<p>
[quote]
marketing or not, if I had a student at U VA I would be very happy to hear that they at least have the authority to suspend dangerous students; this seems to me to be a crucial element in preventing future tragedies of this nature.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find the fact that people now think UVA is safer than Tech funny. Before this, that statement would have been laughable. I'm not trying to cut anyone down, I'm just saying - you're comparing Charlottesville to Blacksburg, which before this year had ZERO murders. Whatever authority UVA has over students, they've come under a lot of questioning about their crime rates, particularly in regards to sexual assault numbers. </p>
<p>I'm NOT saying that UVA is unsafe. I'm just saying. The weekend before April 16th, we were at Days on the Lawn too, parents remarking how they liked Tech because it's safe. Ironic now, but the point is, UVA never has been and probably isn't now, safer than Tech. With proper precautions, it isn't any more unsafe than lots of places, but UVA has come under a lot of fire too, for some high profile murders and other crimes. I find it ironic now that people are going to try and paint UVA as the anti-Tech. I think if Cho had gone there, we'd have about the same potential to still be facing this situation, I fear. </p>
<p>I would say Tech is not really in a comparable position with Harvard. Size wise, they aren't even in the same ballpark, not to mention other serious demographic differences. </p>
<p>Lock downs are useful for outside intruders, but really, let's face it. The shooter lived on campus. So they go into lockdown. He goes back into his dorm and waits it out like everyone else. They don't find anyone, or they keep questioning Emily Hilscher's boyfriend, convinced it's him. They couldn't stay locked down forever. Or Cho would have just been absorbed into a roomful of kids who were out on the drillfield - he could open fire in that room, with possibly even more disastrous consequences. He could just open fire in the midst of chaos as people scrambled around the drillfield. Lockdown procedures are important in the case of outside intruders, but the implications for a lockdown at the huge university level are very different than for the high school level where teachers know everyone in the room and can account for their whereabouts in the time leading up to the lockdown. I think if you want to prevent what happened at Tech, you're going to have stop things long before the events of the day are set in motion. By the time he had guns and planned to kill people, I don't think a lockdown was going to be able to stop him when he was a student with a legitimate ID. I don't agree with the pessimists who say "you're never going to stop someone from killing", but I don't think that extended to the day itself - you never expect something like this to happen, and he was a student. He belonged on that campus. He would have just locked down with the rest of them. I feel like people just want a false sense of security and that could prevent real changes from being made.</p>
<p>By this I mean we should not accept university presidents saying, oh yeah, we would have prevented it. Do we think they will say, "hmm wow we would have had a massacre here too! Sorry we aren't protecting your kids, hope you don't like them too much". Of course not. Instead people should recognize that many schools have problems - it wasn't like Tech was some free for all school, they had regulations too. It obviously failed. Real change needs to be demanded, not just accepted from the pacification of individuals in not just any time, but in the exact critical two week period before May 1st, as they scramble for their "yield." Of course they are going to say whatever you want to hear.</p>