The Virginia Tech Massacre from the British Press Perspective
Wayne S. Wooden
Hovsep K. Agop*
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
For several days in mid-April 2007 the world was shocked to learn about the tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech University in the State of Virginia, U.S.A., where an armed college student, Seung-hui Cho, age 23, killed thirty-two fellow students and professors, and wounded two dozen more, in a half day rampage before taking his own life.
This paper looks at the disturbing incident and its aftermath by examining the day-to-day chronology of the British presses’ coverage of the events which focused – for the most part – on two issues confronting American society: ready access to hand guns, and violence in movies. Other themes as to why such a tragedy could happen in America in the first place are also presented, including a discussion of psychopathic youth, the masculinity connection, lack of parental involvement, and mental health issues experienced by college students. Finally, safety procedures implemented on university campuses within the past year in the wake of the shootings are also put forth.
The Chronology of the Event
Similar to coverage in the United States and, for that matter, throughout the world, the shootings at Virginia Tech were widely covered in the British press for seven days, both in the sensationalistic, tabloid press as well as the liberal and conservative mainstream press.
Day One
For the first several days following the event, it was front-page, headline-grabbing news in London. Even The Independent, generally a more moderate paper, had a wrap-around, front-to-back banner and color photo proclaiming, “Massacre On Campus,” in its morning account on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, the day after the shootings. (British time is eight hours ahead of the United States.) With the morning papers going to press around midnight, they did not have too much time to detail the story, other than reporting the actual event itself. The Independent also included a detailed map of the school and layout of the shootings in that first day of coverage.
Other newspapers that day carried front-page, splashy photographs and sensationalistic headlines such as: “Killer Traps Victims in Classroom,” and “Lone Gunman Kills 32 in Rampage.” Obviously, the focus was to sell papers and outdo the competition. Of note, was the extensive amount of press space in British papers given to this sad event.
Day Two
The second day of British press coverage shifted its focus to what would become a very prevailing and reoccurring theme in the lifespan of the story on Virginia Tech. Over the years gun control has been explored continuously in the media, and it seemed to be where the British news media expressed its earliest critique of what might be “wrong” with American society.
Ready Access to Guns
Perhaps the most interesting depiction of the dominant British views on gun control was illustrated through a political cartoon in The Times, drawn by Peter Brookes (1). President George W. Bush was shown in a deserted Texas-looking atmosphere, strapped with a variety of different types of guns and ammunition. The Texas Star, which President Bush was shown reading, depicted a replicated drawing of a photo that was found on the cover of many newspapers when the Virginia Tech shootings had first happened. The emphasis in the cartoon was in the heavily armed President’s reaction to the newspaper, which showed him with arms spread wide, a smirk on his face, and the caption: “Search Me!”
“The Constitutional Right to Bare Butts,” a political cartoon found in The Independent on this second day of coverage, took aim yet again at the issue of gun control through another unfavorable caricature of the President (2). This cartoon illustrated Bush, armed with two 9-mm, in a pose similar to that which shooter Cho had assumed in his self-made video. In the political cartoon, the President’s pants were brought down to expose his rear end with the words “Gun Control My Ass!” tattooed on it. The cartoon itself had the President’s face depicted in an exaggerated manner with excessive wrinkles, red-eyed, extensively pointy ears, and a mouth that made him look like he had been panting. The President was also equipped with gloves and a baseball cap, worn backwards, perhaps trying to convey a risk-taking, gang-like feel.
If cartoons such as these did not say enough, the views were spelled out quite clearly throughout several of the newspapers. “Acquiring weapons like this in the US is absurdly easy – and Virginia has some of the least restrictions of any state,” criticized one newspaper. The editorial went on to state how, “Anyone over 18 can buy a pistol, an Uzi machine gun, or even an AK-47 assault rifle, online if they wish, with unlimited supplies of ammunition and minimal background checks.”
The ease in which one could obtain such items in America was of major concern in the British press. Equally baffling to them, as expressed in The Times, was the idea that such a young individual like Cho would be able to supply himself with such a vast amount of fire-power when there was really no need in attaining the firearms to begin with. One article noted, “No ordinary person should need to own weapons like that. However ‘inalienable’ the right of American citizens to bear arms, a law that allows, and even encourages, an 18-year-old (sic) to acquire an automatic pistol and then stock up with enough ammunition to kill 32 people is an insane law!” (3)
Concerns about the lack of gun control were not the only focus in the British press on this second day of coverage. Similar to the press in the United States, there were articles on – and pictures of – the individual people who had gotten killed, with pictures of the dead shown; and headlines of those teachers who had heroically tried to save students and intervene. There was also some mention of the television address to the nation given by President Bush in order to calm an alarmed U.S. citizenry.
