Mick Maurer.com > College Violence

www.MickMaurer.com

College Violence and Shootings

Deadly college shootings in U.S.
Some deadly shootings at U.S. colleges or universities, listed by number of fatalities:

April 16, 2007
A gunman kills 32 people in a dorm and a classroom building at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg,
Va. The suspect then dies by gunshot himself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2, 2007
University of Washington researcher Rebecca Griego, 26, is shot to death in her office by
former boyfriend Jonathan Rowan who then turned the gun on himself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 2, 2006
Douglas W. Pennington, 49, kills himself and his two sons, Logan P. Pennington, 26, and
Benjamin M. Pennington, 24, during a visit to the campus of Shepherd University in
Shepherdstown, W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 28, 2002
Failing University of Arizona Nursing College student and Gulf War veteran Robert Flores,
40, walks into an instructor's office and fatally shoots her. A few minutes later, armed
with five guns, he enters one of his nursing classrooms and kills two more of his
instructors before fatally shooting himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 16, 2002
Graduate student Peter Odighizuwa, 42, recently dismissed from Virginia's Appalachian
School of Law, returns to campus and kills the dean, a professor and a student before
being tackled by students. The attack also wounds three female students.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug. 28, 2000
James Easton Kelly, 36, a University of Arkansas graduate student recently dropped from
a doctoral program after a decade of study and John Locke, 67, the English professor
overseeing his coursework, are shot to death in an apparent murder-suicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug. 15, 1996
Frederick Martin Davidson, 36, a graduate engineering student at San Diego State, is
defending his thesis before a faculty committee when he pulls out a handgun and kills
three professors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 26, 1995
Former law student Wendell Williamson shoots two men to death and injures a police
officer in Chapel Hill, N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 1, 1991
Gang Lu, 28, a graduate student in physics from China, reportedly upset because he was
passed over for an academic honor, opens fire in two buildings on the University of Iowa
campus. Five University of Iowa employees killed, including four members of the physics
department, one other person is wounded. The student fatally shoots himself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 12, 1976
Edward Charles Allaway, a custodian in the library of California State University, Fullerton,
fatally shoots seven fellow employees and wounds two others. Mentally ill, Allaway
believed his colleagues were pornographers and were forcing his estranged wife to appear
in their movies. A judge found him innocent by reason of insanity in 1977 after a jury was
unable to reach a verdict and he was committed to the state mental health system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 1970
Four students were killed and nine wounded by National Guard troops called in to quell
anti-war protests on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug. 1, 1966
Charles Whitman points a rifle from the observation deck of the University of Texas at
Austin's Tower and begins shooting in a homicidal rampage that goes on for 96 minutes.
Sixteen people are killed, 31 wounded.

Source: Associated Press

Updated: 10:05 a.m. ET Apr. 17, 2007

© 2007 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18137414/

BOOZING AND BRAWLING ON CAMPUS: A NATIONAL STUDY OF VIOLENT
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DRINKING OVER THE PAST DECADE

There has been an increase in alcohol-related violent crime in the United
States since the early 1980s. Concomitantly there has been a decrease in
per capita consumption of alcohol. Cultural Theory suggests that students
will follow the trends of society in terms of behaviors such as alcohol
consumption and violence related to drinking. Subcultural Theory, on the
other hand, suggests that these behaviors will reflect subcultural rather
than societal trends. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine
possible changes in drinking patterns and violent behavior related to
drinking from 1982 until 1991 with the same sample of universities from all
contiguous states in the United States. A secondary purpose was to test the
Cultural and Subcultural models of behavior.

Based on a sample of over 4,000 students, at each of four time periods
over the past decade, a significant (p<.001) decrease in the percentage of
students reporting that they had consumed alcohol at least once during the
preceding year was found. The percentage declined from 82.4 in 1982 to
78.8 in 1991. Likewise, there was a significant (p<.001) decrease in the
mean amount of alcohol consumed (14.3 to 12.8 drinks per week between
1982 and 1991). With regard to self-reported violent/legal problems
related to drinking, there were significant increases (p<.001) in the
percentages of students who had "gotten into a fight" (11.6 to 17.2) and
had had "trouble with the law" (4.4 to 7.6) between 1982 and 1991 because
of drinking. Likewise, there were significant increases (p<.05) in the
percentages who had engaged in vandalism (9.3 to 10.5) and had had
"trouble with the school administration" (1.9 to 2.5) because of drinking.
The results of this study support the Cultural Theory of behavior in that the
students' drinking and violence related to drinking appear to have followed
the trends of the United States as a whole over the past decade.

Ruth C. Engs & David J. Hanson. Boozing and Brawling on campus: a
national study of violent problems associated with drinking over the past
decade. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22 (2): 171-180, 1994

What is behind the growth of violence on college campuses?

The majority of perpetrators, as well as victims, are likely to have been high on alcohol and/or drugs
when the crimes were committed.

AMERICA'S college campuses are not the war zones newspaper and magazine articles would lead the
public to believe. Those crimes committed against students get major attention from the media
probably because campuses are expected to be serene and safe. What is perhaps most troubling
about campus crime is that the majority of the incidents, excluding theft, but including rape and
other sexual assaults, are impulsive acts committed by students themselves, according to nationwide
studies conducted by Towson State University's Campus Violence Prevention Center. Students are
responsible for 80% of campus crime, although rarely with weapons.

It is an uphill battle to ensure student safety. Schools provide escort services, tamper-proof windows,
and continually upgraded state-of-the-art exterior lighting and electronic alarm systems. These
institutional efforts frequently are undone by the immortal feelings of college-age men and women.
That "it can't happen to me" attitude leads to lax security behaviors that literally leave the door open
for an outside threat. Universities are challenged to help students develop and keep that awareness,
except for the two weeks following an on-campus assault, when caution prevailed.

