Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Editorial: Separating fact and emotion
Their input should be welcome, and relatives of victims of the Virginia Tech shootings are owed a full accounting of events -- but not a seat on the panel.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
We can understand relatives of Virginia Tech shooting victims wanting representation on the panel investigating the April 16 killings.
But the presence on the panel of family members who are struggling to make sense of a senseless act that took loved ones from them would inject an emotional element that could cloud an investigative process that must remain independent and objective.
Emotion seeped from a strongly worded statement that was presented to the panel Monday on behalf of the relatives of 13 victims. Their anger and frustration was palpable in their demand for representation and a call for the panel to uncover "the unbiased truth" about the university's actions before and after the shootings.
"We are of one mind that we must, and will, be represented by membership in the work of this panel," the family members wrote. "This is, in our minds, non-negotiable and the minimum this panel owes to us. ..."
What the panel owes these grief-stricken victims is not membership, but a tough, clear-eyed accounting of all that happened -- on April 16 and before that fateful day -- that led to their terrible losses. The investigative panel must be one of dispassionate experts, not avenging angels, to produce credible results.
Yet family members do have a special interest in how the investigation proceeds. The panel should welcome the input of the Tech victims' relatives and keep them fully apprised of what members are learning and where they are planning to go with the information. The panel should share as much information as they can to satisfy relatives' desire to know -- and to dispel any notion that the panel process thus far has been less than forthcoming.
Virginia Tech likewise should be open to addressing relatives' concerns about the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund. The university ought to consult with families about how money is being raised and how the fund will be disbursed.
Tech spokesman Larry Hincker told The Washington Post that the university has never actively raised money for the fund. It was established instead as a way to channel unsolicited donations into one pot, he said.
That explanation alone may not satisfy family members' concerns. Tech should invite representatives of the relatives' group to discuss and clarify the fund's history and its future.
There is frustration in having no voice in the process, having no place at the table when the events that led to the setting of the table so horribly impacted these people's lives.
No one wishes to callously dismiss family members' concerns.
But Gov. Tim Kaine, upon outlining the Virginia Tech Incident Review Panel's work, said that its primary purpose "isn't blame, it's not recrimination, it's not pointing fingers."
The panel must be allowed to reach its conclusions not only through a process that adheres to that purpose, but a process that is free of emotionally charged accusations.