Some papers began focusing on possible motives for the attack, quoting Cho as stating, “You Made Me Do It,” and depicting him as someone who “Hated Rich Kids.” Other news articles mentioned how students on the Virginia Tech campus had quickly alerted other students and the outside world – vis-à-vis the internet (Facebook) – about what had happened shortly after the incident.
Of note, however, was the British presses’ lack of mentioning much about the killer’s background (such as his socio-economic status), although they did cite he was of Korean heritage, and in his twenties. By contrast, by the second day of coverage in the American press, news stories were quick to dwell on the young man’s struggle as a Korean-American, and his difficult economic situation – compared to his family’s more affluent upper-middle class neighbors. Newspapers in the United States also began to speculate about the difficulties Cho might have faced through his attempt at assimilation into an American culture that was dramatically different from the traditional one he was accustomed to during the first years of his life when he was reared in South Korea.
Instead of a review of these possible aspects that went into shaping Cho’s life, the British press chose to concentrate on an overwhelming amount of information on the issue of the absence of gun control in America, as previously mentioned. Interestingly, as well, was the lack of any mention in the British press about the possibility of such an event occurring on a university campus within Great Britain.
Day Three
By Thursday, April 19th, the third day after the shootings, the massacre was still the major news in the British press, not all front-page stories, but still covered in every paper. By now the British press had sent its own reporters to the United States. The more detailed coverage now included these reporters interviewing students on the Virginia Tech campus, and “specialists” trying to explain why such a tragedy had occurred in the first place.
Six major topics emerged in all of the British papers that day: a continued discussion of guns and murder, a possible tie-in to American movies, the victims of the shootings, insight into Cho, observations by Virginia Tech professors, and the impact of the event on the Korean community both in the United States and abroad.
Expanding on the theme introduced in Day Two, the British press continued to criticize America’s lack of gun control and how the “Right to Bear Arms” was enshrined in the American constitution. An American “macho gun culture” was depicted in much of the British press, in everything from movies and television to the war in Iraq, as well as in the demeanor exhibited by President Bush. One political cartoon, which appeared in the Comment section of The Times, illustrated the emphasis on greater issues at hand, such as the war in Iraq (4). This cartoon, set in Baghdad, depicted a skeletal Grim Reaper sitting on a stool, watching the television with Cho’s face prominent on the screen. The caption read: “Virginia Tech Suicide Mass Killer,” and the Reaper said, “Big Deal!” as he turned toward the reader. The cartoon was an obvious display of where the focus should be: on the other mass killings happening in the world.
A second theme to emerge on Day Three involved criticism of the excessive violence in some American movies. Reviews of new films being released in the U.K. that weekend noted, in particular, the American film Alpha Dog. Starring singing pop star Justin Timberlake, Alpha Dog focused on a “gang of white rich kids running rampant in the middle-class districts of LA,” – as one review summarized the movie – “who are motivated by anger and hate toward society” (5).
Implied in the review is the similarity between the story-line in the movie and Cho’s imitative actions, with the belief that alienated youth drawn to such movies are from the same group to which Cho could be categorized. In the review of Alpha Dog, the question was asked, “Are violent movies responsible for implementing the ideals that come to be shared by young murderers?”
Other news coverage focused on the victims of the shootings. For instance, The Times displayed a full page dedicated to the victims with short biographies for each student and teacher given to commemorate their lives. Another article focused on one of the victim’s MySpace, and the eulogies posted there by friends and family. Yet another article interviewed immigrant families, people who had come to the United States seeking the American Dream only to have their children killed and their dreams shattered by members of other immigrant families pursuing the very same dream (6).
