIEW: An Evaluation and Assessment of the Law Enforcement Tactical Response to the Virginia Tech University Shootings of Monday 16 April 2007.”
This is the third of several articles the author plans on doing related to the Archangel Group’s report on Virginia Tech. This article takes a critical look at the report itself. To sit by and say nothing when faced with Archangel’s biases, self-serving analysis, and intellectual dishonesty, would be unconscionable.
AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR ARCHANGEL GROUP—UNFORTUNATELY
The Archangel Group’s After Action Review of the Virginia Tech tragedy is, sadly, a blatant attempt to sell the services of that organization. Nowhere is this more evident than in the self-serving parameters of the analysis in order to vindicate the police forces’ actions and responsibilities to the tragedy.
I am not going to go into the individual members that make-up Archangel Group; I did that in Part II. But I would like to call the reader’s attention—again—to the fact that two of the seven-member Archangel Group are attorneys. And that at least one of those attorneys was a primary drafter of the report.
I have trained a large number of attorneys in problem analysis and analytical writing over the last twenty years; I have done so at the FBI and CIA. As a group of well-educated individuals, the characteristic that stands out most about them is the fact that their analysis is one dimensional—win at all costs. They are not being dishonest—it is just that their job is to win cases for their clients.
This characteristic of the legal profession—the desire and drive to win—may be good for courtroom argumentation, but it does not transfer over well to other types of analysis because contradictory evidence is frequently shunted aside in hopes of winning the argument and ultimately the case. This type of selectivity can and is a problem. In addition, of all the categories of students I have had in my twenty years of teaching, attorneys (as a group) are the most likely to manipulate words—even to the point of intentionally obscuring the facts. I saw these characteristics in the Archangel report.
The most alarming omission is the fact that the Archangel authors do not tell the reader that the Virginia State Police and the ATF declined to turn over to Governor Kaine’s special panel the reports and documents dealing with Seung Hue Cho’s application to buy weapons. In other words, they refused to cooperate. On page 8, the Archangel report says, “It was the belief of the Archangel Investigating Team … that no conclusion would be of value to U.S. law enforcement, first responders and schools if complete factual accuracy could not be assured.” I agree! Then why didn’t Archangel’s investigating team try to find out why pertinent documents were withheld by the police? This is incredible! How can either the Archangel Group or the Governor’s panel analyze the shooting without key documents?
Another example of disturbing omission is the fact that the Archangel report also never looks at or examines the concept of premises liability. To establish premise liability, the defendant—Virginia Tech and the Virginia Tech Police Department—must have first hand knowledge of the individual’s propensity for violence. I am not sure what more first-hand knowledge you need that the fact that an English professor was so concerned for her safety that she told the head of the English Department that unless Cho was removed from her class she would resign.
Examples of Archangel’s selecting facts and evidence can be found in section IX. FEDERAL LEGAL STANDARDS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE U.S. IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS. Nowhere does the report deal with premises liability and the concept of “foreseeable” threats. Nowhere does the report examine the responsibilities of those in positions to react to those “foreseeable” threats; to act and to take preventive measures.
In Virginia, the law is not written to protect public institutions and organizations (such as schools and universities) from legal action, but the law is consistently interpreted that way. First, the Virginia Supreme Court seems to adhere to a strict interpretation of “sovereign immunity.” Sovereign immunity has been borrowed from English common law and simply means the sovereign cannot be sued for any wrongdoing—no matter how egregious. This principle of immunity is extended to all state organizations no matter how incompetent and bungling the management of those organizations may be.
Second, the Virginia Supreme Court blindly adheres to the concept that no institution or person can be held responsible for someone else’s actions. Other state Supreme Courts, such as New York, do hold individuals and institutions responsible for another’s actions when there are unmistakable and foreseeable signs of violence.
The law in Virginia states that “before any duty can arise with regard to the conduct of third persons (Cho), there must be a special relationship between the defendant (Virginia Tech and the Virginia Tech Police Department) and either the plaintiff (the dead students and faculty members) or the third person (Cho).”
The fact is that Virginia Tech, by accepting the tuition money from the dead students, established a special—monetary—relationship. In many, many aspects of law, the exchange of money establishes the special bond. The fact that Virginia Tech accepted tuition money, established a fiduciary relationship—a relationship of trust.
The school and the Virginia Tech Police Department entered into a “special relationship” that included the safety of those students buying the school’s services. The Virginia Tech Police Department (an integral part of the university and therefore an adherent to this “special relationship”) violated that special arrangement in the period immediately after the first shooting by not recommending a campus-wide alert. The Blacksburg Police Department and the Virginia State Police, confronted with the initial crime scene, were accessories both before and after the fact in the deaths of the 30 students and faculty members in Norris Hall because of their failure to urge a campus-wide alert. The Archangel Report never bothers to thoroughly analyze and investigate the actions of the police departments in the critical time frame following the first two murders.
On page 77, the Archangel Report asserts that “The final point to consider is just what an earlier message (warning or campus-wide alert) would have said that could possibly have made a difference.” Then the authors summarily dismiss “non-tactical professionals, including those of political and academic orientations, parents and news media, who seem to believe that there exists one-size-fits-all tactic that can be employed that will serve as a panacea in any and all threatening situations in schools. This is not only unrealistic, but naïve. The remedy appears to garner the greatest support for harboring the illusion that if one particular step (a lockdown) had been taken (or is taken in the future) everyone will be safe …” Not only is the report out-and-out wrong in its assumption that “non-tactical” specialists are naïve, but it is arrogant. Rarely have I seen such a condescending attitude in dismissing opposing views in a so-called independent study. Incredible, truly incredible!
