Campus Crisis Management: Planning only goes so far…

After the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April 2007, the institution and the administration were sharply criticized in the general public and in the media for their response and crisis-action plan. The New York Times published an article in August of 2007 (Virginia Tech Criticized for Actions in Shootings) that focused on a state panel’s recommendation that the university did not act quick enough to alert the public (students and community) of the hostile situation on campus. The panel claims that by doing so, the university failed at a preventing the deaths within the campus community. In the article, the university falls in a dang-if-you-do-dang-if-you-don’t situation. While the panel felt that the university did respond properly to something as simple as a double-homicide on campus, it was chastised for not locking down the campus after premature police findings. After the tragedy at Virginia Tech, colleges across the nation critiqued and strengthened their policies concerning campus crises.

Universities have gone above and beyond in terms of creating precise campus crisis response plans. For example, many institutions have implemented quick alert systems such as the Red Alert system at The University of Mississippi. To add to the technology, official university websites now feature “emergency information” as a topic on their main page as well as the implementation of social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter. As mentioned in a February 2008 article in The Chronicle (Colleges Must Create 'Culture of Preparedness,' Campus-Safety Experts Say), one expert went as far to say that it would not be surprising to see colleges implement a campus emergency response plan video at freshman orientation sessions. The article also mentions creating a “culture of preparedness” with the community. The main idea behind this culture is to communicate to the students. The state panel in Virginia found that this culture was absent on the campus of Virginia Tech. Regina Lawson, chief of police at Wake Forest University, even goes as far as saying that it is imperative that institutions not only implement emergency-response plans, but they practice them as well.

With all of this being said, planning can only carry an administration so far. John Buck of Webster University in Missouri mentions in the Chronicle (During a Campus Crisis, There Is No Substitute for Experience) that experience matters most when incidents arise. At an annual conference for the Association of College & University Housing Officers-International, only two of twelve officials responded that they relied on response plans and protocol to make decisions in times of crisis. The other ten officials said that their decisions were driven by previous experience and similar incidents. Unfortunately, experience is something that cannot be taught. It is suggested by Buck that younger staff members be brought in during times of crisis to observe how the situation is handled and what takes place. How will younger generations of staff members be able to respond in the future without experience from the past?

Freedom of Speech on Campus

"Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die."
-United States Supreme Court, 1957

In almost five years of working at The University, I have developed a deeper respect and understanding towards freedom of speech on college campuses. I remember while I was in college, several individuals (Brother Micah, Richard Barrett and the infamous Anthony Hervey) would visit the campus causing controversial scenes among students. Students would congregate in front of the Student Union supporting, opposing, and even arguing with these individuals. I can remember thinking to myself, “why would the university let these people come to campus?”. The above quote from the Supreme Court sums up everything I have gradually learned about Freedom of Speech in the realm of higher education. It is important for universities to provide an outlet for the display of organizations, or people, regardless of their beliefs, their history, and their relationship with the university.

By visiting the website for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, I was able to broaden my knowledge of First Amendment rights. The article titled “P.C. Never Died: Think campus censorship disappeared in the 1990s? Guess again.” (Reason Magazine) by Greg Lukianoff was very informative and provided a recent account of incidents involving censorship on campus. Lukianoff provides several examples that fall on both sides of the fence in terms of decisions and actions taken by institutions across the country. He argues that the mainstream media has begun to accept the PC-mindset on college campuses today. For example, Lukianoff depicts the story that involved a racial slur in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania and the media attention garnered by the situation. To contrast this situation, he also explained a situation involving a student/worker at Indiana University/Purdue University-Indianapolis. He was found reading a book that depicted “Klan-related” material on the cover that offended co-workers. This situation occurred in 2007 and did not garner any media attention for over a year and half. Was there disinterest on behalf of the media to cover this story or have universities succeeded at becoming more “PC”? I am sure there are plenty of valid arguments for either side.

Going back to what the Supreme Court stated, the institutions should provide a learning place for students to mature and understand the world they grow up in. In a way, some institions are inhibiting college students from exploring and questioning their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. Lukianoff says in his article that “The overwhelming majority of universities, public and private, promise incoming students and professors academic freedom and free speech. When such schools turn around and attempt to limit those students' and instructors' speech, they reveal themselves as hypocrites, susceptible not only to rightful public ridicule but also to lawsuits based on their violations of contractual promises.” Universities need to understand that the First Amendment extends to their grounds as well, and they only hinder the maturation and understanding process of students and faculty/staff by limiting their freedom of speech.