Photos of Cho in murderous stances were now sprinkled throughout the British newspapers, picked up from the American media’s coverage of the event, and sent over the international wire services. One depicted a menacing-looking Cho posing in combat-ready gear on the videos he had mailed to the media between shooting incidents. In the British press these images were analyzed by specialists asking questions and looking for insight on “What Tips A Troubled Mind Over the Edge?” (7)
There was also widespread speculation on Cho’s rejection in American society and his loss of affront. His behavior traits and disposition had some analyzing him as deeply depressed. Others argued that there was no such thing as “inborn wickedness,” contrary to the International Herald’s headline of the day: “Armed, Evil and Ready to Kill.” Perhaps this headline was so to make sure society was not excluded in helping to create such a disturbed person.
Other articles in the British press focused on Cho’s behavior in the classroom. There were plenty of “warning signs,” according to published testimonials and opinions. Even some of his university professors had started to speak out regarding Cho’s menacing demeanor inside the classroom, and the alarming content in some of his written course assignments.
Finally, the British press covered the reactions of South Koreans who expressed both shame and shock to the massacre. The Korean community in America was portrayed as fearful of a racial backlash and hatred toward their community, although it was recognized that Cho’s attack had not necessarily been racially motivated.
Day Four
By Day Four, the papers continued to recap the incident, cited his behavior in class, focused on how reserved and shy he had been, quoted specific students that had crossed his path at different points, interviewed his college roommates and some family members about his pattern of anti-social behavior, quoted from letters he had written, mentioned how he had been treated and bullied in his younger years in school, and described exactly what were included in the videos he had submitted to the American NBC network.
Not discussed in the British press was both the debate that occurred within the NBC network itself as to whether it should have released Cho’s videos, as well as any discussion of the controversy that ensued within the American media once the tapes were released over whether NBC had done the right thing by making the videos available to the broader press.
Themes of Violence in Movies
What wasnew included additional detailed analyses of the negative impact of violence in movies; pictures of Cho with guns, and the shocking similarity between the South Korean movie Oldboy and Cho’s own violent actions; as well as detailed analyses by psychiatrists, psychologists and sociologists with regard to trying to understand what had transpired.
Continuing a criticism of American popular culture, several newspapers ran detailed articles about the graphic themes that are depicted in contemporary films, implying these were factors in explaining Cho’s violent actions. All were run under attention-grabbing headlines such as: “Ultra-Violent Film Clue to Killing Spree,” “Killer Poses Inspired By Violent Movie,” “America, A Nation That Believes In Violence.” Although a broad range of topics were covered in these news articles, the framework of all of them seemed to center around the concept of violence in the film industry (8). The irony, of course, was that by sensationalizing the events in Virginia, the British press was in danger of exaggerating the incident in exactly the same way it criticized America’s popular culture as doing.
As far as specific American films were concerned, the British press singled out movies such as Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Rambo, The Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, Natural Born Killers, The Matrix, The Basketball Diaries, and Reservoir Dogs. Gerald Kaufman, writing for The Daily Telegraph, suggested that the moviemaker’s role in America today had evolved to a point to where they were responsible for much more than just entertainment: “All movie makers, whether they regard themselves as artists or simply manufacturers of conveyor-belt would-be entertainment should accept that they have a wider responsibility than simply to enable aimless people to pass the time until their next visual fix.” (9)
In addition, the critical praise for such R-rated movies was also brought into question by Kaufman: “Splatter movies, with scenes of exceptional brutality, are these days not simply tolerated and taken for granted, but regarded by modish film makers as material not only for admiration but imitation.”
Many opinion pieces and editorials in various newspapers on the fourth day used this focus on violence in American movies to take aim on American society as a whole. One columnist, Joan Smith, wrote: “The image is pure Hollywood: the lone avenger, armed to the teeth, ready to strike a blow against a cruel world.” (10) Smith went on to state that “America, a nation that believes in violence, needs to take a look at the type of message that (its) movies are sending to individuals in American society.”
Another columnist, David Frum, put forth the suggestion that Cho had been “engulfed into this same revenge type line of thinking. The irony to the massacre is that given Cho’s intense hatred of life in America, he chose to go through with the killings in a way which shows how thoroughly immersed in American popular culture he had become.” Furthermore, Frum noted, “This shouldn’t come as a great surprise, as long as American popular culture goes on repeating the same old message about the desirability of solving every type of conflict, from the personal to the geopolitical, through violent means.” (11)
Although such statements were an over-generalization, they aimed at the actions in not only the movies, but of American foreign policy and President Bush in particular for engaging in violent activity to solve problems (with respect to the war in Iraq) with the same violent methods that were glorified within American popular culture. This parallel was a criticism commonly expressed by the British print media. Basically, this line of reasoning implied that if one’s President was acting in a provocative and violent manner, why should a nation be surprised when some student solved his problems through similar means.