In fact, the only ones I know saying that “one size fits all” in campus security are the people at Archangel. Every security specialist I have talked to characterizes a lockdown as an important part of a broader security policy—not a single solution. The fact is that the State University system in New York is implementing an impressive lockdown system on all campuses as an integral part of an impressive security program, dramatically flies in the face of the Archangel assertion. Where on earth did you get your information Archangel Group?
On page 78, the report speculates that, “If locked down inside any building, it would have made it all the easier for Cho to trap his quarry.” In fact the exact opposite is true, if a lockdown had been instituted after the first two shootings, Cho would not have been able to get into Norris Hall. If Virginia Tech had instituted a lockdown immediately after the first two shootings, thirty innocent people might be alive today!
The report, on page 81, states that “In the real world the officers have to follow established procedures, rely on experience, follow their instincts, and use common sense.” Virginia Tech had an established procedure for a campus-wide alert in the event of an emergency and violated that procedure. Look at the facts: on April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed two people at West Ambler-Johnston Hall on campus. Nearly two and one-half hours later he entered Norris Hall on campus and shot and killed 30 students and professors.
Virginia Tech University officials, the Virginia Tech Police Department, the Blacksburg Police Department, and the Virginia State Police:
--Did not rely on established procedures. The Virginia Tech Police (and the
university’s senior administrators—acting as the emergency Policy Group)
erred in not issuing an alert that two people had been killed on campus.
Neither the Virginia Tech Police nor senior school officials followed their own
security procedures. For example, on August 21, 2006, Virginia Tech did close
the school and send all students home because of a manhunt for William
Morva, accused of killing a police officer and security guard.
--Did not rely on their experience from the year before, much less the
experience of law enforcement investigations from other serious crime scenes.
The Archangel report, on page 61, says that the Virginia Tech police requested
twenty-eight officers to help in the investigation of the first shootings. In
other words the campus police thought the first shooting was serious enough
to request the help of more than half of the Blacksburg Police Department,
but not serious enough to issue a campus-wide alert.
--Did not follow the instincts that all officers should have in erring on the side of
caution when a murderer is on the loose—you don’t automatically assume you
have the killer based on suspicion and no real evidence. For example, the
police made a serious error in focusing solely on Karl Thornhill, Miss
Hilscher’s boyfriend as the prime suspect based on such statements as,
“Thornhill frequented a shooting range, and had taken both (Miss Hilscher)
and her roommate to the range with him.” If going to a firing range is cause
for making one person the sole suspect, half the men in Virginia would be
prime suspects every time a crime is committed in their neighborhoods. To
single in on one person as the suspect with such flimsy evidence is just
plain poor investigative procedure.
--Did not Use common sense!
The report goes on for twenty-one pages (pages 84-104) citing court rulings that support the report’s thesis that the police forces should not be held accountable for their actions. On page 93, the reader is told: “Although the deliberate indifference standard is very difficult for a plaintiff to meet, there have been instances where municipalities have been liable for failing to train or for inadequately training its officers. BUT, it is up to the reader to go to the footnote and look up the ruling for himself or herself!! How many reading this article have access to a law library and can look up those instances?
Parts of the Archangel Report’s conclusions are both incredible and distasteful. The second paragraph of the conclusion (page 121) is nothing but pure sensationalism—bordering on scare tactics. All of a sudden the reader is confronted with the specter of al Qaeda. The al Qaeda reference would make some sense if the Archangel Report had, in stating the purpose of the report on page 7, said that it would draw some sort of conclusions about how terrorist groups studying and learning from the Virginia Tech tragedy.
The Archangel Group states: “The goal of the Report is to offer relevant facts, findings and conclusions, concerning the tactical response of law enforcement and first responders to the shootings on the campus of Virginia Tech on 16 April 2007, and to offer recommendations for future preparedness and tactical response capability to all relevant agencies. Archangel Group, and the Archangel Team that conducted this investigation and assessment, hopes that this report can aid in planning for, and responding to future incidents like the tragedy at Virginia Tech.”
The stated goals of Archangel Group are highly commendable. Unfortunately, the report does not deliver on those goals. I would remind the reader that Archangel Group also states on page 7: “This Report has been prepared for distribution to U.S. law enforcement, security and first responder agencies, and is being made available at no cost to any such agency.” Again a very noble purpose, but clearly the unsaid, underlying purpose of the report is to drum-up business for Archangel. Archangel Group wants to sell its services, if their purpose was purely altruistic then they would offer all of their expertise and service to police forces at no cost.
Virginia Tech’s decision to reach a legal and financial settlement with the dead students’ families is a tacit acknowledgement of guilt. The cash-strapped state of Virginia did not agree to an $11 million dollar settlement because it had the cash lying around and decided out of goodness to give the families some sort of compensation. The state decided to settle because the overwhelming evidence and the magnitude of inept handling of the shooting, was too great to ignore.
