Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Colleges walk fine line with troubled students

The tragedy at Virginia Tech has prompted calls for more security and less privacy.

By Staff writer, Staff writer / April 20, 2007



Chicago, and Blacksburg, Va

It's an issue colleges have confronted before: the extent to which they should be expected to foresee and take responsibility for their students' actions.

Skip to next paragraph

The debate arises in the wake of student suicides or assaults that parents may believe could have been prevented. It pits safety against the protections of privacy and disability law – and can leave schools unsure how to act.

This week's shootings at Virginia Tech bring the issue to the forefront of schools' attention. "I think every college in the United States is going to be sitting down and saying 'what does this mean for us,' " says Peter Lake, a professor at Stetson University College of Law. "It will permanently alter college campuses. The public may call for more safety and less disability law, and we're going to see a quick change in the culture in terms of the response and identification of high-risk individuals." Lawsuits over the actions of Cho Seung-Hui, who killed 32 on campus Tuesday before killing himself, are virtually inevitable, experts say. But they differ sharply on how fair it is to hold the school accountable for the tragedy.

Virginia Tech had warnings dating back a year and a half about killer Cho's disturbing behavior. Those, coupled with news that several teachers had raised questions about Cho's violent writing and erratic classroom behavior, have led some to charge that the school should have acted more aggressively to prevent Cho from ever getting to the point of walking into a school dorm and, later, Norris Hall and killing so many students and faculty.

At a press conference Thursday, university officials reiterated that Cho had been seen as a threat only to himself and that federal antidiscrimination laws prohibit the university from taking actions against students after they're released from care.

Just last fall, the university held workshops for teachers on how to identify and handle distressed students. A panel appointed by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine will review Cho's journey through Virginia Tech's own judicial review process.

"I know that we followed all policies correctly and we acted on information that we had, and now we have much more information," says Edward Spencer, an associate dean for student affairs at Virginia Tech. "He was very introverted, quiet, noncommunicative, and in a world by himself, but he wasn't described in any way as dangerous."

For some critics, it's a clear-cut case of a school not taking steps that in hindsight seem called for.

"They had a time bomb waiting to detonate in their midst. They knew about it. Yet they failed to take the proper actions and safeguards to protect other students and others at the university," says Jerry Reisman, a litigation lawyer and partner with Reisman, Peirez and Reisman, in Garden City, N.Y. "They had a duty, and they breached that duty."

Mr. Reisman says the school failed by not acting to lock down the campus after the first of the two shooting episodes, and argues that officials could have expelled or suspended Cho based on his earlier behavior, or at least referred him for a mandatory mental-health facility stay.

But that argument, say others, demands that a school have much more predictive powers than the murky world of profiling models and mental-health diagnoses gives them and ignores their legal restraints.

This kind of incident – and the ensuing lawsuits –can leave administrators feeling trapped "between Scylla and Charybdis," says Robert Smith, a lawyer at Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau & Saturley in Boston, referring to the mythical Greek monsters who lurked on either side of a narrow strait. "You move in one direction, and you're violating the law; you move in another direction, and you're told you're violating the law," says Mr. Smith, who has often defended universities in the past.

Permissions