ARE YOU REALLY SURPRISED?

If you look at the state of our society today—the hateful, sharp divisions; the President signing into law a bill that allows mentally ill people to buy and own guns; and the lack of civil discourse—is anyone really surprised about the tragic shooting of Congressman Stephen Scalise and three others?

We have a President who has given people the green light to beat up reporters (and one congressman tried); a President who calls people who disagree with him liars; and who proposes to restrict people from coming into this country simply based on their religion. He has unleashed hatred in our political arena on scale not seen before.

Right here in the Northern Neck of Virginia, our local newspaper frequently prints letters-to-the-editor by former candidate Catherine Crabill who, nine years ago, when running for the state legislature said, “…if we cannot get it from the ballot box, or the jury box, we will get it from the bullet box.” In other words, in a state that has suffered two horrific school shootings (the Appalachian School of Law January 16, 2002 and Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007), advocates the use of guns to get her way. Her pronouncement forced the Virginia Tech and law school families to publically call for her defeat.

When Supreme Court Antonin Scalia died, Crabill went off the deep end. She speculated Scalia was assassinated so that President Obama could appoint his replacement. She cited the handling of his body at the funeral home and quick embalming as evidence. There are many problems with her argument (besides the fact that it is built on half-truths and innuendos). But, in order to embalm a body the family would have to be involved in the decision. That means Crabill was implying that Mrs. Scalia was involved in the plot to assassinate her husband. You have to ask yourself, just how low will this woman go; how hysterical can she be?

This sickness of hatred does not represent our American values. It threatens physical violence and verbal thrashing on anyone who disagrees with them. These words can entice the mentally ill, unstable, or hotheaded to pick up a gun and shoot someone. This vitriolic name-calling is not heroic and can have serious consequences. (To be continued)

VIRGINIA TECH: DUPLICITY AND CROCODILE TEARS

Many of the politicians who came to Virginia Tech following the massacre, cried in front of the families and media, and then worked to water down and undermine responsibility for campus safety at senior levels. These efforts were clearly intended to reduce the liability of school presidents and other top-level leaders.

One of the worst examples of this duplicity is Virginia State Delegate David Nutter. Nutter was both an employee of Virginia Tech and an elected official from Blacksburg in the Virginia House of Delegates.  Common sense would make you think Nutter would be in the forefront of efforts to prevent school shootings. But, Nutter proved common sense wrong.

Immediately after the shootings, Nutter met with the families, wept, and offered his sympathies. But when it came to adopting measures to help strengthen school safety, Nutter balked.

The prime example of his chicanery came nearly three years after the massacre at Virginia Tech when the lower house of the Virginia legislature significantly weakened state Senator John 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 the state’s colleges and universities do not have to comprehend and understand a document that is critical to the security of our children.

While the State Senate passed the original bill unanimously, the House of Delegates objected. The two most ardent opponents of the legislation—they wouldn’t vote for it in any form—were Delegates Nutter and Charles Poindexter, a right-wing politician who tried to derail the reappointment of Judge William Alexander, the judge who presided over the Pryde and Peterson lawsuit against Virginia Tech President Steger.

If you read the official reports of both the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, as we have, 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 state’s colleges and universities do not have to comprehend and understand those plans.

Clearly Nutter’s promises to the Virginia Tech victims’ families weren’t worth very much. When the state had a chance to do something, as little as it was, Nutter refused to go along with the bill in any form.

Nutter is not alone. I will look at others in future posts. (To be continued)

SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: POOR DECISIONS, INACTION, NO ACCOUNTABILITY

Another argument against banning weapons in any form is that it destroys our Second Amendment rights to bear arms. But all the rights granted us in the Constitution have limitations. For example, despite our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, we cannot use profanity in this book nor can we use sexist or racist vocabulary.

Clearly the Second Amendment says no one has the right to take away our right to bear arms. We doubt, however, that the founding fathers would have supported the right of the dangerously mentally ill to own assault weapons whose main purpose is to kill human beings.

A ban on assault weapons, which are intended for use by the military and law enforcement, is not a ban on our individual rights. Such a ban is a step toward sanity in protecting average citizens and guaranteeing them the right to life and the pursuit of all the freedoms guaranteed us in the Constitution. We would argue that such a ban helps guarantee the rights of all citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The public, then, is being duped when it comes to what is being done to keep our schools safe and prevent school shootings. The far right of our political spectrum has framed the argument solely in Second Amendment terms, wrapping themselves in a blanket of constitutional patriotism and labeling all those who question them as unpatriotic. The hysterical tone of these self-described patriots has reached such a crescendo that it drowns out any talk of protecting the Second Amendment and keeping guns out of the hands of those who are dangerously mentally ill. Furthermore, even a hint that incompetent school and police officials have played roles in these killings cannot be heard over the din. Holding people accountable for their actions or inactions that result in injury or death is brushed aside in the frenzied rhetoric.

The result is that two issues critical to improving school safety (keeping guns out of the hands of people who are dangerously mentally ill as well as holding people accountable for their actions or inactions that facilitate these murderous rampages) are not heard, much less discussed.

Thousands of dollars have been and are being spent on warning systems, period. A considerable amount of time and effort has been expended on drawing up security and safety regulations, but once these regulations are in place, it takes a human being to activate such a system. In other words, no matter how good an electronic system is, how well thought out safety rules are, it always boils down to the human factor—to those who have the authority to make decisions. And if there is one lesson to be learned from the Virginia Tech massacre, it is that people failed to do their duty—to warn. Those in authority who failed to warn have not been held liable.