The dollar amount that Virginia decided to pay is approximately $100,000.00 per student. The amount of the compensation that each family will receive is both an insult and a disgrace. How many of those reading this article would value their son’s or daughter’s life at $100,000.00?
Having to deal with the loss of a child school shootings or any senseless crime is horrific. What the families need more than anything else is honesty, truth, and integrity as they attempt to heal. Unfortunately, those two qualities are rarely found. Adding insult to injury is the fact that there are people an organization that will use the sufferings of others to enrich themselves.
This is the third of several articles the author plans on doing related to the Archangel Group’s report on Virginia Tech. This article takes a critical look at the report itself. To sit by and say nothing when faced with Archangel’s biases, self-serving analysis, and intellectual dishonesty, would be unconscionable.
AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR ARCHANGEL GROUP—UNFORTUNATELY
The Archangel Group’s After Action Review of the Virginia Tech tragedy is, sadly, a blatant attempt to sell the services of that organization. Nowhere is this more evident than in the self-serving parameters of the analysis in order to vindicate the police forces’ actions and responsibilities to the tragedy.
I am not going to go into the individual members that make-up Archangel Group; I did that in Part II. But I would like to call the reader’s attention—again—to the fact that two of the seven-member Archangel Group are attorneys. And that at least one of those attorneys was a primary drafter of the report.
I have trained a large number of attorneys in problem analysis and analytical writing over the last twenty years; I have done so at the FBI and CIA. As a group of well-educated individuals, the characteristic that stands out most about them is the fact that their analysis is one dimensional—win at all costs. They are not being dishonest—it is just that their job is to win cases for their clients.
This characteristic of the legal profession—the desire and drive to win—may be good for courtroom argumentation, but it does not transfer over well to other types of analysis because contradictory evidence is frequently shunted aside in hopes of winning the argument and ultimately the case. This type of selectivity can and is a problem. In addition, of all the categories of students I have had in my twenty years of teaching, attorneys (as a group) are the most likely to manipulate words—even to the point of intentionally obscuring the facts. I saw these characteristics in the Archangel report.
The most alarming omission is the fact that the Archangel authors do not tell the reader that the Virginia State Police and the ATF declined to turn over to Governor Kaine’s special panel the reports and documents dealing with Seung Hue Cho’s application to buy weapons. In other words, they refused to cooperate. On page 8, the Archangel report says, “It was the belief of the Archangel Investigating Team … that no conclusion would be of value to U.S. law enforcement, first responders and schools if complete factual accuracy could not be assured.” I agree! Then why didn’t Archangel’s investigating team try to find out why pertinent documents were withheld by the police? This is incredible! How can either the Archangel Group or the Governor’s panel analyze the shooting without key documents?
Another example of disturbing omission is the fact that the Archangel report also never looks at or examines the concept of premises liability. To establish premise liability, the defendant—Virginia Tech and the Virginia Tech Police Department—must have first hand knowledge of the individual’s propensity for violence. I am not sure what more first-hand knowledge you need that the fact that an English professor was so concerned for her safety that she told the head of the English Department that unless Cho was removed from her class she would resign.
Examples of Archangel’s selecting facts and evidence can be found in section IX. FEDERAL LEGAL STANDARDS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE U.S. IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS. Nowhere does the report deal with premises liability and the concept of “foreseeable” threats. Nowhere does the report examine the responsibilities of those in positions to react to those “foreseeable” threats; to act and to take preventive measures.
In Virginia, the law is not written to protect public institutions and organizations (such as schools and universities) from legal action, but the law is consistently interpreted that way. First, the Virginia Supreme Court seems to adhere to a strict interpretation of “sovereign immunity.” Sovereign immunity has been borrowed from English common law and simply means the sovereign cannot be sued for any wrongdoing—no matter how egregious. This principle of immunity is extended to all state organizations no matter how incompetent and bungling the management of those organizations may be.
Second, the Virginia Supreme Court blindly adheres to the concept that no institution or person can be held responsible for someone else’s actions. Other state Supreme Courts, such as New York, do hold individuals and institutions responsible for another’s actions when there are unmistakable and foreseeable signs of violence.
The law in Virginia states that “before any duty can arise with regard to the conduct of third persons (Cho), there must be a special relationship between the defendant (Virginia Tech and the Virginia Tech Police Department) and either the plaintiff (the dead students and faculty members) or the third person (Cho).”
The fact is that Virginia Tech, by accepting the tuition money from the dead students, established a special—monetary—relationship. In many, many aspects of law, the exchange of money establishes the special bond. The fact that Virginia Tech accepted tuition money, established a fiduciary relationship—a relationship of trust.
The school and the Virginia Tech Police Department entered into a “special relationship” that included the safety of those students buying the school’s services. The Virginia Tech Police Department (an integral part of the university and therefore an adherent to this “special relationship”) violated that special arrangement in the period immediately after the first shooting by not recommending a campus-wide alert. The Blacksburg Police Department and the Virginia State Police, confronted with the initial crime scene, were accessories both before and after the fact in the deaths of the 30 students and faculty members in Norris Hall because of their failure to urge a campus-wide alert. The Archangel Report never bothers to thoroughly analyze and investigate the actions of the police departments in the critical time frame following the first two murders.
