Tuesday letters: Pick of the day
In defense of Zenobia Hikes
As members of the Virginia Tech community, we wish to express our concern about the way in which the late Zenobia Hikes, former vice president of student affairs, is being characterized in the media as a result of the lawsuit brought by the Pryde and Peterson families against Virginia. In spite of the risks involved in speaking out, we feel a moral obligation to write on behalf of Dr. Hikes, who, due to her untimely death, is no longer able to speak on her own behalf.
Zenobia was our beloved friend and colleague. When she died in 2008, it left a grievous wound in our community. In the past week, it pained us to see her characterized in a headline in The Roanoke Times as the “Virginia Tech official” who “delayed the issue of a shooting alert” (March 7). In this article, and again in court, Hikes has been presented as the main voice for delaying notification of the shootings and stripping the email notice of important details before it was sent out to the campus community.
The revelation about Zenobia’s central role in this process comes as a shock to many of us who spoke with her following the tragedy. We are puzzled as to why the burden of the decision-making process appears to have been laid upon Zenobia, who was, in 2007, a relatively recent hire at Virginia Tech.
Emergency and safety protocols dictate that policy decisions of this magnitude are made by others in positions superior to hers, so it is distressing to us that she is the only member of the Tech Policy Group to have been singled out. The claim that she was “the official” who delayed the alert has been picked up by media outlets across the country and could do serious harm to her reputation.
Roanoke Times reporters Katelyn Polantz and Tonia Moxley have pointed out in their detailed coverage of the lawsuit that other administrators — Kim O’Rourke, Larry Hincker and Ralph Byers — have testified that they are unclear about how the decision to delay notification was reached.
But President Charles Steger has been very clear about this issue, citing Zenobia as the catalyst for the delay and the dilution of the email — an especially troubling disclosure because it comes five years after the tragedy. We had not expected to see Zenobia pushed to the foreground and are alarmed by what this implies.
At the memorial service for Hikes, Steger spoke of Zenobia in the most exemplary terms, praising her dedication to students and her loyalty, in particular. A proud graduate of Spelman College, Zenobia Hikes was not only our friend, she was a friend to students and a loving mother to her two beautiful daughters. We trust that clarification will be forthcoming as to why she has been singled out as the main catalyst for the delayed and diluted email notice issued to campus on that tragic day in 2007.
LARRY JACKSON
Computer systems engineer, chemistry
Virginia Tech
BLACKSBURG
Editor’s note: This letter also was signed by Lucinda Roy, alumni distinguished professor of English; Glenda Scales, associate dean of engineering; Wayne Scales, professor and director of the Center for Space Science and Engineering Research; Tonya Smith-Jackson, professor, industrial and system engineering; and Bevlee Watford, professor, associate dean of engineering.
March 13, 2012 - 12:10 AM
“Slimy” is the word that comes to mind. There is no way this was her call, and she deserves better than to be used as a convenient posthumous scapegoat. Slimy.
Someone is looking for a scapegoat, and one not around to at least defend her position is a little too convenient, indeed.
I have never heard or seen that name before today and this thread so how prominent a role could she have had? I hope there is a final decision on this as it does LOOK kinda “slimy”.
Sandi — this story explains Hikes’ involvement. Look near the end. http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/306134
Thanks Katelyn!
As I understand it, Virginia Tech officials testified that the policy group made the decision, based on a suggestion by Zenobia Hikes, in her capacity as VP for Student Affairs, which was a completely appropriate suggestion for her to make. I see no ‘scapegoating’ here – she and others on the policy group did the right thing given what they knew at that time. Based on what the VT police knew *at the time*, the danger was over as it appeared to be an isolated incident. Based on the history of school shootings (which is one of the main criteria police use in any crime investigation is history and precedent), the shooter had most likely fled the campus. I think VP Hikes and the policy group that agreed with her suggestion handled this very difficult situation in the best way they could – wait to notify of the student deaths until family could be notified. My daughter was a student who lived in a dorm on campus at the time of the shootings, and I can say for certain that I would have nearly died myself if I had received an email saying only that a shooting had occurred in a dorm and that ‘a student was dead’ , without knowing whether it was my child or not. I was lucky; but even so, I don’t think any parent should learn that their child was killed by seeing it in an email within minutes of their child’s murder.
