I have reported in this space on the actions and inactions of the Threat Assessment Team (TAT) and its members at the University of Virginia in the case of the man now in jail for three murders and two woundings.
I refer readers to my previous posts for my take on the facts in that case as I know them.
In this article, I will compare
- the state law that mandates each Virginia college and university to have a Violence Prevention Committee and a Threat Assessment Team
- with the University of Virginia’s policy that purports to carry out the mandates of that law.
The comparison is not flattering to the University. It reveals serious flaws in the design of the violence prevention and assessment protocols that preceded the actions of that specific TAT and may have contributed to its failure in this case.
The University policy so obviously fails to meet the requirements of the governing state law to which the policy itself refers that the only conclusion I can draw is that the flaws were intentional. Incompetence cannot explain this one.
There are too many senior management sets of eyes on University policy process, including lawyers. They must have thought they had a better way.
I suggest University leadership this week write and sign a policy that complies with state law. Continue reading