On page 77, the Archangel Report asserts that “The final point to consider is just what an earlier message (warning or campus-wide alert) would have said that could possibly have made a difference.” Then the authors summarily dismiss “non-tactical professionals, including those of political and academic orientations, parents and news media, who seem to believe that there exists one-size-fits-all tactic that can be employed that will serve as a panacea in any and all threatening situations in schools. This is not only unrealistic, but naïve. The remedy appears to garner the greatest support for harboring the illusion that if one particular step (a lockdown) had been taken (or is taken in the future) everyone will be safe …” Not only is the report out-and-out wrong in its assumption that “non-tactical” specialists are naïve, but it is arrogant. Rarely have I seen such a condescending attitude in dismissing opposing views in a so-called independent study. Incredible, truly incredible!
In fact, the only ones I know saying that “one size fits all” in campus security are the people at Archangel. Every security specialist I have talked to characterizes a lockdown as an important part of a broader security policy—not a single solution. The fact is that the State University system in New York is implementing an impressive lockdown system on all campuses as an integral part of an impressive security program, dramatically flies in the face of the Archangel assertion. Where on earth did you get your information Archangel Group?
On page 78, the report speculates that, “If locked down inside any building, it would have made it all the easier for Cho to trap his quarry.” In fact the exact opposite is true, if a lockdown had been instituted after the first two shootings, Cho would not have been able to get into Norris Hall. If Virginia Tech had instituted a lockdown immediately after the first two shootings, thirty innocent people might be alive today!
The report, on page 81, states that “In the real world the officers have to follow established procedures, rely on experience, follow their instincts, and use common sense.” Virginia Tech had an established procedure for a campus-wide alert in the event of an emergency and violated that procedure. Look at the facts: on April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed two people at West Ambler-Johnston Hall on campus. Nearly two and one-half hours later he entered Norris Hall on campus and shot and killed 30 students and professors.
Virginia Tech University officials, the Virginia Tech Police Department, the Blacksburg Police Department, and the Virginia State Police:
--Did not rely on established procedures. The Virginia Tech Police (and the
university’s senior administrators—acting as the emergency Policy Group)
erred in not issuing an alert that two people had been killed on campus.
Neither the Virginia Tech Police nor senior school officials followed their own
security procedures. For example, on August 21, 2006, Virginia Tech did close
the school and send all students home because of a manhunt for William
Morva, accused of killing a police officer and security guard.
--Did not rely on their experience from the year before, much less the
experience of law enforcement investigations from other serious crime scenes.
The Archangel report, on page 61, says that the Virginia Tech police requested
twenty-eight officers to help in the investigation of the first shootings. In
other words the campus police thought the first shooting was serious enough
to request the help of more than half of the Blacksburg Police Department,
but not serious enough to issue a campus-wide alert.
--Did not follow the instincts that all officers should have in erring on the side of
caution when a murderer is on the loose—you don’t automatically assume you
have the killer based on suspicion and no real evidence. For example, the
police made a serious error in focusing solely on Karl Thornhill, Miss
Hilscher’s boyfriend as the prime suspect based on such statements as,
“Thornhill frequented a shooting range, and had taken both (Miss Hilscher)
and her roommate to the range with him.” If going to a firing range is cause
for making one person the sole suspect, half the men in Virginia would be
prime suspects every time a crime is committed in their neighborhoods. To
single in on one person as the suspect with such flimsy evidence is just
plain poor investigative procedure.
--Did not Use common sense!
The report goes on for twenty-one pages (pages 84-104) citing court rulings that support the report’s thesis that the police forces should not be held accountable for their actions. On page 93, the reader is told: “Although the deliberate indifference standard is very difficult for a plaintiff to meet, there have been instances where municipalities have been liable for failing to train or for inadequately training its officers. BUT, it is up to the reader to go to the footnote and look up the ruling for himself or herself!! How many reading this article have access to a law library and can look up those instances?
Parts of the Archangel Report’s conclusions are both incredible and distasteful. The second paragraph of the conclusion (page 121) is nothing but pure sensationalism—bordering on scare tactics. All of a sudden the reader is confronted with the specter of al Qaeda. The al Qaeda reference would make some sense if the Archangel Report had, in stating the purpose of the report on page 7, said that it would draw some sort of conclusions about how terrorist groups studying and learning from the Virginia Tech tragedy.
The Archangel Group states: “The goal of the Report is to offer relevant facts, findings and conclusions, concerning the tactical response of law enforcement and first responders to the shootings on the campus of Virginia Tech on 16 April 2007, and to offer recommendations for future preparedness and tactical response capability to all relevant agencies. Archangel Group, and the Archangel Team that conducted this investigation and assessment, hopes that this report can aid in planning for, and responding to future incidents like the tragedy at Virginia Tech.”
The stated goals of Archangel Group are highly commendable. Unfortunately, the report does not deliver on those goals. I would remind the reader that Archangel Group also states on page 7: “This Report has been prepared for distribution to U.S. law enforcement, security and first responder agencies, and is being made available at no cost to any such agency.” Again a very noble purpose, but clearly the unsaid, underlying purpose of the report is to drum-up business for Archangel. Archangel Group wants to sell its services, if their purpose was purely altruistic then they would offer all of their expertise and service to police forces at no cost.