I think folks are over reacting a little to Hikes’ name being mentioned. I don’t think anyone could ever or would ever blame her for what happened on April 16th. I don’t think that’s the intention of her name being brought up in court. No individuals are on trial, so there’s no need for anyone to direct blame at any one person. The only entities on trial are VT and the State of Virginia. Whether one individual did or did not play a part in a decision about an email isn’t really gonna matter… it’s still VT and the State as a whole that are on trial. This Hokie certainly does not see Hikes in a negative light, no matter the role she played on April 16th.
Also, I personally don’t believe that any amount of warning would have kept Cho from going through with his plan. No sort of lockdown would have accomplished anything in regards to stopping him. If anything, that’s what he wanted, to be locked in with his victims. The first thing he did upon entering Norris Hall was to chain the doors shut.
People are still looking for someone to blame for April 16th, and unfortunately, the only person that could be to blame killed himself after committing this awful act.
I do not believe anyone is “looking for someone to blame”. That is a cliche that people use to downplay any concern expressed. In any situation, from a missed deadline on the job to a horrific tragedy like the Tech shootings, people in authority, with decision making power will be questioned, second guessed and if need be, held culpable for their actions as well as inaction. It happens often, every day in fact. This is bigger and more well known but it is hardly a strange principle. The very fact that warnings will NOW go out so quickly is conceding that they should have then. I do not know what else it could be. If the warning to get to a secure area had been sent sooner, regardless of details, those people might have survived. That others might not have is also likely true but does not negate the fact that actions taken and not taken, cost lives.
People keep asking what these people “want”. Like any grieving family, they want answers and closure. I hope they get both. They want to grasp why decisions were made the way they were made and why they were not made differently.
If nobody were looking for someone to put some of the blame or accountability on, then this trial would not be taking place.
It’s not a cliche, it’s true that people want someone to blame, someone to hold accountable, someone to try to get answers “why” from. Doesn’t matter if you call it blame, accountability, responsibility… it’s all the same natural reaction. To call it cliche is insulting.
And who are the people who are “asking what these people ‘want’?” The two sets of parents made it clear why they are suing in a released statement that said, “”All we’ve been looking for is accountability.”
But back to the topic, my point was that I don’t think any mention of Ms. Hikes’ name during the trial will be taken to hurt her character in the least. She was doing what she thought was best given the information known at the time. From what’s been printed on this website, it appears that she was trying to be respectful of the first 2 victims and their families. I couldn’t fault anyone for that. Nobody could have known or even remotely expected what was coming a couple of hours later.
I do not agree that this trial is about “looking for someone to put some of the blame or accountability on”, I could be wrong, but I do not see it that way. Blame is a personal decision and the people who “blame Tech” have made it and the people who do not have as well.
I agree that they are indeed looking for answers, accountability, culpability, and closure and I still say to simply label it as “someone to blame” is cliche, pejorative and unfair. There are reasons that things are investigated and adjudicated and they are not always only about “blame”, even if that is a component. Saying “it’s true that people want someone to blame” sound pejorative IMO unless you know that is their motivation, otherwise the insult is to say they just want someone to blame.
See, you admit the parents said “All we’ve been looking for is accountability.” And you still said, “People are still looking for someone to blame”.
I disagree that her name coming up in the context of waiting is harmless, some of her colleagues did not think it so. Also, “waiting” and “waiting two hours” are different things. Until the shooter was apprehended there were plenty of unknowns and while the massacre could potentially not be foreseen, a warning that an incident had happened (without details to hurt or overtly alarm anyone) should have been sent much much sooner IMO.
“Waiting for two hours” as Sandi said above makes it sound like the policy group was sitting passively twiddling their thumbs for that time. I am certain that nothing could be further from the truth. They have said that they were getting new information constantly during that time. Every moment that they thought they had enough information to issue an alert to the campus, another detail was revealed, making them have to re-write the alert. This is the chaotic environment they were working in during those two hours. It was frantic, confusing, emotional, frightening, and extremely stressful as I’m sure we can all imagine. It’s easy for us to sit here, nearly 5 years later, and be Monday morning quarterbacks. It all seems so clear to us now.
