By Staff

The grisly shooting at Virginia Tech this week could have happened at any college campus. The two students in their dorm rooms and the 30 others, including faculty members, who assumed they were safe within the walls of their classrooms, could have easily been gunned down in Nassau or Breslin Halls.

This is not to say that Hofstra is not a safe campus. Browsing through the campus safety report, it appears that Public Safety has their hands filled with alcohol violations and thefts, but aside from these petty offenses, the campus is relatively peaceful. However, this lack of violence is more of a testament to the behavior of students at Hofstra, than to the capabilities of Public Safety, for at the end of the day, swipe-card systems and unarmed patrolmen can do little to stop a crazed student with a loaded weapon.

While the University community, along with the rest of the world, sends their condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the V-Tech massacre, and struggles to understand this horrific act, colleges across the country are wasting little time in assessing their own security plans. Hofstra is no different. Less than 48 hours after the shots rang out on V-tech’s campus, the administration sent students an e-mail message assuring them that the University does have an emergency response plan and crisis team, and that they will be reassessing campus security procedures in light of the deadly shooting in Blacksburg, Va. Among the measures being considered is using text messages to send out emergency alerts to students’ cell phones, a practice that was implemented at Penn State in the fall. Other colleges have proposed school-wide intercoms, warning sirens and closed circuit T.V.s – a system that is already in place at Hofstra, putting the campus ahead of most schools in security technology. (Poke fun at the Hofcast all you want, but those flatscreens could be a vital communication device in the event of a campus emergency.)

Nevertheless, all these communication tools can be effective at alerting the campus community, but they will not prevent an attack nor protect someone who is staring into the barrel of a gun. To make any real advancements in campus security, students will have to make sacrifices and this conversation will have to shift to one resembling the discussions that followed the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

First, will students and the rest of the academic community be willing to depart with the open learning environment that is standard on most campuses? Hofsra students already gripe about self-locking doors and having to swipe into dorms and computer labs, so will they accept armed guards and metal detectors outside entrance to academic buildings?

Not surprising, rights to privacy would also be curtailed if universities were to make use of all resources available to protect the safety of the thousands of students and employees. More swipe access points and security cameras would allow the University to better track campus activity, Public Safety could be given the power to search dorms and even students’ vehicles if, for example, they believe someone is in possession of a weapon, and criminal background checks and gun licensing records could be required of all members of the community. People are afraid to discuss limiting freedom – something we Americans value greatly, but this security comes at a high price. So, if we are going to demand more of our educational institutions, first we must decide what our safety is worth.

Many critics want to blame V-Tech for its delayed response in alerting students in the two hours between the first and the second shootings. Where V-Tech is at most fault, is there failure to intervene in preventing the problem prior to April 16. When the shooter’s professor alerted the chair of her department to the young man’s disturbing writing material, and suspicious behavior, the options she was given – force him to withdraw from the class, tutor him or suggest counseling – were limited and did not address the problem. Many students who came in contact with Cho Seung-Hui have said that they were not surprised to learn he was responsible for Monday’s carnage. If a student behaves in manner that suggests he may be a threat to himself or to the rest of the community, counseling should not be suggested, it should be required. That student should be escorted into a therapist’s chair and if he or she resists, they should be immediately dismissed from campus. Yes, this would definitely violate students’ rights, but when you have a relatively open community, where thousands of lives are at stake every day, you cannot afford to take a hands-off approach and allow students to slip through any cracks in the system. Who knows, perhaps even Seung-Hui would have found some inner peace from working with a counselor that not only would have saved the 32 victims he murdered, but maybe his own as well.

The University currently has the Request for Early Assistance and Coordinating Help program (R.E.A.C.H), which encourages professors to contact the office of New Student Support if a student exhibits suspicious behavior in a class. Yet, in 2005, many faculty members, when speaking with The Chronicle, said they were unfamiliar with this program. Therefore, it is not often utilized. Despite all the support and counseling services at the University, at the end of the day, it is up to the troubled student to decide whether or not he or she wants to receive help. However, a person who is not in healthy, rational state of mind does not possess the ability to make this decision. They may just mope around their dorm room or they may inflict harm to themselves or others. Their actions cannot be predicted and there is too much at stake for the University to step back and say “Oh, well.” In 2004, a University freshman committed suicide in Twin Oaks. The young man had stopped attending class, started drinking more and had become withdrawn. Although subtle, there were some warning signs, but no vigorous attempts to intervene. In November 2004, this young man took his life, on April 16, 2007, Cho Seung-Hui did the same, only he took 32 others with him.

We can transform our colleges into maximum security prisons, purchasing high-tech tools and surrendering our rights, but the most effective means of preventing these tragedies from striking on campus is to treat the problem earlier and at the source. To do this, all we need is to pay a little more attention and show more concern for one another.

by Andres Soto