Virginia Tech’s decision to reach a legal and financial settlement with the dead students’ families is a tacit acknowledgement of guilt. The cash-strapped state of Virginia did not agree to an $11 million dollar settlement because it had the cash lying around and decided out of goodness to give the families some sort of compensation. The state decided to settle because the overwhelming evidence and the magnitude of inept handling of the shooting, was too great to ignore.
The dollar amount that Virginia decided to pay is approximately $100,000.00 per student. The amount of the compensation that each family will receive is both an insult and a disgrace. How many of those reading this article would value their son’s or daughter’s life at $100,000.00?
Having to deal with the loss of a child school shootings or any senseless crime is horrific. What the families need more than anything else is honesty, truth, and integrity as they attempt to heal. Unfortunately, those two qualities are rarely found. Adding insult to injury is the fact that there are people an organization that will use the sufferings of others to enrich themselves.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
ARCHANGEL GROUP—PART TWO
The Archangel Group, Ltd. is a private consulting group “providing training and consulting to U.S. military, law enforcement and government agencies, in addition to schools of all levels in the fields of terrorism, security and combat tactics.” Following the shootings at Virginia Tech, the group took the initiative to investigate the Blacksburg tragedy. No government agency requested or paid for the group’s research. Their findings were published on September 5, 2008, in a report entitled: “AFTER ACTION REVIEW: An Evaluation and Assessment of the Law Enforcement Tactical Response to the Virginia Tech University Shootings of Monday 16 April 2007.”
This is the second of several articles the author plans on doing related to the Archangel Group’s report on Virginia Tech. This article takes a critical look at the credentials of the members of the Archangel Group who took the lead in writing their report of the shootings. To sit by and say nothing when faced with Archangel’s biases, self-serving analysis, and intellectual dishonesty, would be unconscionable.
ARCHANGLEL GROUP: SCOUNDRELS OR SCHOLARS?
I was deeply disappointed when I read the Archangel Group’s report on the Virginia Tech shooting. The report is clearly fashioned in the form of a legal argument designed to make a point or win a case—not designed to get at the objective truth. The most positive thing I can say is that the approach taken by the report is intellectually shaky.
The report is entitled, AFTER ACTION REVIEW--An Evaluation and Assessment of the Law Enforcement Tactical Response To the Virginia Tech University Shootings of Monday, 16 April 2007, and is dated 5 September 2008.
I have forty-one years of experience as an intelligence analyst, inspector for the CIA’s Inspector General, and an instructor for intelligence analysis for all levels of the federal government (CIA, FBI, DIA, Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center), the state police intelligence units, and for numerous foreign governments including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian intelligence. If the Archangel Group had submitted their report to me in one of my classes, I would have given them a failing grade.
I was so thunder-struck by the poor quality of the report that I went back and took a closer look at the credentials and membership of the Archangel Group.
Do their backgrounds give them the skills necessary to a thorough analysis of a problem? Have they been trained in an academic field that emphasizes objectivity—or does their training emphasize argumentation and winning at all costs, no matter what the truth is? That closer look helped explain a great deal.
In the case of the Archangel Group, the answer to the above left me deeply worried. I have spent twenty years of my professional life trying to wean educated people from their biases and prejudice, both of which interfere with objectivity. Pages five, six and seven of the report lists the individuals who, “From the start of the investigation . . . were integrally involved in the effort (the investigation and writing the report) at different times.”
Almost all have police force experience—or as attorneys have defended or been consultants in law enforcement liability cases. I see a clear conflict of interest here. If the Archangel Group were to find the Virginia Tech Police or the Virginia State Police culpable in the Tech shootings, I doubt if any police force or law enforcement official would ever hire them.
Two of the individuals’ credentials appear to fall in the tactical area—one is the oversight commander for a SWAT team in Pennsylvania and a major in a police department; the other is the director of training for the Archangel Group. He too has experience in training SWAT teams as well as Armed Forces Special Units. Both have outstanding resumes if you are looking for tactical training in dealing with a shooter or shooters on a college or university campus. In terms of qualifications for drafting this particular Archangel Report, I found their credentials wanting.
A third member of the team is simply described as “an experienced law enforcement veteran.” I have no idea what that means or how that “experience” qualifies him to play a role in an analysis of the Virginia Tech shootings.
A fourth member is described as a “former navy corpsman and currently working for the Department of Homeland Security.” Here again, I am left scratching my head. What did the gentleman do in the navy and what does he do for Homeland Security. I teach classes for the Department of Homeland Security and many of my students from that agency would not be qualified to participate in the analysis and writing of this report.
Over the last two years I have had approximately 150 Homeland Security Intelligence Officers in my classes—the vast majority with experience in military intelligence, police work, and the legal profession. I reported to senior Homeland Security management that over 45 percent of their officers were substandard in the use of English—and as a result their analysis was seriously flawed. The readers of the Archangel Report need to know more if they are to make judgments about the report’s accuracy.
The team also consisted of a former Marine sniper; a man billed as having 18 years experience in law enforcement. Again, I have had Marine snipers in my class and I am not sure I would want them to play a role in an “objective” analysis of the Virginia Tech crime scene. Once again, the Archangel Group lets the reader down. Perhaps the former Marine is eminently qualified, but the biographical paragraph does not indicate that.
