This sort of thing makes me think of something Vernor Vinge said many years ago, when I interviewed him for the Libertarian Futurist Society newsletter: I asked him about how his sympathetic portrait of characters with military backgrounds. amd even military intelligence backgrounds, fitted with his very hard-core libertarian outlook, and he said that there were good moral features in the military (and the police) that helped keep human societies safe "when something evil and very violent and deadly happens." I'm glad to see the virtues he pointed to minimizing harm in the real world.
One of the difficult concepts that I've tried to get across to people who are anti-military/police/government is that you don't get those good qualities--they can't persist--if there's not consistent respect for them. Not slavish admiration or the kind of flag-waving ceremonious stuff that "hardliners" do. Not gushy approval even when it's not deserved. But genuine and whole-hearted respect for job they're supposed to be doing, and them when they get it right...they need social support (and guidance) to keep those "good moral features" (virtues, I'd call them, an older and more accurate word) high on the priority list.
You can't really expect to have these things pop up in the moments of threat...like the procedures followed today, they have to be practiced all the time, through the years, and that practice has to be supported by the populace they serve. I have griped loudly when the APD screws something up (which they have)--like the patrol officers caught texting racist comments when a nightclub was burning, or the department's failure to discipline officers for the use of excessive force--but it needs to be clear that what's being griped at is failure to meet their own high standards.
David Brin makes a similar point. Once in a while, you need to write in an honest official, have the police turn up on time and so forth; otherwise, you get into Taxi Driver mode, which is fun for the odd film here or there, but bad when it becomes the media norm.
I think that universities have taken that sort of planning a lot more seriously since the shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007.
(My mother lives in Blacksburg and is occasionally on campus, and I had several hours of pretty-sure-she-was-OK-but-not-confirmed that day. I'm very glad the situation at UT was handled as well as it was.)
Two of my campmates were at work at UT. They kept us all up-to-date via Facebook. It was nice to know they were OK.
I'm glad UTPD and APD worked together so well. I don't have much respect for either police department, but I have interacted with a few good APD cops.
I suspect that this kind of situation brings the better members of forces to the fore, and presents them with a clear, unambiguous set of procedures, well-rehearsed.
2010-09-28 11:08 pm (UTC)
I'm glad that there were not more people hurt or killed, but it breaks my heart that there are so many people who are so desperately disturbed and so disconnected. I hope some of the post-incident analysis focuses on outreach and prevention.
I'm sure it will--post-incident analyses nearly always do consider how to prevent the next one.
But suicides (with or without firearms) just don't appear to be 100% preventable even when suicide-prevention services are available. There are simply too many ways that lead someone to the cliff, and some will jump before asking for help or accepting help that's offered.
Shooter was a student at UT, a sophomore math major, age 19.
Whatever his reasons, 19 is too young to self-destruct.
Whatever the arguments in favor of allowing students to carry firearms on campus...statistics don't support 'em.
Husband (UT staff) received the first text message, which unfortunately was ambiguous: "armed suspect in PCL" reads the same whether the suspect has an AK47 or has just committed (or attempted) robbery at knifepoint. Since he works in another quadrant of campus, parking right across the street, he went on in. After which, he was stuck in his office for the next several hours, listening to loudspeaker announcements that were so distorted, they might as well have been in Klingon. (I should add that the sirens are so loud that I can hear them 2 miles away, while inside on the other side of the house.)
Emergency pages were also ambiguous, yoyoing between "university is closed" and "university is open," with the latter appearing at least once in conjunction with "shelter in place."
UT's response is excellent, but they have a bit further to go in maintaining *clear* communication with civilians. I keep hearing about the orders-writing class at Annapolis; do they still do this, and is there any way to get this training into other places where it's needed?
A very good point, Sophie. I don't know if Annapolis still has that class (bet they do, but have no inside info) but certainly the UT administration needs to have someone (maybe three, since one or even two may not be there on the day an emergency happens) people trained in how to send accurate, timely, information.
There should be a very clear chain of command: who decides what should be told, who that person tells to send it, etc., so all messages can be validated.
Ambiguous meanings need to be resolved (What, precisely, does "the campus is closed" mean? It appeared to mean several different things yesterday.) Until the meaning of expressions (such as campus is closed or open) the message will be foggy at best.
I get the feeling, from having followed this on Twitter for over 3 hours, that the Administration itself was getting conflicting information and directives from different levels. All those need to be brought into the discussion (if my sense of how it worked is at all correct) and--as with the law enforcement agencies--given training and practice in their role, esp. as regards information given out.
OTOH, I know from experience in mass-casualty situations while in EMS that the outside demand for information can swamp the ability of units to perform their primary duties (digging people out of wreckage after a tornado, let's say) because every !**! media outlet in the region is calling them on the phone, demanding to know details, sending helicopters to blow debris around and scare already frightened livestock into total panicky stampede, etc. while they take pictures from above. Every reporter thinks that every part of every organization has, or should have, someone who can spend 10-15 minutes or more answering all the questions that reporter can think up. And they get very annoyed if you hang up on them, or tell them you have better things to do because someone is bleeding.
Hence the need for a designated person or group to respond to all these demands for information and let the people who are coping with the emergency do their jobs. The kind of public relations staff who are used to putting out press releases about scholarships and alumni functions and awards won by this or that department, professor, or student is not necessarily trained for, or ready to handle, a ton of media pressure in an emergency.
Getting the word out: Sirens are unspecific: something's wrong, go find more information. Loudspeakers are always iffy, as both amplifiers and bounce-back from solid surfaces distort the sounds. Certainly Admin needs to know that the louder volume does not actually improve clarity. Texting, email, Twitter--all reasonable ways to communicate now, if the information is accurate and timely. But again...there are stretches in any emergency when it's not possible for those trying to manage the thing to have new reliable information every thirty seconds. The immediacy of things like Twitter means that many people (including me) are used to moment-by-moment updates...even when there's nothing more to say for another half hour. It's unrealistic to expect that level of information transfer from those in charge--they have other duties as well.
It IS realistic to expect accurate information (to the best of the data available at the time) when it's given. That's where training in clarity would be helpful, and should be instituted. I would bet that if someone in the university approached the military with that problem--"We need to learn how to be more accurate in our orders to students during an emergency"--they'd find plenty of experienced officers who could help. (I know who I'd send them to, but LV just retired from the Texas Guard and is moving to Seattle. No longer available.)
Trust in the PD is important (something that my school is currently lacking). Proper filters on email are crucial (the Alert email system was flagged as Spam for awhile ... oops). Fortunately we didn't have any emergencies that week.
Good to hear the authorities acted so well. We had a suicide bomber here who was foiled when the bodyguard of the lecturer she was trying to assassinate jumped on her. Fortunately for all concerned, only the detonator went off, so injuries were mild.
BTW, we don't all get bodyguards! He had one because he used to be the Justice Minister.
Glad for no serious injuries.
Upstream some pertinent comments were made about communications glitches w/in the university, so though this was handled well, and leagues better than some previous incidents elsewhere, there's still (and always) stuff to learn and holes to plug.
Other universities could benefit from studying both what UT did that worked extremely well, and where it could have been better.
Both setting up and maintaining (through training exercises--the only way) a good emergency response is expensive in both time and money.
What a nice post. I enjoyed the article from the beginning to the end. I really want to thank you for your great deed. I hope to read more from you on this article.Computer Laptop