VIRGINIA TECH: BUYING AN EXCUSE

Virginia Tech’s response to the Department of Education’s preliminary findings that the school violated federal law by not issuing a campus-wide warning on April 16, 2007, was to pay some $9,000.00 to an “expert” to write a dissenting opinion.

Tech turned to Delores A. Stafford, President & CEO of D. Stafford & Associates and former police chief of George Washington University. Ms. Stafford describes herself as an expert on the Clery Act (the law requiring schools to issue warnings). Does anyone think that Ms. Stafford would write an analysis saying that the institution paying her nearly ten thousand dollars violated federal law? Because Stafford took money, her opinion is not just tainted—it is next to worthless.

At the heart of the problem is what was the Virginia Tech administration doing after the double homicide at West Ambler Johnston Hall? Why did it take over two hours for the school to issue a vaguely worded warning—just moments before Cho slaughtered 30 people at Norris Hall?

Stafford notes that the Clery Act does not give a timeframe for issuing the warning notice. Then she says that 25% of the schools queried indicated that in 2006—a year before the Tech tragedy—they were issuing warnings within an hour of an incident. The fact that these schools were issuing warnings within an hour, following the guidelines of the Clery Act, undercuts Stafford’s whole argument.

Furthermore, how can Stafford say that the act was not violated when 30 people were murdered because of a delay in notification? Ms. Stafford also needs to address why parts of Virginia Tech took the initiative and locked down. She never addresses the inconsistencies in Tech’s response to the double homicides.

Had a warning been issued on the Tech campus, thirty people in Norris Hall would probably be alive today. Clearly, Delores Stafford’s opinion was bought and paid for—that is evident in her own words.

THE CASE AGAINST STEGER’S TECH

Many well-intentioned but misguided Virginians argue that now, three years after the slaughter at Virginia Tech, it is time to move on and begin the healing process. Nothing could be further from truth. To call for the healing process at this point is a misnomer; it would be more of a scarring process. As long as the truth lies shrouded in a cloud of deceit and cover-up, it is impossible to move on, and the scars will never heal.

Virginia has suffered two of the worst campus massacres in the history of this country—at the Appalachian School of Law on January 16, 2002, and at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of both shootings, school officials and politicians have engaged in wholesale cover-ups.

The parallels between the two shootings are striking—the similar profiles of the killers, the ignoring of warning signs, and the bureaucratic incompetence at both schools before, during, and after the shootings. Indeed, a strong argument can be made that if a candid analysis of the shootings at the law school had been done, those at Virginia Tech might have been prevented. Sadly, for the 32 people killed and 17 wounded at Blacksburg, no such analysis was made.

If we are ever to make progress in trying to prevent these tragedies, we need to understand the magnitude of the cover-up that has gone on concerning Virginia Tech. Some scoff at the idea of a cover-up, but look at the facts:

¨ The state of Virginia paid the princely some of over $700,000 to a private contractor to write the analysis of the shooting. That company, Arlington-based TriData, already had business dealings with the state, a clear conflict of interest. Does anyone think TriData will cite the state’s largest university for wrongdoing and jeopardize future contracts?

¨ The report glosses over Tech’s failure to lock down the campus, not mentioning that failure to do so was a violation of the school’s own standards, set some months earlier when the university was locked down because an escaped conflict (who had murdered two people) was on the loose. Contrary to the school’s assertion, there was no panic during that lock-down; there may have been confusion, but no panic.

¨ Much of the report is written in the passive voice to cover up who knew what and when. For example, in the two-hour interval between the double homicide and the massacre at Norris Hall—an interval when the school should have been locked down—the report reads, “Information continued to be received.” Ok, who received the information and why didn’t she or he act?

¨ Had West Ambler Johnston Hall truly been locked down after the double homicide at 7:15 am, two students would not have gone to their deaths at Norris Hall. Rachel Elizabeth Hill and Henry Lee would be alive today. Both were in West Ambler Johnston Hall and both would not have been allowed to leave that building for classes at Norris. That is an absolute fact. The TriData report makes no mention of those two, and even after the omission was drawn to TriData’s attention, the company failed to put it in the Addendum.