Finally, there are two licensed attorneys. One has defended police officers in liability litigation and the other is a senior consultant to Archangel Group. Both men clearly are paid for their services. If their livelihood depends on selling those services, I would again ask—is there a conflict of interests? I think any court in the country would say there is. I have taught a large number of licensed attorneys in analytical skills over the last twenty years; I have done so at the FBI and CIA. The one point I would make is that as a group of well-educated individuals, the one characteristic that stands out most, is the desire to win at all costs—even at the expense of objectivity and truth.
In teaching analysis and writing, many of the licensed attorneys I have instructed lacked a basic grasp of professional English. Further more, their training is based on the use of passive voice sentences—passive sentences allow for greater interpretation in a court room setting. Most of the attorney-students I have had in class recoil at the use of an active voice sentence because it is difficult to manipulate those sentences. Furthermore, in doing the class room exercises the attorneys—more than any other group of professional people I have trained—cherry-pick the evidence to make their case. Such an approach to analysis is not objective. I see this cherry-picking in the Archangel Report.
On page five of the report, Archangel Group describes itself as “…a U.S. NGO (non-government organization) providing training and consulting to U.S. military, law enforcement and government agencies, in addition to schools of all levels, in the field of terrorism, security and combat tactics.” In other words, the Archangel Group is in business to sell its services to schools, the military, and police forces. I repeat myself, if you make money selling your services to the police can you really be objective in analyzing the role of the police in the nation’s worst school shooting?
I have reluctantly concluded that this report is not an objective analysis of the Virginia Tech shootings; it is a 144-page advertisement for the Archangel Group.
This is the second of several articles the author plans on doing related to the Archangel Group’s report on Virginia Tech. This article takes a critical look at the credentials of the members of the Archangel Group who took the lead in writing their report of the shootings. To sit by and say nothing when faced with Archangel’s biases, self-serving analysis, and intellectual dishonesty, would be unconscionable.
ARCHANGLEL GROUP: SCOUNDRELS OR SCHOLARS?
I was deeply disappointed when I read the Archangel Group’s report on the Virginia Tech shooting. The report is clearly fashioned in the form of a legal argument designed to make a point or win a case—not designed to get at the objective truth. The most positive thing I can say is that the approach taken by the report is intellectually shaky.
The report is entitled, AFTER ACTION REVIEW--An Evaluation and Assessment of the Law Enforcement Tactical Response To the Virginia Tech University Shootings of Monday, 16 April 2007, and is dated 5 September 2008.
I have forty-one years of experience as an intelligence analyst, inspector for the CIA’s Inspector General, and an instructor for intelligence analysis for all levels of the federal government (CIA, FBI, DIA, Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center), the state police intelligence units, and for numerous foreign governments including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian intelligence. If the Archangel Group had submitted their report to me in one of my classes, I would have given them a failing grade.
I was so thunder-struck by the poor quality of the report that I went back and took a closer look at the credentials and membership of the Archangel Group.
Do their backgrounds give them the skills necessary to a thorough analysis of a problem? Have they been trained in an academic field that emphasizes objectivity—or does their training emphasize argumentation and winning at all costs, no matter what the truth is? That closer look helped explain a great deal.
In the case of the Archangel Group, the answer to the above left me deeply worried. I have spent twenty years of my professional life trying to wean educated people from their biases and prejudice, both of which interfere with objectivity. Pages five, six and seven of the report lists the individuals who, “From the start of the investigation . . . were integrally involved in the effort (the investigation and writing the report) at different times.”
Almost all have police force experience—or as attorneys have defended or been consultants in law enforcement liability cases. I see a clear conflict of interest here. If the Archangel Group were to find the Virginia Tech Police or the Virginia State Police culpable in the Tech shootings, I doubt if any police force or law enforcement official would ever hire them.
Two of the individuals’ credentials appear to fall in the tactical area—one is the oversight commander for a SWAT team in Pennsylvania and a major in a police department; the other is the director of training for the Archangel Group. He too has experience in training SWAT teams as well as Armed Forces Special Units. Both have outstanding resumes if you are looking for tactical training in dealing with a shooter or shooters on a college or university campus. In terms of qualifications for drafting this particular Archangel Report, I found their credentials wanting.
A third member of the team is simply described as “an experienced law enforcement veteran.” I have no idea what that means or how that “experience” qualifies him to play a role in an analysis of the Virginia Tech shootings.
A fourth member is described as a “former navy corpsman and currently working for the Department of Homeland Security.” Here again, I am left scratching my head. What did the gentleman do in the navy and what does he do for Homeland Security. I teach classes for the Department of Homeland Security and many of my students from that agency would not be qualified to participate in the analysis and writing of this report.
Over the last two years I have had approximately 150 Homeland Security Intelligence Officers in my classes—the vast majority with experience in military intelligence, police work, and the legal profession. I reported to senior Homeland Security management that over 45 percent of their officers were substandard in the use of English—and as a result their analysis was seriously flawed. The readers of the Archangel Report need to know more if they are to make judgments about the report’s accuracy.
The team also consisted of a former Marine sniper; a man billed as having 18 years experience in law enforcement. Again, I have had Marine snipers in my class and I am not sure I would want them to play a role in an “objective” analysis of the Virginia Tech crime scene. Once again, the Archangel Group lets the reader down. Perhaps the former Marine is eminently qualified, but the biographical paragraph does not indicate that.