In conclusion, students should be allowed to speak, argue, debate, question and analyze topics they consider important to them. Universities are setting poor examples by punishing some individuals because of their expression. What student in their right mind would want to speak out on behalf of their beliefs if they know they will be punished afterwards? The sense of fear should not prevent students from voicing their opinions. Of course, after finishing my undergraduate work, I developed a better understanding of the purpose of having such unwelcome guests on our campus. By visiting our campus, they were fostering conversation among students at our university.

Link to magazine article: http://thefire.org/article/11456.html

Collegiality and Community on College Campuses

"Building a vital community is a challenge not just for higher learning, but for society at large.”

-Ernest L. Boyer, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Despite sounding like a common and basic word, many different definitions exist for the term community. One definition of a community refers to the concept as a physical locality. Another definition of community describes it as simply a society at large. While both of these definitions can relate back to the higher education realm, neither definition completely grasps what community means to the students in higher education. One definition stands out in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary in which it defines community as “a unified body of individuals.” This definition best describes the college experience for students. In our evolving world of higher education, constant threats endanger community and collegiality at our institutions daily. Some of these threats can be controlled, others, unfortunately, cannot. I want to address the concept of campus crises as well as technology on campus to further understand collegiality among college students.



In a review of the tragedy at Virginia Tech in 2007, Terry Wildman (“Sustaining Academic Community in the Aftermath of Tragedy”) questions the effect on the academic community after the incident. Wildman was concerned with the recovery of the academic community and how it could return to achieving high aspirations for the students of Virginia Tech. Regardless of the argument of who was at fault in this situation, the response by the administration and VT community was important because they were charged with restoring a sense of community among the students, faculty, staff, and Blacksburg community. The administration focused on a student-centered approach to restoring the sense of community at this large institution. Classes were cancelled for one week while questions were resolved regarding the end of the semester and how to evaluate the students’ performance. The crisis at Virginia Tech was one example of how the university administrators brought resolve to the community at a large institution.

From a personal standpoint, I can recall the fire at the Alpha Tau Omega house in 2004 that claimed the lives of three students. As a student leader at the time, I can vividly remember the University’s response to the situation. As part of Welcome Week, one of the Student Programming Board’s largest events, Rumble in the Grove, was cancelled on that Friday. The University Counseling Center was prepared to handle the students suffering with the loss of the students’ fellow classmates, fraternity brothers, children. Volunteers were quickly assembled to assist the displaced students while prayer vigils were organized for the campus community. The University leaned on the strong sense of community among the student body to steer its way through the situation.

To switch gears, I would like to address the somewhat controllable area of technology. The incredible advancements in technology have forced college students to change how they react in their community. According to NASPA (http://naspa.org/2008%20technology%20use.pdf), in a survey to college students across the country, over 80% of students owned a laptop. Over half of the students surveyed were frequent users social networking sites. In the same research, 90% of college students claimed to own a cell phone. Almost 85% of these students responded that they use text messaging, and over 70% of those students use text messaging at least a few times a day to communicate. What do these statistics mean? The community in which students communicate has become more technological. By thinking about how much time there is in a day and how much time the students spend texting and “Facebooking,” I wonder how much time is actually spent with face-to-face interaction. Despite this gradual change in communication among the community, a 2005 article in The Chronicle by Vincent Kiernan (“Students Desire a Balance of Technological and Human Contact, Survey Suggests” http://chronicle.com/article/Students-Desire-a-Balance-o/11687/), concludes that students still want to see a balance in terms of their academic community. In a survey of over 18,000 students, 41% of students preferred moderate use of technology in the classroom while 26% wanted limited use of technology. In the article, Robert Kvavik claimed that students “value the interaction among themselves and with faculty, and they don’t want technology to get in the way of that.”

The campus community is constantly changing, and universities are responsible for providing a positive community that is comfortable for students. This means the universities will need to maintain stability within the community while accommodating the changing world of higher education (as well as the changing personalities of students).