Several stories featured an in-depth analysis of the South Korean 2004 Cannes award-winning movie Oldboy. This movie, about “fifteen years of imprisonment…five days of revenge” – as the print ads read – had been watched by Cho, and his own criminal actions imitated scenes depicted in the film, as many of the British newspapers were quick to point out. Oldboy followed the life of a man who had been imprisoned for fifteen years and decided to go on a killing rampage against his captor after his release. Each article that mentioned this movie cited specific scenes in the film with pictures of Cho posing in a similar manner in the video footage that he made. The news articles incorporated all of the photos sent into NBC by Cho of himself, conveying the similarity, in a side-by-side comparison.
One chilling parallel showed the picture of Cho holding a hammer. In a scene in Oldboy, the main character “dispatches more than a dozen henchmen with the aid of a hammer,” clenched in a manner similar to Cho’s self-made photographs. One article stated that the amount of violence in Oldboy “makes Kill Bill look like the proverbial vicarage tea party.”
Several more detailed and thoughtful analyses were presented in the news articles on Day Four, written by treatment personnel and professionals who had worked with troubled youth. Dewey Cornell, a University of Virginia psychologist, in an article titled “A 21st Century Massacre,” writing for The Times, cited an “order effect” that might have taken place with respect to the continuous attributions of Cho’s acts to violent films. “The question arises,” cited Cornell, “as to whether he watched the film because he was already attracted to violence, or whether he was attracted to violence because he had watched the film.” (12)
In another article written for The Times, Theodore Dalyrymple argued that in people like Cho, “Notoriety seemed to their egos infinitely preferable to mere anonymity.” Different cultures have different attitudes and feelings toward social recognition and how important it is to the individual. The article suggested that America focuses on notoriety as opposed to remaining anonymous. Cho, it was suggested by Dalyrymple, yearned for a type of glorification present in so many American movies, and he believed he could take these visions of notoriety and make them a reality. By doing so, anonymity was certainly nothing he needed to be worried about (13).
American sociologist Barry Dank, colleague and friend, – in correspondence via e-mail with the senior author of this paper – noted that in Britain the emphasis was on films and apparently little on television news. Dank contends that it is through TV news that violent criminals get “immediate gratification and fame.” He expressed surprise that the British press had not gone into this.
Dank also sees a strong parallel between the actions of Cho and the character of Travis Bickle in the movie Taxi Driver: “…the videos done by Cho have an eerie resemblance to the scene in Taxi Driver in which Travis dresses up in with guns in front of the mirror and plays out his power fantasies. For Travis it is the mirror, and as technology develops it then becomes the video camera for Cho; mirror and camera become interchangeable.”
Likewise, Dank contends that many people simply missed a major similarity between Travis Bickle and Cho: “They correctly remembered that Travis survived his homicidal rampage and then became a hero. What they forgot is that Travis clearly attempted to kill himself after he did the killings. He put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger, but he was out of ammunition. Cho may have learned from Travis’s mistake. Cho took ample ammunition and there was no problem shooting himself in the head.”
Dank continues – in his e-mail – “I have no doubt that mirroring of self with guns as part of the body have been commonplace for committed gun owners; the gun becomes a power fetish, part of oneself, and for them taking away their guns represent an attack on self, an attack on one’s power. No wonder that there is such an emotional outpouring by them against gun control.”
Furthermore, according to Dank, “In the most basic sense gun control boils down not to a pragmatic issue, but to an emotional psychological issue. I do believe that only a very small percentage of gun owners feel that to exert their power and dominance they have to go out and shoot people; having the gun next to them or going out and shooting animals represents adequate gratification. Clearly guns as a power source do not have the same dynamic in Britain as it does in the U.S.”
Day Five
News articles on Day Five covered the funeral and the official day of public mourning as declared by the Governor of the State of Virginia. All in attendance were encouraged to wear the university colors of maroon and orange. Even President Bush wore a tie with those colors while attending the funeral. Bush also asked the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services to prepare a report to prevent future acts of violence.
