Friday, August 31, 2007Tech president defends decisions officials madeCharles Steger disagreed with some of the panel's report without criticizing it.Panel reportChapters
Appendices
RelatedQ&A with panel memberTimescastPhoto galleryMessage boardComplete coverageBLACKSBURG -- Virginia Tech leaders walked the line Thursday, defending their decisions on April 16 without contradicting a state panel report that faulted their response and the way they handled shooter Seung-Hui Cho. The Virginia Tech Review Panel's report criticizes the time it took Tech to warn the campus about shootings in West Ambler Johnston Hall that morning, more than two hours before shootings in Norris Hall. It also finds fault with the way Cho was dealt with as a student, blaming internal communication issues at the school. At a news conference, Tech President Charles Steger reconciled differences between the report's conclusions and the university's actions multiple times by saying "reasonable people can disagree." And as he did in discussing the university's internal review last week, Steger talked about "hindsight bias." "We respect and commend the panel for the 'what might have happened scenarios,' " he said. "They are illustrative and useful for future actions. But nobody can say for certain what would have happened if different decisions were made. ... It is entirely possible that this tragedy, horrific as it is, could have been worse." Steger, Provost Mark McNamee and university spokesman Larry Hincker appeared somber but undaunted, never veering from the message they have conveyed since April 16: They are saddened by the loss, grateful for the support Tech has received and believe they did the best given what they knew at the time. Steger also defended the campus police department, which the report lauded for its response to the shootings at Norris Hall but bluntly criticized for not calling for warnings to be sent out after the dormitory shootings. Police Chief Wendell Flinchum was not at the news conference, but Steger said he would not be fired. "I have nothing but admiration for Chief Flinchum, and his job is not in jeopardy," Steger said. Steger also said he had no intention of resigning as president, as some victims' families have demanded. "There's a lot of anger and hurt out there," Hincker said. "I think that you will find, I think, almost unanimous opinion on this campus and in this administration, among our students and among our alumni that that would be a disastrously wrong thing to do." On campus, the report was the last thing on some students' minds as they chatted on cellphones or studied biology. Some had no knowledge of the state panel, or confused it with Virginia Tech's internal review, which was released last week. "I don't really give a crap about any panel," said sophomore Nathan Carter, who bowled with his friends inside Squires Student Center. He and some other students questioned said no report could make a difference to those who were injured or killed. Others believed the panel was created to appease the media. Still, as the news conference to discuss the findings aired, a small group of students huddled around a mounted television outside Au Bon Pain to watch. A few students clutched backpacks and spoke softly, eyes glued to the screen. Fred Cook, one of the students who escaped from Norris Hall by jumping out a second-story window, said while Tech can be faulted for not notifying the campus earlier, he's not sure it would have helped. Canceling classes would have put people in a different place, not necessarily protected them. "Regardless of any warnings, any lockdown that could have taken place that morning, Cho was dead set on a massacre," he said. Tech officials did concede that in the future schools and cities will likely give earlier warnings during similar events, regardless of how sketchy the details are. Other changes, from security to improving communication to training faculty and staff, are also in the works. But while willing to talk about future changes and express his sorrow, Steger stopped short of expressing any regrets, such as apologizing to the families for the university's actions April 16. "We acted in good faith the did the best we could and I don't think an apology is appropriate," he said. Staff writers Anna L. Mallory and Tim Thornton contributed to this report. |
.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....
|