Finally, there are two licensed attorneys. One has defended police officers in liability litigation and the other is a senior consultant to Archangel Group. Both men clearly are paid for their services. If their livelihood depends on selling those services, I would again ask—is there a conflict of interests? I think any court in the country would say there is. I have taught a large number of licensed attorneys in analytical skills over the last twenty years; I have done so at the FBI and CIA. The one point I would make is that as a group of well-educated individuals, the one characteristic that stands out most, is the desire to win at all costs—even at the expense of objectivity and truth.
In teaching analysis and writing, many of the licensed attorneys I have instructed lacked a basic grasp of professional English. Further more, their training is based on the use of passive voice sentences—passive sentences allow for greater interpretation in a court room setting. Most of the attorney-students I have had in class recoil at the use of an active voice sentence because it is difficult to manipulate those sentences. Furthermore, in doing the class room exercises the attorneys—more than any other group of professional people I have trained—cherry-pick the evidence to make their case. Such an approach to analysis is not objective. I see this cherry-picking in the Archangel Report.
On page five of the report, Archangel Group describes itself as “…a U.S. NGO (non-government organization) providing training and consulting to U.S. military, law enforcement and government agencies, in addition to schools of all levels, in the field of terrorism, security and combat tactics.” In other words, the Archangel Group is in business to sell its services to schools, the military, and police forces. I repeat myself, if you make money selling your services to the police can you really be objective in analyzing the role of the police in the nation’s worst school shooting?
I have reluctantly concluded that this report is not an objective analysis of the Virginia Tech shootings; it is a 144-page advertisement for the Archangel Group.
Monday, October 20, 2008
ARCHANGEL GROUP—PART ONE
The Archangel Group, Ltd. is a private consulting group “providing training and consulting to U.S. military, law enforcement and government agencies, in addition to schools of all levels in the fields of terrorism, security and combat tactics.” Following the shootings at Virginia Tech, the group took the initiative to investigate the Blacksburg tragedy. No government agency requested or paid for the group’s research. Their findings were published on September 5, 2008, in a report entitled: “AFTER ACTION REVIEW: An Evaluation and Assessment of the Law Enforcement Tactical Response to the Virginia Tech University Shootings of Monday 16 April 2007.”
On September 13, 2008, Washington Post staff reporter Theresa Vargas wrote an article on the report entitled, “Report Hails Va. Tech Police Response.” The following is an examination of Ms. Vargas’s article.
This is the first of several articles the author plans on doing related to the Archangel Group’s report on Virginia Tech. To sit by and say nothing when faced with Archangel’s biases, self-serving analysis, and intellectual dishonesty, would be unconscionable.
THERESA VARGAS: DID YOU READ THE REPORT?
Washington Post staff writer, Theresa Vargas’ coverage of the Archangel Group’s “After Action Review” of the shootings at Virginia Tech is an extreme disappointment. Anyone reading her article is left wondering, “Did you even read the 144-page report, Ms. Vargas?”
Ms. Vargas blithely accepts many of the reports assertions, does not investigate or compare the Archangel report with the findings of Governor Kaine’s review panel, and finally she accepts the report at face value. She does not give any indication that she critically examined the credentials of the people writing the report. Whatever happened to investigative reporting?
By engaging in such superficial journalism, Ms. Vargas has done nothing but help Virginia Tech and the police cover-up their shortcomings and weaknesses. She has played into the hands of school and police officials who engage in circular reasoning and disingenuous analysis.
Let me ask you Ms. Vargas—if the Archangel Group makes its living by selling its services to police and security forces, do you really expect them to be critical of the Blacksburg, Virginia Tech, or Virginia State Police? Let me pose this to you—Governor Kaine’s report on the shooting states that the Virginia State Police and ATF “declined” to turn over documents on Seung Hui Cho’s application to buy weapons. Why didn’t the Archangel Group report that? Others have described the refusal of the Virginia State Police and ATF to cooperate with the Governor’s investigation as “despicable.”
Ms. Vargas—look at the Archangel’s manipulation of the facts when it comes to discussing why neither Virginia Tech nor any of the police departments called for locking the campus down after the first shooting. Archangel asserts that a lockdown would create “better mass killing conditions.” If that is true, why is the state university system of New York implementing a lockdown system on all its campuses? Indeed, the SUNY campuses at Binghamton and Oneonta already have such systems in place—four strokes on a key board and they can lock down nearly all campus buildings. You needed to delve more deeply into the idea of campus lockdowns to determine whether or not the Archangel Group is making a valid point. Your reporting would have been better served and more ethical if you had given the other side of the “lockdown” argument.
I am puzzled why Ms. Vargas’ article in the Post doesn’t talk about the fact that the line of reasoning in the Archangel report is internally inconsistent—first, according to the report, you cannot use hindsight to criticize the police and university. Then the report uses hindsight to justify the actions of both police and university officials. The report cannot have it both ways. No where does Ms. Vargas’ story indicate that the underlying tone of the report wanders back and forth from matter-of-fact, to shrill, to defensive and then back again.