It seemed that for the day, “Everyone Was a Hokie,” the school nickname, as one banner headline in a British paper proclaimed. The mourners gathered at a drill field on the Virginia Tech campus, just yards from Norris Hall where much of the killings had taken place.
There was also news coverage in Tel Aviv which focused on one of the professors, Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who had been killed by Cho at Virginia Tech. At the professor’s funeral in Israel, his sons took turns speaking in Hebrew, English and Romanian. International news teams were present for the remembrance as friends and relatives spoke, all of which was duly reported by the British press.
There were also mourners at Littleton, Colorado, the site of Columbine High School, who held a vigil for their own massacre (as well as for Virginia Tech) that had occurred eight years prior – nearly to the day – as the shootings in Virginia. On that morning of April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed one teacher, twelve students and then themselves. It was not surprising that news articles began to appear, noting the parallels between these two tragic events.
In the second edition of our book, Renegade Kids, Suburban Outlaws: From Youth Culture to Delinquency (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 2001), Randy Blazak and I devoted an entire chapter to the topic of “Suburban School Shooters,” in part as an attempt to understand why alienated youth would engage in such behavior as the Columbine tragedy. Reviewing the sociological literature on the topic at the time, we alluded to three basic patterns explaining such troubling behavior: First, the biosocial causes of violence, or psychopathic youth; second, to the role of masculinity in violent crime; and, third, to the crisis of parenting in the United States. It is useful to review some of the findings discussed in our earlier book to further understand what might have been factors which influenced Cho. Interestingly, none of the above three factors – and the research to be cited in the passages to follow – were topics of in depth discussion by much of the British press.
Psychopathic Youth
Although most contemporary researchers agree that there is overwhelming evidence that people are not “born criminal,” they will acknowledge that the biological causes of violence are worth addressing. In crimes that defy sociological explanation – where race, class, gender, education, abuse, and other social factors are not causal – biological explanations become increasingly helpful. Links have now been established between fetal brain alcohol syndrome, brain-stem damage, food allergies, learning disabilities, and nutritional deficiencies and violent behavior (14).
In retrospect, most of the school shooters were clearly disturbed. Klebold and Harris stunned even hardened reporters with their pre-massacre videos. In one such video Klebold says, “I hope we kill 250 of you,” and that “it” will be, “the most nerve-racking 15 minutes of my life, after the bombs are set and we’re waiting to charge through the school. Seconds will be like hours. I can’t wait.” (15)
Jonathan Kellerman, writing in his 1999 book Savage Spawn, contended that Klebold and Harris were psychopathic. Psychopaths are not crazy, but cold-blooded killers. As evidenced in their sick videos, the boys knew exactly what they were doing and what the ramifications were. Harris even expressed acknowledgement of the effect their plan would have on his parents. “They’re going to (be) put through hell once we do this…. There’s nothing you guys could’ve done to prevent this.” (16)
From Kellerman’s research, psychopaths simply love violence and will often resort to it out of boredom. “What turns them on is the kick, the high, the slaking of impulse – pure sensation – power, dominance, subjugation of the rest of us. The fun of crime.” (17) Psychopathic tendencies begin appearing at a young age, as early as 3. Violence and cruelty become character traits by 6 ½ years. Kip Kinkel, another school shooter, had been cruel to animals. Eric Harris was obsessed with violent games, much like Seung-hui Cho.
To place a psychopathic youth into a society that has easy access to guns is asking for tragedy. Kellerman’s solution is to limit access of youth to guns and protect society by removing dangerous psychopaths who are unlikely to be “cured.” High-risk kids must be given highly structured, loving environments and be schooled in morality (18).
It is important to point out that Harris, Klebold, and other school shooters like Cho were highly suicidal. They wanted to transfer their psychic pain to others on their way out. Gang researcher Lewis Yablonsky compared the school shooters to youths in psychiatric hospitals: “Youths with suicidal tendencies by definition have limited concern for their own lives and consequently care less about the lives of others.” (19)
The Masculinity Connection
The one constant in most all of the school shootings is that the attackers were male. Like crime in general, homicide is an overwhelmingly male activity. Ninety percent of those arrested for murder are boys or men (20). William Pollack, writing in his book, Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons From the Myth of Boyhood, argued that male violence is a result of masculine repression of emotions. From birth males are more emotionally expressive than females, but by age 5 or 6, they begin to repress that tendency. Pollack offered two reasons: First, shame is used to toughen boys up. Second, the early emotional separation of boys from their mothers stunts their emotional development. For boys, violence becomes their expression of emotion (21).
