Given the recent spate of massacres on university campuses, as well as high schools and workplaces, the best solution by far would be to pass much stricter gun control laws and regulations. Most campuses already ban firearms, of course, but this does nothing to prevent violent or mentally unstable persons from buying guns and using them on campus. Gun control has been a controversial topic of discussion in the United States ever since it was initially introduced in the 1920s. Guns are responsible for violence and that they need to be regulated more stringently to prevent further harm.
Violence on College Campuses
Virginia Tech could probably have avoided the terrible massacre of 2007 had its officials taken more timely and effective action with Seung Hui Cho. He had a very long record of mental illness dating back to middle school, including fantasies of violence and murder, and he had received psychiatric treatment in the past. His behavior at Virginia Tech was so disturbing to students and faculty that a court ordered him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation in 2005, although he refused all counseling. University officials did not discuss his case with each other or even with his parents for fear of violating state and federal confidentiality laws, although their interpretation of these was mostly incorrect. Even though medical and psychiatric records are confidential by law, there is an exception for students like Cho who are deemed a danger to themselves and others. Not only did he receive no psychiatric care, but he was also able to purchase two handguns in Virginia in violation of federal law. Since the tragedy at Virginia Tech, though, other universities have revised their policies and procedures so that they can identity potentially dangerous or mentally unstable students like Cho, and have them suspended, expelled or ordered into mandatory psychiatric treatment. This is exactly what colleges and universities should be doing, since the safety and security of the larger community must override privacy and confidentiality concerns in these cases.
The Massacre at Virginia Tech and the Failures of the University Administration
Seung Hui Cho fatally shot thirty-two students and faculty at Virginia Tech in 2007, and wounded seventeen before killing himself. He had a long history of mental illness dating back to middle school, and the university was aware of this, yet its officials also believed that federal and state privacy laws prevented them from discussing or disclosing this information. Cho had received psychiatric treatment for depression over the years, especially after he reacted to the 1999 shootings at Columbine with suicidal and homicidal writings, and he was on medication for a brief time. In Virginia he was able to buy two guns in violation of federal law because the state failed to report his history of mental health problems to the federal database. Even though the police did intervene effectively once the shooting spree began, the Virginia Tech police failed to warn the entire campus of the danger. Moreover, the state as a whole had inadequate provisions for mental health care, both on an outpatient and inpatient basis, or for involuntary commitment. Indeed, if Cho had been committed to a mental institution at some point, these shootings would have been avoided (Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech 2007).
Nor did the counseling center at Virginia Tech intervene effectively, even though a court had ruled him a danger to himself and others in 2005. Cho's behavior at Virginia Tech provided numerous warnings that he was a danger to himself and others, but the university failed completely to take corrective action. Two female students complained that he was stalking him, and many others were disturbed enough by his behavior that they refused to attend classes with him. An English instructor was so unnerved by his violent poetry that she threatened to quit unless he was removed from her class (Burlin and Gammage 2007). University officials believed that they could not force him into counseling despite the 2005 court order that he should undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
Social work and the legal, medical and mental health care professions all operate under strict ethical and legal guidelines about the protection of client confidentiality. Without an atmosphere or trust and confidentiality, these professions that gather the most sensitive kind of personal information simply cannot function at all. Among these are the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) which includes a Privacy Rule requiring protection of all confidential information transmitted by phone or electronically. In the last ten years "we have become so accustomed to relying on technology that careful thought is not always given to subtle ways that privacy can be violated" (Corey et al. 2007, p. 227). In an environment with relatively new technologies like email, cell phones, voice mail, clients are rightfully concerned that violations of privacy and leaks of confidential personal information have become more common than ever before. Legal and ethical guidelines prohibit the disclosure of confidential medical, psychiatric and legal information to unauthorized third parties. All providers have to be especially careful about passwords and access codes to voice mail, email and answering machines, or sending information via email and cell phones to persons or organizations other than their clients. Confidential information should never be sent to workplace computers or phones since employees have no right to privacy there. In fact, employers have the right to monitor email and phone calls in their location or using their own telephones and computers, and also to monitor the activities of employees with hidden cameras and other spy devices, so workplace privacy can hardly be said to exist at all.
Virginia Tech officials believed that HIPAA and the 1974 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibited disclosures of a student's mental health records without a signed waiver, but this was not true. FERPA states that medical and psychiatric records are confidential, except in cases of disciplinary actions or when the student's conduct is a danger to themselves or others, as Cho's clearly was. They feared civil or criminal liabilities for violating these privacy and confidentiality laws, and they could not suspend students without a formal disciplinary hearing. Nor could they have them hospitalized or order them to seek counseling without their consent, and Cho refused (Burlin and Gammage 2007). Virginia Tech's officials and attorneys did not even believe they could share this information with his parents, although his middle school and high school had when he showed signs of mental illness and a propensity for violence (Christian Science Monitor 2007)
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.