Search News


Browse Archives

News

What Changed, and Didn't, After Virginia Tech

May 28, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

April 16, 2007 changed Virginia Tech irrevocably. But how much did the shootings of 32 students and professors on the Blacksburg, Va., campus change the rest of higher education?

It will probably be a long time before that question is answered fully. But in a presentation this week at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, researchers from the Midwestern Higher Education Compact offered an initial analysis of some of the more practical changes that campus officials said they had made in the wake of the Virginia Tech incident. Their study, "The Ripple Effect of Virginia Tech: Assessing the Nationwide Impact on Campus Safety and Security Policy and Practice," finds that most two-year and four-year colleges and universities reviewed and in many cases significantly altered their campus safety procedures, especially in terms of notifying students about possible danger and dealing with students who displayed signs of trouble.

But on balance, the survey also found, campus leaders generally shunned the sort of wholesale changes to their admissions or other policies that might have been seen as severely restricting the campus culture or trampling on individual rights. While more than half of respondents said they had considered installing metal detectors at entrances to classroom buildings, and about a third said they had contemplated adding questions to their admissions applications that asked would-be whether they had had previous psychiatric treatment, few did so.

"It's interesting what they talked about and didn't do," said Gina Johnson, a researcher at the Midwestern compact who co-wrote the report with Chris Rasmussen, director of policy research there. Despite significant pressure from many sources (legislators, parents, etc.) to react aggressively to the Virginia Tech crisis, in many cases campuses "didn't go to extremes" in response.

The survey, conducted by the multistate Midwestern compact and funded by two insurers, AIG and Lexington Insurance Company, asked officials at a national mix of colleges a series of questions about changes on their campuses since the Virginia Tech shootings (Midwestern colleges responded slightly disproportionately and Western campuses slightly disproportionately, the researchers said).

The vast majority of the 331 two- and four-year campuses that responded said they had conducted thorough reviews of their campus safety and security policies and procedures, with Southern colleges (those closest to Virginia Tech) most likely to have done so (at 96 percent), followed by Northeastern (88 percent), Western (82 percent) and Midwestern institutions (79 percent). Bigger institutions were also likelier than smaller ones to have conducted such reviews.

Most said that they had altered their practices in response to the reviews, although "they were really doing a lot of things already," said Johnson. Among the most significant changes they did make: While just 5 percent of survey respondents said that they had incorporated mobile phones in their institutions' emergency notification systems before Virginia Tech, 75 percent of the remaining institutions said they had either implemented such technology since last April or had such a plan in the works.

Thirty-six percent of respondents to the Midwestern compact's survey said they had staged incidents to test their emergency response systems since the Virginia Tech shootings. Larger campuses were far likelier than smaller campuses to have done so; 57 percent of institutions with more than 10,000 students had staged at least one incident, while 37 to 39 percent of colleges with between 1,000 and 10,000 students had done so, and 14 percent of institutions with enrollments under 1,000.

Among other changes:

  • Thirty-five percent said they had increased their institutionwide budgets for 2007-8 for safety and security as a direct result of Virginia Tech.
  • More than half of institutions said they had reviewed their policies under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and about a quarter of those said they had changed how they carry out the federal student privacy law and communicate student information either internally or externally.
  • Twenty-four percent of survey respondents said they had revised language in the student handbook related to disturbing or threatening student behavior, and 38 percent reported that their institutions had conducted general awareness campaigns to help students recognize such behavior in others.

The Balancing Act

As noteworthy as what changed was what did not. More than half of respondents said they had considered installing metal detectors at entrances to classroom buildings, and nearly half said they had considered installing closed circuit security cameras in individual classrooms. But in both of those cases, most institutions opted not to go that route; 39 percent said they had discussed but rejected the idea of metal detectors (about 15 percent said the notion was still on the table), and about a third had decided not to go forward with cameras in their classrooms (more than 20 percent said they were still entertaining that possibility).

A similar outcome emerged regarding admissions policies. About 30 to 35 percent of respondents said they had considered adding questions to their admissions application asking whether applicants had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons, received any psychiatric or psychological treatment, or were currently taking medication to treat a psychiatric or psychological condition. Most of the rest said they had not even considered asking such questions, and virtually none of the campuses that contemplated doing so said they actually wound up asking such questions.

More than half of respondents said they had not considered the prospect of starting background checks of applicants for admission, and 14 percent reported considering but rejecting the idea. Fifteen percent said they had discussed the possibility and were still weighing it. "Only 3 percent ... reported that background checks were being conducted in the 2007-8 admissions cycle," the report said, and less than 2 percent said they planned to do so in the future.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on What Changed, and Didn't, After Virginia Tech

  • Campus Safety
  • Posted by Howard Robboy , Associate Professor Sociology at Thew College of New Jersey on May 28, 2008 at 8:20am EDT
  • It does not cost any money to comply to the letter and spirit of the Clery Act. If the top priority of most college and university presidents was to maximize the safety of their students as opposed to the public image of their institutions, the article above would be very different.
    Howard Robboy, Ph.D.
    Department. of Sociology
    The College of New Jersey
    Advisory Board Member
    Security on Campus, Inc.

  • scary...missing mental health services
  • Posted by Annonymous on May 28, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • It's scary that increasing mental health services and the promoting the availability of such services isn't even mentioned.