Violence becomes the result of a boy being pushed into adulthood too early and without sufficient emotional support. Violence is often seen as proof of manhood for boys, according to Pollack. That violent crime is the second leading killer of young men, after accidents, reflects that masculinity connection. Both reflect risk-taking behavior, where “boys will be boys.”
Earlier in the 1990’s, criminologist James Messerschmidt explored crime as a way of “doing gender” for boys and young men. Messerschmidt linked the maleness of crime to the masculine value structure. School shooters Harris, Klebold, and Cho all had histories as victims of bullies. In one of their videotapes, Harris lamented being a military kid, always having to move and start over at the bottom of the social ladder. “People constantly make fun of my face, my hair, my shirts,” he said (22).
Cho also was reported to having been victimized in high school. This experience, on top of normal surrendering of autonomy that school boys’ experience, led to the inevitable counter-swing. These boys and young men tapped into the dominant image of masculinity present in popular action films and gun violence. Using Messerschmidt’s theory, the dramatic killing sprees were the result of repeated experiences of emasculation that created a situation in which the boys needed to “do gender” to reclaim their manhood.
Important in these cases as well was the fact that they were being committed by younger individuals. Mass murders in the past tended to be crimes committed solely by adults. Now, sadly, with respect to school shootings, “real boys” had become the primary assailants.
Also different than let’s say in the 1960s and 1970s is how stress is handled by some young people. One could argue that growing up as a white middle class male in those times, youth felt the same kind of stress as today. But then youth might have resorted to drugs like marijuana, which was more than acceptable at the time, to get past the stress. Drugs were glorified in those days, compared to modern times where teenagers are exposed to – well – firepower instead of flower power.
Lack of Parental Involvement
The issue of uninvolved parents came to the forefront after Columbine. With their obsession with violent video games, threatening web sites, and their garage bomb factory, how could the parents of Harris and Klebold not known? It is very possible that they never really saw their sons. Besides the inclination of teens and young adults to be secretive, parents are working longer hours to afford their children a comfortable existence in a consumer-oriented, status-driven culture. Cho’s parents – it was pointed out in the British press – worked long hours in the family business in order to afford the niceties of their upper-middle class home and way of life.
Day Six
The sixth day of coverage by the British press focused primarily on Cho’s family background, and the so-called “red flags” that embodied Cho’s past. There were several interviews with family members depicting their shock in coming to terms with the fact that Cho was “capable of violence.” The articles brought up the issue of how “We can see the causes of his actions now, so why not before?” Headlines centered around this central idea, for the most part: “Campus Killer Punched Sister in Violent Rows From Age of Eight,” “American Psycho,” and, “He Never Spoke, But Frightened Everyone.”
New developments brought into light the story of how Cho had been “silent and withdrawn” as a child. According to one relative, he didn’t want to be hugged and would punch his sister “with ferocious rage.” This sister – who was looked upon favorably as one who had brought pride to her family – even ended up in being accepted to Princeton University. Another article surmised that while Cho externalized through violence his relationship with this sister, he learned to deal with his parents’ different methods by repressing his feelings. Other articles noted that as a young child Cho had been diagnosed as autistic. Interestingly, one news account even quoted his grandfather as saying: “Son of a bitch! It serves him right he died with his victims.”
Day Seven
One week after reporting on the tragedy, the British press had moved on to other news items, such as the on-going killings in Iraq. In the days to follow there would be isolated news stories on the tragedy but for all intensive purposes, it no longer was a priority item. Comparing the two incidents, one paper noted, “Thirty-two deaths can mark a good day in Iraq. On an average day, three times that number are murdered. The point of this is not to trivialize the incident at Virginia Tech, which is wrenching, but to expose the enormity of the problem in Iraq and how disproportional it is to the American political debate.”
One new focus was a discussion of those “Young, Vulnerable and Isolated” – as one headline proclaimed – on college campuses, and how universities needed to focus on mental health issues, the abuse of prescription drugs, and provide counseling and peer support groups for those in need. Sadly, this article noted, “Lecturers have less time for pastoral care these days.” (23)
Mental Health Issues on College Campuses
In a detailed article in the Spring 2007 issue of UC Davis Magazine titled “Troubled Minds,” Kathleen Holder reported a sharp rise in the number of students with psychological problems stretching campus resources (24).
