The university argued that the definition of “timely” is still not clear.
“Today’s ruling could add even more confusion as to what constitutes a ‘timely warning’ at a time when unambiguous guidance is needed,” Hincker said. “It appears that timely warning is whatever the Department of Education decides after the fact.”
The federal report countered that since 2005, the Department of Education has stated that the determination of whether a warning is timely is based on the nature of the crime and the continuing danger to the campus.
While Thursday’s finding makes official the federal verdict for the university, it echoes some of the conclusions already made by a state commission that investigated the shootings. That panel also found that the university erred by failing to notify the campus sooner.
The state reached an $11 million settlement with many of the victims’ families. Two families have filed suit and are seeking $10 million in damages from university officials. A judge recently ruled those lawsuits could move forward.
One victim’s mother was satisfied that the federal report included actions that Virginia Tech officials took to protect themselves that morning. Victims’ families had long wanted those details included in the report of the state commission.
“They couldn’t fine enough money for what happened that day and how it altered our lives,” said Suzanne Grimes, whose son Kevin Sterne was injured in the shootings. “It’s more about the truth of what happened. That’s what I sought for all these years.”
The university said one official advised her son to go to class anyway, while another only called to arrange for a baby sitter.
But the federal report notes a few actions on campus after word of the shootings spread but before the eMail warning was sent: a continuing education center was locked down; an official directed that the doors to his office be locked; the university’s veterinary college was locked down; and campus trash pickup was suspended.
“If the university had provided an appropriate timely warning after the first shootings (in the dormitory), the other members of the campus community may have had enough time to take similar actions to protect themselves,” the report said.
S. Daniel Carter, director of public policy for Security On Campus, a nonprofit organization that monitors the Clery Act, said he found Virginia Tech’s response troubling.
“Our fundamental goal is not to place blame, but to make sure students are kept safer,” he said of the Act. “But their policy arguments would be very detrimental to protecting students all across the country if they were to be accepted.”
The Clery Act requires colleges and universities to report information about campus crime. To receive federal student financial aid, the schools must report crimes and security policies and provide warning of campus threats.
It is named after Jeanne Ann Clery, a 19-year-old university freshman who was raped and murdered in her Lehigh University dormitory in 1986. Her parents later learned that dozens of violent crimes had been committed on her campus in the three years before her death.
The report also found:
—The university’s eMail stated only that “a shooting incident occurred” and that the community should be cautious. The report said that could have led recipients to think the shooting was accidental and that it failed to give students and employees the “information they needed for their own protection.”
- Research: Social media has negative impact on academic performance - April 2, 2020
- Number 1: Social media has negative impact on academic performance - December 31, 2014
- 6 reasons campus networks must change - September 30, 2014