Many questions have surfaced in the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech in which Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and later himself. One of the situations most pressing questions is could it have been prevented?
In recent reports, former classmates of Cho have described the English major as introverted and unstable. His writing has been characterized as violent and “disturbing.” Universities across the country are beginning to question how students’ writings should be perceived.
Liz Ahl is currently chair of the English Department here at PSU. In her 16 years of teaching, Ahl has inevitably come across “disturbing” elements in students’ writing such as violence, racism and homophobia, but nothing that has merited serious action. “I don’t see a lot of it, but I have seen some,” Ahl said. According to Ahl, the majority of it would come up in the Composition classes she has taught. Composition, a core class in PSU’s general education program, is one in which students are typically encouraged to write non-fiction narratives on themselves and their lives. Naturally, students tend to reflect on their emotions and their writing becomes largely personal. Although Ahl’s concern has been raised before, she says she has never come across anything to the degree of what’s been reported on Cho’s writing.
In a recent Boston Globe article, staff writer April Simpson quotes a Northeastern writing teacher’s response to two of Cho’s plays: “What I saw in Cho’s writing was hatred and rage. It was not literature. It was not a creative effort. It was a, ‘Dear reader, this is my hatred. Look at it.'”
“I’ve been approached by a couple faculty members who expressed interest in talking about this,” said Ahl, referring to the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Similar meetings are becoming more common at other universities and the answers are anything but definite. In Simpon’s Globe article, she notes how, “A number of professors said that there is no form or checklist for identifying signs of mental illness in students’ writings, and they have to handle each situation on a case-by-case basis.”
In other words, professors have no definite code to follow in differentiating between imaginative writing and that of someone who is mentally afflicted or possibly violent. It’s not unusual for students to experiment in creative writing. Again, this relates to a quote in Simpson’s article from the director of creative writing at Harvard when he says, “I can’t ban conflict. It would undo the fabric of fiction.”
As of now, there are no changes planned for PSU’s English Department or its writing classes. “It’s still early,” said Ahl, “but I am very interested in hearing what both students and faculty think about this issue.” Other than discussion, it’s hard to say exactly what, if anything can be done. Teachers can be apprehensive over a student’s work, but it is not their job to play the role of psychologist or therapist.
FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. In other words, FERPA prevents teachers from sharing the work of adult students without the consent of that student. Even if a student’s writing has alarmed a teacher, that teacher is prohibited from sharing the work with the student’s parents or from forcing the student to seek counseling.
After the Virginia Tech massacre, FERPA is being questioned. However, it’s arguable what advantages altering FERPA would have in the context of preventing school shootings by giving teachers the right to report student writings if they deem it “dangerous.” It’s doubtful that this would have a big impact because someone’s writing is not a means for condemnation if they haven’t done anything. Also, the integrity of art in general runs the risk of being compromised if rules are set on students’ imaginations.
Although many people are meeting on what to do, it’s likely that the implementation of new programs, such as one in which suspect students could be profiled, would be something that looks good on paper and protects universities against lawsuits rather than students.
As reported in a CNN.com article, “Cho was referred by campus police to outside mental health care, but once he entered the system his treatment became private and could not be shared with his teachers or anyone else at the university unless there was an explicit threat.”
It’s clear that this is a very complex issue and no single change to the way students’ writings are received could prevent a tragedy like that of Virginia Tech with absolute certainty. There are different options for teachers, though, “I’ve always tried to focus on form and technique in my writing classes,” said Ahl. According to Ahl, discussing aspects of writing such as technique helps to show students that the process of making art can be a separate thing from yourself. At the same time Ahl also said that, “If someone is troubled in class, I can’t pretend it’s not happening.”
Overall, it appears that judging a student’s writing as a sign of a possible murderer is by no means valid. A student may put up red flags or warning signs, such as Cho did with his writing, but a student’s writing may only be a piece of the puzzle. Cho’s graphic work did not go unnoticed. His behavior and work even caused a “task force” of teachers to assemble. Even though Cho was removed from class and sent to counseling, he still caused the massacre at Virginia Tech. And maybe writing isn’t the biggest issue here. “The real scary thing about what happened at Virginia Tech,” said Ahl, “is that it appears that everyone was doing their job with the possible exception of whoever sold Cho the gun.”