The main points of the article listed the following surprising findings: roughly 1 in 10 students at UC Davis uses the Counseling and Psychological Services; in general the use of campus counseling centers across the University of California system is growing faster than the student populations (up 23 percent in usage, compared to a rise of 15 percent in enrollment); 25 percent of those students who seek counseling are already taking anti-depressants; 16 percent of college students nationwide report having been diagnosed with depression; and 1.5 percent reported attempting suicide in the prior year. The rise of student mental health problems, it was pointed out, was attributed to the greater acceptance of psychotherapy, better diagnoses and improved medications, and the decline in the stigma of mental illness.
According to the report, depression amongst college students is attributed to the stresses of modern life, including more people, pollution, academic and financial pressures; and/or concerns about terrorism, war, natural disasters, and other world events. The most vulnerable students on campus appear to be women (who comprise 70 percent who use the services), graduate and international students, minorities, gay and lesbian students, and veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq who struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder and are reluctant to talk about their experiences.
Other studies were reported in a weekly newsmagazine, focusing on mental health issues on college campuses. A Penn State Study of undergraduates conducted in 2004 reported that 8.3 percent of the student body reported having taken psychiatric medication; 22 percent had received counseling; and 1.6 percent had been hospitalized over psychiatric issues (25).
Furthermore, in another study conducted by the American College Health Association, 40 percent of students surveyed felt “so depressed it’s difficult to function.” Ten percent said they had “seriously considered suicide” (which remains the third leading cause of death among college-age students, after car accidents and homicide). Out of 154 suicides reported by colleges in another survey, 82 percent of the victims had no prior contact with the school’s counseling staff before taking their own lives (26).
To counter these critical issues, new support groups are now being formed on many university campuses. Called “Active Minds,” the groups focus on mental health issues and serve as a peer-led support group under the auspices of trained Clinical Psychologists. As of August 2007, there were sixty-nine chapter campuses with more than 1,000 members (27).
Recent Safety Measures
Besides the development of mental health services for college students, the other major change in the wake of the Virginia Tech Massacre has been the proliferation of campus safety measures. Shortly after the shootings, U.S. News & World Report had an April 30, 2007, front cover story: “Special Report: Campus Crime. How Safe Are Our Colleges?” Newsweek magazine, in August 2007, had a special edition on education that highlighted campus safety and informed parents and students as to how to tell whether-or-not a school was safe.
Security, it seemed, had become one of the foremost questions raised by parents and applicants during campus visits and orientation sessions. Most wanted to know about the procedures of a campus lock-down and how students and concerned friends and relatives would be informed about what might have happened on campus (i.e., vis-à-vis e-mails, cell-phone calls, text-messaging arrangements). Alarm systems have been strategically mounted throughout campuses, sophisticated plans for orderly evaluations have been put in place, and administrators and other campus staff have been trained in the event of a natural and/or man-made disaster. Campus police and security systems have been beefed up, including coordination with off-campus agencies. Even greater perimeter security fences, gate codes, parking lot accessibility cards and the like have been put into place.
Since most university campuses have sprawling open areas and a variety of road accessibility, it has been difficult to completely enclose a campus setting. Such measures have been used successfully on most K-thru-12 school campuses. Now-a-days, many high school campuses have airport-like entrance gates which scan teachers, students and staff alike for contraband items, including weapons, drugs, alcohol and sometimes cell phones, iPods, radios and other electronic items, as well as over-sized backpacks. Even so, many universities are better controlling and monitoring who is allowed entrance onto their facilities.
Some have even suggested that students be allowed to carry guns on campus in order to protect themselves in case of a Virginia Tech-like situation occurring in the future. Under the banner, “Armed Students = Safe Students,” currently three states – Virginia, Colorado, and Utah – allow students who are certified to carry guns on campus if their university campuses also sanction such behavior. An additional five states are also considering this measure.
Others have suggested that professors arm themselves in order to prevent an outbreak of violence inside their classrooms. These admonitions remind one of the calls for airline pilots to carry weapons in the wake of the 9/11 attacks when armed terrorists commandeered four airline jets and crashed them into New York City’s World Trade Center Twin Towers, and the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. Eventually cooler heads prevailed and airport security systems improved, and the presence of armed undercover agents on board selective national and international air flights became the adapted strategy instead.