¨ The report does not examine or even raise the possibility that Virginia Tech violated the Clery Act, a federal law requiring colleges and universities to issue timely warnings to faculty, staff, and students in the event of danger. Virginia Tech’s nearly two-hour delay in issuing a warning came just minutes before Cho went on his killing rampage. It is a near certainty that most if not all of those killed at Norris Hall would be alive today if the school had locked-down and issued a warning. The report skirts this point.

We must analysis the problem, identify the shortcomings and hold people accountable for their actions or inactions. I am not talking about revenge. I am talking about accountability and preventing future mistakes.

Collegiate Times Marks Third Anniversary

April 16: Answers Lie in Wait

by Zach Crizer, nrv news editor

Katie Biondo/Collegiate Times

Somewhere in Burruss Hall a document states a judgment on Virginia Tech’s actions on April 16, 2007. Somewhere in Burruss, the first determination of right or wrong has been made.

The Department of Education’s Clery Act review states whether or not the university provided the required “timely warnings” to the campus community on the day of the shootings. But that analysis is not yet public.

In the next six months, it will likely become one of the first answers to the myriad questions raised since Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 Tech students and faculty members and injured many more in two separate campus buildings before killing himself.

The federal report will eventually be joined by a civil ruling that could order state and university officials to pay up to $20 million in damages to two families who lost children in the shootings and felt questions loomed too large over the day’s events to sign a settlement with the state.

Three years after the shootings shocked and confounded the university community, some questions may finally be joined by answers.

The Department of Education report was sent to Tech officials earlier in 2010 as part of the standard procedure for a Clery Act program review. The university is given a chance to respond to the findings of the investigation.

Tech was granted an extension on the deadline for the response, which was originally set for March 23. The university response is now due April 23.

Daniel Carter, the public policy director for the nonprofit group Security on Campus, said the department typically takes about two months to allow investigators to review the response and produce the final report, at which point the findings would become public.

Security on Campus was founded by the parents of Jeanne Clery, the namesake of the Clery Act, which was enacted in 1990 and requires universities to report crime statistics and give communities timely warnings of campus crimes. Jeanne Clery was raped and murdered in her dorm room at Lehigh University in 1986.

Security on Campus filed a request that led to the Department of Education investigation.

The report determines whether Tech complied with the Clery Act on the morning of the shootings. The Clery Act requires a timely warning of any campus incident that endangers students.Carter said the fact that a response is required shows the investigation has significant implications for the university.

“Any institution that goes through the response process, there are substantive findings,” Carter said. “It’s a program review process — that’s what it’s known as — and any institution that goes through the response process is being presented with findings and being asked to respond to those definitive findings.”

If violations are found, Tech faces a $27,500 fine for each violation. The Clery Act also gives the Department of Education the ability to remove a school from the federal financial aid program for non-compliance, but Carter said he sees no way that would happen.

“That has never happened, and it is not the department approach in enforcing Clery Act cases,” Carter said. “The primary objective here is not to punish but to get corrective action.”

Only six universities have ever been fined for Clery Act violations.

The largest fine, $350,000, was imposed on Eastern Michigan University for failing to disclose that a student death was actually a homicide. Carter said schools can appeal the amount of the fine, but the decisions on violations are final.

Dennis Gregory, an Old Dominion University professor who has conducted research on the Clery Act and higher education law, said the corrective actions suggested by the report would be much more important than the actual sanctions — specifically to the entire higher education community.

“What that will do is provide more specificity to the rest of higher education about what kinds of notification requirements are required — what one has to do in terms of timely notice,” Gregory said.

Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said the report addresses a topic that is still waiting for a precedent to be set.

“It’s a pretty long and complicated process,” Hincker said. “The whole issue is one that has still yet to be resolved nationally.”

Carter said that Tech’s situation was indeed unprecedented, but the Clery Act was designed to help prevent similar occurrences.

“While it is correct there has never been anything like this before, when an institution agrees to participate in federal student aid programs, they agree affirmatively to undertake certain responsibilities,” Carter said. “One of those responsibilities is when there is an ongoing threat as a result of a specified list of crimes, they will warn their campus community and they will have an efficient, effective process for doing so — and also a process that is publicly disclosed.”

Suzanne Grimes, whose son Kevin Sterne was injured in Norris Hall, said she feels confident Tech did not comply with the Clery Act, but she wants a better understanding of what happened inside the university that day.

“I want detailed answers of why they didn’t do it,” Grimes said. “I feel at this point in time, three years after the worst shooting in modern history, they need to explain their lack of action that day to these families that have lost (loved ones) and to survivors.”