  • Heads in the Sand
  • Posted by Virginia on May 28, 2008 at 10:00am EDT
  • I’m sickened that this vicious cycle occurs over, and over, and over again. Repeatedly! There is a historical record of incidents. First a horrific campus shooting, with parasitic media coverage of the pandemonium, panic and fear, followed by mourning rituals, candle-light vigils, and statements by officials. Then the press digs up the whole sordid story of the killer’s background, and publishes headlines about what could POSSIBLY be the cause. Then we engage in a cacophony of discussion and formulate band-aid measures for improving security, congratulating ourselves for “addressing the issues”. By then it's time for a one-year anniversary to commemorate the victims. But until we find the backbone to address the fundamental problem, which is the easy and cheap access to guns, especially military-grade weapons of war, in American society, we can just sit back and wait for the next tragedy to occur.
    Anonymous

  • Posted by Chris on May 28, 2008 at 11:45am EDT
  • I applaud them, actually. There are lots of things that could make us more secure, but it's important to weigh the benefits of those measures against other things we value, like an open campus culture. Ultimately, I don't think the marginal increase in safety (shootings are, after all, very rare) is worth metal detectors in the classroom.

  • Posted by Matthew Hakes , Student at Case Western Reserve University on May 28, 2008 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Trying to prevent these kinds of attacks is only one part of making a campus safer. It is equally important to consider ways to minimize the damage in the event of an attack.

    One idea that should be considered more is allowing students with concealed carry permits (if allowed in that state) to carry their firearms on campus. The main reason campuses are vulnerable to these kinds of attacks is because the attackers are the only ones with guns (unless you have an armed officer in each classroom). As we have seen several times, it doesn't take long for one person to take many lives when they are the only one with a weapon. Every time it happens I can't help but think about what might have happened of one of the students in the room also had a gun. A single armed student could have taken out the attacker before he took as many lives.

    Unfortunately, this solution could not prevent all casualties because it would take time for an armed student to react to the situation. In that time a attacker could get a few shots off and injure or kill a few people. However, this solution would prevent attackers from going on killing sprees and taking 30+ lives.

  • Posted by California Risk Manager on May 28, 2008 at 6:50pm EDT
  • While most reasonable adults would agree that compliance with the letter & sprit of the Clery Act is reasonable and prudent, Howard Robby’s statement “It does not cost any money to comply to the letter and spirit of the Clery Act” shows a complete lack of understanding of the economic realities of operating a college campus. Erroneous statements such as his cause far too much polarization, when what is need are rational solutions.

  • Where is the discussion of mental health services?
  • Posted by Lisa Macke on May 29, 2008 at 12:10pm EDT
  • I continue to be dismayed by the lack of attention payed to the pervasive problem of underfunding mental health services on college campuses. This article speaks to that, as mental health services are not even addressed as something assessed by universities in the wake of the VA Tech shootings. It is unfortunate and costly for universities to continue to underfund these services, and it smacks of ignorance for Inside Higher Ed to not even make mention of the issue in this article.

  • FERPA needs to be changed
  • Posted by ccbassin on June 2, 2008 at 12:50pm EDT
  • As long as colleges are given freedom to interpret FERPA as they wish, and as long as federal funding is directly tied in with FERPA, the issue of student mental health and how to deal with it will always take a back seat to what is promoted as "protecting privacy" but has really little to do with it. Colleges don't really care about protecting privacy as much as they care about protecting their federal funding. The two issues need to be separated.

    Another problem tied directly to is money is the fact that an 18 year old college student is considered a full fledged independent adult even though that 18 year old college student's financial aid and rewards--which are determined by the college--are completely dependent on their parents tax return. Again, it's not so much about treating 18 year olds as young, independent adults, as it is about how much money to dole out to these individuals based on their dependent status on their parents' tax returns. If they were truly independent they would have no income base and colleges would have to release a lot more of their precious endowments.

    So here you have an 18 year old from an affluent family, who undergoes a mental health crisis in college. The college is unwilling to compromise their federal funding by "violating" that student's so called privacy rights. So the student becomes protected by college officials who refuse to involve family and outside professionals that could help that student. The student's mental health deteriorates but he or she has not attempted suicide or committed a violent act and so is considered "safe". Until such an act is committed--nothing is done to improve the student's mental health. So it will always be too late when such a student does go off the deep end.

    It is a vicious circle where the real issue is money, not privacy. The parents who are paying the tuition and everything else are left in the dark or if they try to get involved are effectively shut out by college officials afraid of losing their funding. Nobody except the family really cares about the student.

    Mental illness is a disease and people between the ages of 18 and 21 are most susceptible to it. This is the very same age group attending college. As we understand more about mental illness and become more aware of it, the frequency of it on college campuses rise. It was always there but now it has a name. This poses huge problems for college officials who are resistant and unwilling, and ultimately unequipped to deal with this widespread and difficult disease.

    FERPA is one of the worst laws ever written when it comes to 18 to 21 year olds. The ACLU blew it when they gave 18 year olds the full rights of full fledged adults while they are still dependent on their parent's tax returns. In the end it is all about the money. Not about the human being.

    A thousand VA Tech commissions can make their recommendations but until FERPA is changed along with financial aid and awards there is nothing anybody can really do to change the cult like atmosphere of colleges when it comes to protecting the privacy of the mentally ill and shutting family out in the name of that privacy. It's all about the money and that is where the change needs to start.

  • Re : ‘What Changed, and Didn’t, After Virginia Tech’
  • Posted by madhu on August 26, 2008 at 5:11am EDT
  • This is nothing but people getting hysterical over nothing. There are over 300 million people in the US and there have been what? 10, 20 shootings this decade? Isolated cases mean nothing.
    --------------------------------
    Madhu

    http://www.drugtreatments.com/virginia