Under Virginia Tech’s Emergency Response Plan in effect on April 16, 2007, it was the Emergency Response Resources Group (a.k.a. ERRG in Tech’s plan) that had the authority, and responsibility, for sending out a warning. President Steger was part of the Policy Group, which, per the plan, sat above the ERRG. Therefore, according to the plan, Steger had no responsibility to send out a warning. Chief Flinchum, however, had the authority to issue a warning based on the school’s published Timely Warning procedure in compliance with the Clery Act to issue a warning, but he did not do so. Secretary Duncan cited the conflict between Virginia Tech’s published timely warning procedure and internal procedure 5615, which was not well known. The Emergency Plan was under a different jurisdiction (see below). The school’s leadership did not follow either its Emergency Plan or Timely Warning procedures as written—neither Steger nor Flinchum have been asked to answer for that.

At the Appalachian School of Law, President Lucius Ellsworth belittled faculty members’ requests for campus security, chalking their concerns up to “women’s hormones” and assuring them nothing would happen. Within weeks, three people were dead and three more seriously wounded. Ellsworth has never been called to task for his disregard of security.

The pattern is the same over and over again—dangerously mentally ill people getting their hands on guns, people in positions of authority turning their backs on warning signs, and innocent people being gunned down. As of this writing, no one appears ready to hold individuals accountable for their failure to act and to warn when faced with an imminent danger of violence—that is true for both Virginia Tech and the Appalachian School of Law. The pattern is there: poor decisions, inactions, and no accountability.

The publicity surrounding improved warning systems gives the public a false sense of security, gives the politicians and school officials the fig leaf they need to say they are doing something. But unless these expenditures on new warning and security systems are coupled with holding people accountable, nothing meaningful is being done, and doing nothing is not an option; the stakes are too high—they are the lives of our children and loved ones. (To be continued)

PENNSYLVANIA GOT IT RIGHT

            The recent sentencing of three high level Penn State officials to jail terms for failing to alert law enforcement officials to retired football coach Jerry Sandusky’s sexual molestation of young boys is right on the money. All three men, former school president Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley, and former vice president Gary Schultz were convicted of the same crime—child endangerment.

            Holding people accountable for their actions or inactions that result in abuse, injury, or death, is critical to making our campuses safer.

            Pennsylvania got it right, Virginia did not.

            Following the Virginia Tech massacre, elected officials in Richmond spent millions on public relations firms and lawyers to cover up and obfuscate the facts of that rampage. The situation in Virginia is so bad that even the state’s Supreme Court introduced false evidence to hide what really happened on April 16, 2007. (To be continued)

DOING NOTHING IS NOT THE ANSWER

 

“Violence is seldom predictable with any certainty; its precise

timing and location are even less so. Thus when it comes

to rare but catastrophic events such as campus rampages,

preventing violence is more important than foreseeing it.”

~Helen de Haven, associate professor, John Marshall Law School

The Chinese characters that make up the word “crisis” include one that may be translated as “opportunity.” We are a nation in crisis—a gun violence crisis—and the opportunity to do something about it is now. If the murder of 20 beautiful elementary school children and their teachers, in Newtown, Connecticut is not enough to spur action to address the crisis, then what is? If the cold-blooded murder of two volunteer firemen in western New York by a man who did what he liked doing best, killing people, is not enough to take action, then what is?

From Columbine, to the Appalachian School of Law, to Virginia Tech, to Northern Illinois University, to a Sheikh temple in Wisconsin, to a Connecticut elementary school, the bodies pile up.  On and on it goes, the unabated gun violence. The self-proclaimed greatest nation on the earth appears paralyzed in the face of this murderous rampage. The gun-related deaths are so frequent that they have become as American as apple pie.  The United States has become the laughing stock of the world if for no other reason than it has appeared incapable or unwilling to take tough measures to prevent these slaughters.

Some naively argue the shootings are God’s will. Others contend that we will never be able to stop these killings; we are not responsible for what others do. The National Rifle Association insists that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But in a fit of rage or drunken stupor, a good guy with a gun is just one pull of the trigger away from being a bad guy. More guns will probably lead to more carnage, not less. It is just common sense: if you don’t have access to assault weapons and high capacity magazines, you cannot use them to kill people.

Others suggest that what is needed is armed guards or police at all of our schools. Maybe it is. But remember, there was an armed guard at Columbine; Ft. Hood is a military base with armed personnel everywhere; and Virginia Tech had armed police on the campus. The presence of armed personnel prevented none of those shootings.

Still others insist that guns don’t kill; that banning assault weapons or high capacity magazines will not stop the killings. Well, as a matter fact, guns do kill, and banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines would greatly reduce the chances and probability of mass killings. If you buy the argument that guns don’t kill, then why do we license other inanimate objects as well as their owners? Cars in the hands of people addicted to alcohol or drugs or dangerously mentally ill individuals kill, and we have taken steps to keep cars out of the hands of people in both categories. Guns kill in the hands of addicts and dangerously mentally ill people and we need to do the same; we need to keep these weapons out of their hands. Yet we do nothing, and doing nothing is no longer an option. (To be continued)