The investigation into Tech’s response on April 16, 2007, offers a chance for clarification of a university’s responsibilities in the case of a major emergency.

Hincker and Gregory each pointed out that the higher education community’s knee-jerk reaction to April 16 was to implement more campus notification systems.

“The world of emergency notification completely changed,” Hincker said. “An entire industry of emergency notification sprang from our tragedy.”

Since April 16, Tech has added a text-messaging alert system, LED message boards in classrooms and an alert program for computer desktops.

Gregory said the largely technology-based industry of emergency notification systems could still see a bump if the investigation is critical of Tech’s response.

“A lot of universities were afraid if they didn’t jump on the bandwagon and put in these types of notification systems, they might face legal jeopardy and have another incident that they would be held responsible for if they didn’t move in this direction,” Gregory said.

However, he said the initial reaction of adding notification systems may soon fade into more comprehensive plans for preventing campus tragedies like April 16.

“The commonwealth of Virginia has required by law now that every college and university have a threat assessment team in place,” Gregory said. “So, doing those kinds of things and being able to deal with someone like Cho before an incident occurs I think will better prepare us if something like that ever does happen again.”

Hincker called Tech’s notification system “one of the most robust” in the country, but he also said the university has focused on improving other areas, including mental health care and inter-departmental communication. Tech, in accordance with Virginia law, has a threat assessment team.

“We say that the world did change on April 16 for a lot of people,” Hincker said. “The understanding of mental health and university responsibilities in that area, the whole notion of internal threat assessment — whether it be from outside the university or within the university — has changed.”

Gregory said his research indicates beefing up notification systems is likely not the most effective use of money for universities. He suggested adding new programs to make police more visible on campus and to make it easier for students to report suspicious activities or crimes.

Furthermore, he found it unlikely the Department of Education report would criticize Tech’s method of notification.

Instead, he said a report that is highly critical of Tech would likely compel the higher education community to push funding toward police forces.

“If they really come down and slam Tech for what they believe are egregious violations of the Clery Act, then that will say to the higher education community ‘You need to be much more prepared and much more careful about how you deal with these issues,’” Gregory said. “Now, the fallout from that means that universities are going to have to devote a large amount of money and a large amount of resources to improving campus police departments, increasing the numbers of police officers and support staff and providing vehicles and other types of equipment to help.”

He pointed out that under former Gov. Tim Kaine, the state held a conference for campus police forces in each of the last two years.

Gov. Bob McDonnell has not announced if that will continue.

Of course, the report could also find that Tech’s actions were compliant with the Clery Act, and it may calm the rush to upgrade notification systems.

“If they say Tech did what it was supposed to do, then clearly that gives institutions more flexibility and more breathing room in how they deal with crisis situations like this,” Gregory said. “If they find that Tech is responsible for technical violations of the law that are relatively minor, then that shows you need to mind your P’s and Q’s, but as long as you’re complying, you’re probably going to be OK.”

The university’s actions on April 16 are also being judged in another arena — civil court.

President Charles Steger, former Vice President James Hyatt and former Cook Counseling Center director Robert Miller await trial in suits filed by the families of two students killed in Norris Hall, Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson.

The identical lawsuits seek $10 million each in damages. However, the suits also could set a precedent of legal liability for institutions of higher education.

Carter said the actual findings of the Department of Education report have no bearing on legal liability.

“The Clery Act does not establish any civil liability,” Carter said. “So, you could not go into court and say the Department of Education said this institution violated the Clery Act, therefore we are entitled to damages. That’s actually prohibited under the law.”
However, information included in the report about the events of the day could be utilized in the suits.

“For example, if their investigation yielded a description of the internal discussion process, there is a chance that could be relevant to the civil proceedings,” Carter said.

The plaintiffs’ suits make reference to Tech’s emergency response plan as it stood on April 16, 2007. It said the police chief was to send any emergency notifications to the community. Multiple records show that, in fact, it was the university’s Policy Group, consisting of top-level officials, which sent the alert.

The suits allege that Tech did not follow protocol, and that the confusion caused the alert to be sent too late for students headed to Norris Hall that morning to make use of the warning.

Carter said he understood why the police chief did not send the alert, but hoped Tech officials had thought of other measures to deal with emergencies.