But the question of an armed response as a defensive protective measure has continued to be espoused on some campuses, although many consider this to be a disturbing turn of events. “Fortunately,” as one university professor observed, “I don’t envision any of my colleagues ‘packing heat’ anytime soon. In fact, that might be real scary if it were to occur. Better we remain ‘sitting ducks,’ as it were, than have our university classrooms ‘armed to the teeth.’”
Most campus police now publish annual security reports. They strive to promote and maintain a safe campus environment. As a recent report by our campus – sent out to everyone by e-mail – noted, “We rely on community members to practice basic safety and prevention measures, keep a watchful eye, report crimes and suspicious activity, and work as active partners to address safety concerns. Students may also consider participating in our Community Service Officer Program, volunteer, and internship opportunities.”
Another recent development on some American college campuses is the presence of “Threat Assessment Groups,” comprised of deans, administrators, campus police and mental health officials who meet regularly to discuss a watch list of troubled students and decide whether they need professional help or should “be sent packing.” (28) One such committee in Kentucky, called “Students of Concern,” holds a twice monthly meeting to discuss those students whose strange or disturbing behavior has come to its attention. Students are also now encouraged during their freshman orientation to report any suspicious behavior on campus to the proper authorities. All of these efforts are an attempt to ward off any future Virginia Tech-like tragic incidents.
*The authors wish to acknowledge the able assistance provided by Jessica M. Burton with preliminary research as well as earlier drafts of this manuscript.
References
Peter Brookes, “Search Me!” The Times, (18 April 2007), Comment section, p.5.
Dave Brown, “The Constitutional Right to Bare Butts,” The Independent, (18 April 2007), p. 34.
Peter Brookes, “Baghdad…,” The Times, (19 April 2007), Comment section, p. 17.
Ibid., p. 21.
James Christopher, “Top Marks For Alpha Slackers,” The Times, (19 April 2007), Times2, p. 16.
Tom Leonard, “They Came to America For A New Life But Died At the Hands of One of Their Own,” The Daily Telegraph
(19 April 2007), pp. 14-5.
Carol Midgley, “What Tips A Troubled Mind Over the Edge?” The Times (19 April 2007), Times2, p. 11.
Catherine Elsworth, “Violent Images in Revenge Film Were Echoed By College Killer,” The Daily Telegraph (20 April 2007),
p. 5.
Gerald Kaufman, “Questions Filmmakers Must Ask Themselves After Virginia Tech,” The Daily Telegraph, (20 April 2007),
p. 24.
Joan Smith, “America, A Nation That Believes in Violence,” The Independent (20 April 2007), p. 37.
David Frum, “No Policy Can Outwit the Grim Reaper,” The Daily Telegraph (18 April 2007), p. 20.
Dewy Cornell, “A 21st-Century Massacre,” The Times, (20 April 2007), p. 4.
Theodore Dalrymple, “Notoriety Beats Anonymity,” The Times, (20 April 2007), pp. 4-5.
Larry Siegel, Criminology (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2006).
Nancy Gibbs and Timothy Roche, “The Columbine Tapes,” Time, (20 December 1999), pp. 40-51.
Ibid.
Jonathan Kellerman, Savage Spawn: Reflections on Violent Children (New York: Random House, 1999), p. 20.
Ibid., p. 52.
Lewis Yablonsky, Juvenile Delinquency into the 21st Century (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000), p. 147.
William Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myth of Boyhood (New York: Random House, 1998), p. 11.
Ibid., p. 356.
James Messerschmidt, Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory (Lantham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield, 1993).
Cassandra Jardine, “Young, Vulnerable and Isolated,” The Daily Telegraph (23 April 2007), p. 25.
Kathleen Holder, “Troubled Minds,” UC Davis Magazine (Spring 2007), pp. 18-21.
Daniel McGinn, “After Virginia Tech: A Tragedy Showed the Risk of Underestimating Mental Health Problems,” Newsweek
(August 20/August 27, 2007), pp. 70-1.
Ibid., p. 70.
Ibid., p. 71.
Jeffrey McMurray, “Colleges Keep Eye on the Troubled in Wake of Virginia Tech Massacre,” The Desert Sun (29 March 2008),
p. A-15. |