But put yourself in their shoes, in that situation; we can’t possibly know what that felt like, much less how we might have functioned if similarly challenged.
What are you talking about? You don’t agree that this trial is about accountability?? Seriously?
Accountability and blame are synonyms. Maybe that’s where we’re getting off-track. If you hold someone accountable, then that’s the same as laying at least partial blame on that person as well.
Thesaurus.com also agrees that accountability and blame are synonymous:
http://thesaurus.com/browse/accountability?s=t
I didn’t have to admit anything, all I did was copy and paste. “All we’ve been looking for is accountability,” is a simple copy and paste from this very website of a statement given by the plaintiffs in this case.
The families of the victims, in the same statement, also said, “Our daughters and the other students and faculty were entitled to that information too and would be alive today if that information had been shared…”
They didn’t say “could be,” or “might be,” they said “would be.” That’s pretty strong language that points to who these two sets of parents are holding accountable in their minds. Are you sure that nobody is looking to hold VT accountable, or responsible, or looking for VT to carry some of the blame for these deaths? A statement like that sure sounds like someone is, at the very least, partially blaming VT for their daughters’ deaths.
The title of of the article that this comes from on the roanoke.com site is, “Virginia Tech Trial Seeks Accountability.”
How much clearer can this get?
And look at this from the same article:
“The jury will hear testimony on two main points of law: Did university officials have a duty to warn the plaintiffs’ daughters and the rest of the campus that a gunman was on the loose? Furthermore, if the university breached a duty to warn, did that breach cause the deaths?”
This is asking the question, “Did VT’s actions CAUSE the deaths?”
If none of this sounds like someone looking for a place to put blame or accountability to you, then I don’t know how else to possibly be any clearer.
At the link:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/306188
Look at the first sentence at the 3:25 PM update.
“Virginia Tech was responsible for the deaths of two students, Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde, in the mass shooting that took place on the campus April 16, 2007, a jury ruled today.”
Are we still trying to say that this lawsuit wasn’t about looking for someone to hold accountable?
Sandi, “I disagree that her name coming up in the context of waiting is harmless, some of her colleagues did not think it so.” I did not say nor did anyone else that her named being mentioned was harmless. I said that her name came up as a result of direct questioning. I’m sure many other names especially those in the policy group and what input was provided by who in making decisions that day. Stegar was not the only person to testify about what she said. I don’t think what she said was wrong. No reasonable person would think that she the ultimate responsible party but she did provide input and that is relevant in a trial. As for her collegues, I think that the letter was to preserve their friends reputation and they have a right to do that. I am choosing not to take it at face value without actually reviewing a transcript of the testimony and the context in which statements were made.
Four million apiece.
Does that bring their loved ones back?
I would be interested in the context of his statement. I doubt this was a spontaneous utterance and more likely a response to a direct question. Of course they are going to want to know what factored into the decision making. Not to mention that someone else also testified that she said the same. I don’t think if she said it that it was wrong to think of the family of those deceased. It was a consideration among many I’m sure. I don’t think anyone would buy it that she was the ultimate decision maker that day but she did provide input along with the other members of the policy group that certainly would be of interest in a trial. Before I jump on the bandwagon I would like to know the context of the questioning. It may not be as it seems in the media or through this letter or maybe it is but I will reserve judgement until there is more information.
Virginia Tech is partially responsible. They sat around pondering as to what to do instead of acting. VT should be held accountable for their lack of action. They need to admit they made a big mistake. The VT decision making culture is classic paralysis by analysis. I can’t imagine the leadership of VT working through lunch and getting a consensus on what food should be brought in. Simple question. Ask them what they would do today if a gunman shot someone dead in a dorm. Answer, they would lock down the campus immediately. Case closed. In their defense they never experienced such a tragedy. Also who would have thought hijackers would crash jets into buildings? The landscape changes and we must adapt.