“They were correct in that the chief was occupied trying to apprehend the suspect, but there were not adequate measures in place for there also to be a warning issued quickly,” Carter said. “I think that’s one of the most important lessons, and to this day I remain concerned it’s one of the lessons that was not learned — I mean just about everybody has — but there has not seemed to be that acknowledgement by the officials involved on April 16 at Virginia Tech.”

Hincker said Tech’s current emergency notification plan makes it easier for the alert to be sent quickly by people with knowledge of the situation.

He said the initial responders now have a template for emergency alerts to streamline the process.

“We’ve got lots of people now that can send an emergency notification,” Hincker said. “It’s 30 plus. I don’t know exactly what the number is because the police keep adding people.”

Grimes said Tech should attempt to remain on the leading edge of campus safety.

“As far as them being a role model, they really need to step up to the plate,” Grimes said. “I think other universities need to also follow suit. If they have an emergency response plan, follow it, revisit it, keep looking at it.”

Hincker could not speak directly on the topic of the lawsuits, because the litigation is ongoing. No trial date has been set.

Gregory said he doubted Tech could be held legally liable when considering the situation the officials were dealing with.

He pointed out that officials believed the initial shootings in West Ambler-Johnston Hall could have been the result of a domestic dispute.

“There was a belief, at least initially, that the killings were from an internal source that was particular to (West Ambler-Johnston Hall),” Gregory said. “Whether you need to close down the campus for that is the question. In retrospect, it’s easy to say, ‘Yeah, you should have closed it down,’ but what does that mean for the people who were already in Norris Hall at the time?”

However, these questions seem unlikely to be answered any time soon. After a November 1999 bonfire accident that killed 12 people at Texas A&M University, a lawsuit was filed by victims’ families.

It was settled in October 2008, nearly a decade after the tragedy.

THE BUSINESS MODEL; THE WRONG MODEL

Somewhere along the way, higher education in the United States lost its way and we are paying a terrible price in the loss of faculty, staff, and student lives. If faculty members are concerned about their safety and that of their students, and if school administrators ignore signs of abnormal violent behavior on the part of students or staff, then the atmosphere is not conducive to learning, and that is deplorable. One college professor told me that every day she wonders whether this will be the day a student brings a gun to class and kills them all.

There is no simple answer to why this sorry state of affairs exists, but one of the greatest contributors has been the tendency by politicians and the electorate to see state-funded colleges and universities as businesses rather than institutions of learning. That change in attitude brought in school leaders whose primary qualification is their ability to make money. Many have little or no background in education, much less what it takes to ensure a safe learning environment.

Professor Lucinda Roy points to this problem in her first-hand account of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, No Right to Remain Silent. She wrote: “… Nowadays, some of those in leadership positions at universities have little experience working with students and almost no experience in the classroom. It has become more important to hire administrators who know how to raise money than it is to hire those who know much about students.” She further asserts, “If you examine a typical state-funded university, you will find that many of its resources are dedicated to generating funds. As the public began to opt out of subsidizing public education in the past two decades, something had to fill the gap. A university that is focused on staying afloat cannot pay as much attention to students as it did in the past.”

Robert Bickel and Peter Lake, in their exhaustive and thorough look at risk and responsibility on college campuses, The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University, point out that “by far, this (the business model) is the dominant current conception of modern relations, if one aggregates the cases.” The net result is that most college presidents today are “glad-handers” and fund-raisers, not educators, and certainly not willing to allocate funds for security.

Even worse, some are woefully lacking in crisis management skills, and Virginia Tech President Charles Steger is a case in point. If you read his biography or listen to his defenders, there is a repeated emphasis on how much money he has raised for the school but few references to leadership, which was tragically absent on April 16, 2007, as he prepared for one of the school’s largest fund-raisers; his poor decisions that day contributed to the loss of 30 lives at Norris Hall. But he is an outstanding fund-raiser, and fund-raising, unfortunately, seems to be what counts in Blacksburg and throughout Virginia.

The fact is that in order to make our colleges and universities safer, we will have to spend hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars on such things as security training and equipment, and mental health programs. These expenditures cannot be tallied on a profit sheet. They are expenses on behalf of our nation’s future, and long-term investments we must make in order to preserve this nation’s greatness.