Perhaps the most glaring omission from Ms. Vargas’ article is her failure to look at the report’s conclusions. The Archangel report is about Virginia Tech, yet the second paragraph of the summary deals with al-Qaeda. Using blatant scare tactics, the report asserts that “al-Qaeda and its associated groups have monitored this situation.” This is absolutely incredible. There is no connection between the Virginia Tech shooting and al-Qaeda. To put that connection in the conclusion is an incredible violation of intellectual honesty!! The al-Qaeda reference is sensationalism at its worst!
The report makes several references to the shootings at Columbine; that is fine. But no where does the report compare the shootings at Virginia Tech to the shootings at the Appalachian School of Law. No where does the report look at the parallels between the feeble actions of police and school officials to the events before, during, and after the two shootings—at both schools. If the Archangel Group wanted to do a thorough analysis of the Virginia Tech shooting then they would have looked at the similarities between the Virginia Tech and the shootings at the Appalachian School of Law. Such a comparison would have been far more insightful than only a comparison between Virginia Tech and Columbine.
Ms. Vargas—your story has let all of us down. You have done a disservice to the victims of school shootings everywhere. Your failure to follow the basic tenants of good journalism—to investigate and to analyze—has given a boost to the cover-up of the real story of the shootings at Virginia Tech and the Appalachian School of Law.
On September 13, 2008, Washington Post staff reporter Theresa Vargas wrote an article on the report entitled, “Report Hails Va. Tech Police Response.” The following is an examination of Ms. Vargas’s article.
This is the first of several articles the author plans on doing related to the Archangel Group’s report on Virginia Tech. To sit by and say nothing when faced with Archangel’s biases, self-serving analysis, and intellectual dishonesty, would be unconscionable.
THERESA VARGAS: DID YOU READ THE REPORT?
Washington Post staff writer, Theresa Vargas’ coverage of the Archangel Group’s “After Action Review” of the shootings at Virginia Tech is an extreme disappointment. Anyone reading her article is left wondering, “Did you even read the 144-page report, Ms. Vargas?”
Ms. Vargas blithely accepts many of the reports assertions, does not investigate or compare the Archangel report with the findings of Governor Kaine’s review panel, and finally she accepts the report at face value. She does not give any indication that she critically examined the credentials of the people writing the report. Whatever happened to investigative reporting?
By engaging in such superficial journalism, Ms. Vargas has done nothing but help Virginia Tech and the police cover-up their shortcomings and weaknesses. She has played into the hands of school and police officials who engage in circular reasoning and disingenuous analysis.
Let me ask you Ms. Vargas—if the Archangel Group makes its living by selling its services to police and security forces, do you really expect them to be critical of the Blacksburg, Virginia Tech, or Virginia State Police? Let me pose this to you—Governor Kaine’s report on the shooting states that the Virginia State Police and ATF “declined” to turn over documents on Seung Hui Cho’s application to buy weapons. Why didn’t the Archangel Group report that? Others have described the refusal of the Virginia State Police and ATF to cooperate with the Governor’s investigation as “despicable.”
Ms. Vargas—look at the Archangel’s manipulation of the facts when it comes to discussing why neither Virginia Tech nor any of the police departments called for locking the campus down after the first shooting. Archangel asserts that a lockdown would create “better mass killing conditions.” If that is true, why is the state university system of New York implementing a lockdown system on all its campuses? Indeed, the SUNY campuses at Binghamton and Oneonta already have such systems in place—four strokes on a key board and they can lock down nearly all campus buildings. You needed to delve more deeply into the idea of campus lockdowns to determine whether or not the Archangel Group is making a valid point. Your reporting would have been better served and more ethical if you had given the other side of the “lockdown” argument.
I am puzzled why Ms. Vargas’ article in the Post doesn’t talk about the fact that the line of reasoning in the Archangel report is internally inconsistent—first, according to the report, you cannot use hindsight to criticize the police and university. Then the report uses hindsight to justify the actions of both police and university officials. The report cannot have it both ways. No where does Ms. Vargas’ story indicate that the underlying tone of the report wanders back and forth from matter-of-fact, to shrill, to defensive and then back again.
Perhaps the most glaring omission from Ms. Vargas’ article is her failure to look at the report’s conclusions. The Archangel report is about Virginia Tech, yet the second paragraph of the summary deals with al-Qaeda. Using blatant scare tactics, the report asserts that “al-Qaeda and its associated groups have monitored this situation.” This is absolutely incredible. There is no connection between the Virginia Tech shooting and al-Qaeda. To put that connection in the conclusion is an incredible violation of intellectual honesty!! The al-Qaeda reference is sensationalism at its worst!
The report makes several references to the shootings at Columbine; that is fine. But no where does the report compare the shootings at Virginia Tech to the shootings at the Appalachian School of Law. No where does the report look at the parallels between the feeble actions of police and school officials to the events before, during, and after the two shootings—at both schools. If the Archangel Group wanted to do a thorough analysis of the Virginia Tech shooting then they would have looked at the similarities between the Virginia Tech and the shootings at the Appalachian School of Law. Such a comparison would have been far more insightful than only a comparison between Virginia Tech and Columbine.
Ms. Vargas—your story has let all of us down. You have done a disservice to the victims of school shootings everywhere. Your failure to follow the basic tenants of good journalism—to investigate and to analyze—has given a boost to the cover-up of the real story of the shootings at Virginia Tech and the Appalachian School of Law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)