To run colleges and universities on a “for-profit basis” is not only counter-productive in the long run, but it also cheapens the quality of education. Under the business model, if you pay for your daughter or son to go to college, some lawyers would argue that you have paid money and established a contract, and that your child is owed a degree. Not everyone who goes to college should be there, however, and not everyone who enrolls in higher education deserves to get a degree. The result is a lowering of standards. By way of example, a friend of mine who was an English professor at a major university in the Washington, DC, area developed an English test that all seniors had to pass in order to get their degrees. So many seniors were flunking that the alumni association was up in arms and the school was forced to do away with test.

I suspect that what happened to my friend has happened elsewhere. A few years ago I was asked to teach 140 intelligence officers, a major component of the U.S. intelligence community. At the end of the training I was asked by senior management to evaluate the quality of their officers. I concluded that approximately 43% of their people I worked with were sub-standard in the use of basic English. An English sentence was an alien concept for many of them.

In blindly following the business model we are paying a price in so many ways, not just in campus security and the quality of education, but in our nation’s security. I witnessed the latter a short time ago. I was working with non-native speaking Americans who are doing translations for our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my classes I give these students a laminated translation aid on rules dealing with some of the problem areas of English—areas critical to their work. The laminated study aid costs $4.95. The CEO of the multi-billion dollar company I was working for wanted to cut non-essential costs to help raise the stock price, so he cut the study aid. I guarantee you that decisions will be made based on poor translations—decisions that may cost lives. But, the company’s stock price will probably go up.

Under the business model, whether it is our students or our fighting men and women, lives seem to be expendable as long as a profit is made. This is morally reprehensible. To say that this country is in a sorry state doesn’t begin to describe the magnitude of the problem.

VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES—NO BACKBONE

Nearly three years after the massacre at Virginia Tech, the lower house of the Virginia legislature has neither the will nor the backbone to pass truly effective legislation to make the state’s college campuses safer. What a shame, in a state that has suffered two of the most serious school shootings—the Appalachian School of Law (three dead and two wounded) and Virginia Tech (32 dead and 17 wounded)—the lower house shies away from its duties to the citizenry.

The lower house does just enough to say it has done something, but not enough to make a difference. Most recently, the Virginia house significantly weakened state Senator Edwards’ bill to amend and reenact the Code of Virginia relating to crisis and emergency management for public institutions of higher learning. Specifically, members of the lower house took exception to university presidents and other school officials having to certify they comprehend and understand the school’s emergency plan—a plan that they play a role in creating. Here is the sentence as it cleared and passed the senate unanimously:

“In addition, the members of the threat assessment team, as defined …(by law)…, and the president and vice-president of each institution of higher education, or in the case of the Virginia Military Institute, the superintendent, shall annually certify in writing to the Department of Emergency Management comprehension and understanding of the institution’s crisis and emergency management plan.”

Here is the sentence the lower house insisted on and appears in the final bill:

“In addition, the president and vice-president of each public institution of higher education, or in the case of the Virginia Military Institute, the superintendent, shall annually (i) review the institution’s crisis and emergency management plan; (ii) certify in writing that the president and vice-president, or the superintendent, have reviewed the plan; and (iii) make recommendations to the institution for appropriate changes to the plan.”

Stop to think what members of the Virginia legislature have done, they have said that presidents of our colleges and universities do not have to comprehend and understand a document that is critical to the security of our children. Incredible, absolutely incredible!

While the State Senate had passed the original bill unanimously, the House of Delegates balked over a critical detail. The two most ardent opponents of the legislation—they wouldn’t vote for it in any form—were Delegates Nutter (an employee of Virginia Tech) and Poindexter, a far right-wing politician who tried to derail the reappointment of Judge William Alexander, the judge who ruled that the lawsuit against Virginia Tech President Steger and other school officials could go forward.

If you read the official reports of both the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, there is repeated emphasis on schools’ security plans and the role of those plans in preventing campus shootings. Now, according to the Virginia lower house, the presidents of the states’ colleges and universities do not have to understand those plans!

The House of Delegates should be ashamed of itself.

JUDGE ALEXANDER REAPPOINTED

The Roanoke Times reported on March 10, 2010, that the Virginia General Assembly reappointed Franklin County Circuit Judge William Alexander to another eight-year term.

The reappointment had been held up in January on what appears to have been a thinly veiled attempt to remove the judge – who ruled recently that a lawsuit related to the Virginia Tech shootings could proceed against the school – on unrelated and flimsy grounds.

According to representatives Poindexter and Jarvis, two ultra-right members of the General Assembly, the “grounds” were the judge’s handling of a special grand jury probe of Franklin County Sheriff Ewell Hunt, who is charged with keeping improper records on the employment of his daughter. Judge Alexander had agreed to a motion to release the grand jury report on the indictment of the sheriff – a legal and correct ruling, but one that embarrassed Poindexter’s and Jarvis’ fellow Republican, Sheriff Hunt.

Had Judge Alexander not been reappointed, it would have derailed the lawsuit brought by two families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting—the Prydes and the Petersens. Judge Alexander had earlier ruled that there is sufficient evidence of “gross negligence” against school President Charles Steger and others for the lawsuit to proceed.

The extreme right of the Virginia political spectrum is opposed to the trial because of the questions it will raise about gun safety, the accountability of people in positions of authority, and the damage the trial could do to Virginia Tech, the most powerful economic engine in southwest Virginia.

VIRGINIA TECH: THE COVER-UP CONTINUES

Virginia Tech is refusing to release the initial findings of the U.S. Department of Education’s investigation into the April 16, 2007 shootings. At the heart of the issue is whether or not Tech violated a federal law on the morning of the shootings by not issuing a warning to the campus following the double homicide at Ambler West Johnston Hall.

The law in question is the Clery Act, named for Jeanne Clery, a Lehigh University student who was raped and murdered. Clery’s parents found out that students had not been warned about 38 violent crimes on the Lehigh campus in the three year’s before their daughter’s murder, and helped persuade congress to pass a law making it mandatory to warn students of violent crimes on campus grounds. Violation of the Clery Act could result in a loss of federal funds for the school.

School spokesperson, Larry Hinckler, is quoted in the school’s newspaper, The Collegiate Times, as saying the school received the initial findings from the Department of Education a few weeks ago, but will not release them. The school is claiming an exception under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Collegiate Times indicated the school is justifying its position by citing exceptions granted to “working papers and correspondence of the Office of the Governor; Lieutenant Governor; the Attorney General; the members of the General Assembly or the Division of Legislative Services; the mayor or chief of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth; or the president or other chief executive officer of any public institution of higher education in Virginia.” Working papers are defined as “those records prepared by or for an above-mentioned public official for his personal or deliberative use.”

However, an email to The Collegiate Times from Megan Rhyne, a Virginia Coalition for Open Government representative, points out that the initial findings might not qualify as a working paper because Tech did not commission the investigation. She goes on to say, “If the university asked for it, then, yes, for as long as the president uses the report to craft future statements/policies’ responses, then it is and remains a working paper.” But, “if the study was initiated independently of the university and the president has been given an advanced copy as a courtesy, then it seems the ‘prepared by or for’ language does not apply.”

You have to ask, “What is Virginia Tech trying to hide? What is the university covering-up?” Tech’s refusal to release the findings comes on the heels of efforts by members of the school hierarchy to silence one of the most candid forums in examining the April 16, 2007 tragedy, the school newspaper—The Collegiate Times.

In mid-February, the Commission on Student Affairs threatened to cancel the contract with the Education Medial Company of Virginia Tech, the parent company of The Collegiate Times, and cut off funding to the paper. (See bog dated March 10, 2010) The Commission cited the newspaper’s policy of allowing anonymous comments on its blog, saying some of the comments had offended some students, staff, and faculty members. The Commission has absolutely no authority to take such action—the threat had to be a warning to the paper’s editorial staff; a warning to stop its investigative journalism.

The Commission’s threat was clearly a violation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech. The threat also was a violation of the school’s “Principles of Community” which guarantee freedom of speech.

When you step back and look at the action’s of the Virginia Tech administration, you can come to no other conclusion than the Steger administration is running scared and will spare no effort to cover-up its actions (or inactions) dealing with events surrounding the April 16, 2007 mass killings. If the school has nothing to hide, why not release the Department of Education’s findings; if The Collegiate Times is wrong, write rebuttals to set the record straight.

The administration of school President Charles Steger flunked crisis management badly on April 16, 2007. And more and more, Virginia Tech’s actions with regard to the shootings are exposing the disgraceful and amoral character of the school’s leadership.