The same students who sponsor night walks to check the lighting and grounds to increase safety will
hold the door open for a stranger entering their residence hall. Despite frequent warnings, students -
and even faculty, administrators, and other campus personnel - act less judiciously than they would
elsewhere.

The mind-set of the students and probably of most of us is that crime is going to happen at night.
Following a daylight abduction at one school, students demanded better lighting and evening patrols.
They are loathe to follow the cautions about garages and out-of-the-way places during the day. They
have trouble acknowledging, as we all probably do, that current criminal acts require new precautions,
more appropriate to what is happening now.

Today, as part of the orientation programs at campuses across the nation, most administrators
welcome students with information about crime on campus and ways they better can ensure their own
safety. Because The Higher Education Security Act requires schools to report their previous year's
crime statistics to the campus, colleges greet many new students and their parents with the previous
year's count of violations and wise warnings. They are united in their efforts to command students'
attention and enlist them as active partners in prevention. They use theater, video, discussions,
posters, and circulars to inform students. Police statistics and reports are disseminated widely.

Despite this, if a stranger is seen entering a building, it is unlikely that any observers will notify the
police, even if the potential assailant is dressed strangely and/or behaving oddly. If that stranger
attacks someone, the community will demand more protection. A series of seminars will produce
good ideas and vigilant behavior for about two weeks, after which much of the more casual behavior
about safety reappears.

When students discuss safety, it always is about dangers from outside the campus. Students are
both the perpetrators and victims of most campus crime, yet it still is protection from trespassers that
motivates most safety programs and is most in demand. It is an arduous and mostly unsuccessful
process to convince students that they are more likely to be a victim of crime perpetrated by a
member of their class or athletic team than by a stranger. It appears unthinkable that they
themselves may become assailants. Although this message is included in many orientation programs
for new students, it is nearly impossible to alert them to the potential danger from people they trust
simply because they are members of the same community. Yet, eight percent of students report that
they have been perpetrators and approximately 12% say they have been victims of assault.

Visitors to a campus during the day will see a reasonably civil society. Students will congregate in
various common areas and study, talk, laugh, or even sleep. The homeless may gather on the
campus benches while a non-student stands and shouts what he or she maintains is God's will.
Literally thousands of people will pass without incident. If campus police are writing citations, it is
likely to be for parking violations.

Yet, on any night from Thursday to Saturday on the same campus, the majority of students will be
drinking, some excessively, and fights will erupt over seemingly trivial issues - who can have the
bedroom, the keys, the boyfriend or girlfriend, the Nintendo. Small differences may escalate into
brawls when combined with drug and alcohol abuse. Student assistants in residence halls may write
up hundreds of classmates for violation of the campus alcohol policy. These reports are forwarded for
administrative action. Few, if any, students will be arrested. Other drunk students will be returning
from town where similar incidents may have occurred. Police rarely are called for fear of endangering
the bar's liquor license. Still other students are on their way to parties, where recreational drinking is
the featured attraction.

My first experience with campus violence came after I had spent two years in my current position as
vice president for student services at Towson State University. One Friday evening, a drunk student
trying to enter a residence hall to visit a friend beat the student worker who denied him access. The
employee was hospitalized overnight. Although the student was criminally charged, the university
immediately had to create procedures for an on-campus hearing to determine how the institution
should respond. He was the first student suspended from the university because of assault charges
stemming from a campus incident.

In the late 1970s, some students on campuses around the country reported being victims of assaults
by fellow students. Residence directors observed increases in vandalism. Personnel at different
schools thought they were experiencing situations unique to their own campuses. Rural and urban,
large and small schools noted the existence of violent incidents, quantified in Towson State's surveys
of over 1,000 colleges. Those studies became the nation's first national data on student-perpetrated
violence. It documented that students were both victims and perpetrators of rape, other sexual
violence, and physical assault.

When sexual assaults and rapes are reported, an interviewer most frequently will learn that the two
students have known each other, sometimes meeting at a party earlier that evening. Typically, they
both will have been drinking. One may have accepted the other's invitation to share a room because
a roommate was entertaining someone. He may make advances. She says she only will accept the
offer of the room (or extend the offer) if it is a non-sexual relationship. He accepts the terms, but
believes her accompanying him means she is willing. She thinks she has communicated effectively.
He thinks he has understood. Such misunderstanding makes one appreciate the clear consent to sex
that Antioch College demands of its students, as set forth in its most recent handbook.

One percent of students reported more physically brutal rapes. Four percent of female students
stated that they had been raped, predominantly by other students. Researchers report that 74% of
sexually related crimes were committed by fellow. students. More than 30% of these sexual crimes
were committed by fraternity members, while 14% were committed by athletes, some by friends of
friends.

The majority of perpetrators indicated that they were drunk, high, or in need of drugs when the
crimes were committed. Substance abuse is a direct correlate of violent campus behavior.
Researchers from Towson State's Campus Violence Prevention Center reported in a study of
responses from 1,800 college students nationwide that abuse of alcohol was heavier among victims
and perpetrators than the rest of the campus population. A later study of more than 13,000 students
corroborated those results, adding that students who used drugs were likely to be among the
perpetrators and the victims. Perpetrators reported using intoxicants more often than did victims. In
turn, the victims reported heavier drinking habits than those who were neither victims nor assailants.
Whether drunk or not, a substantial majority of victims and perpetrators said that, on the day of the
crime, they had been drinking and/or using drugs. It is a logical conclusion that students usually will
not become victims or perpetrators in student-to-student violence if they do not use drugs or abuse
alcohol.

In spite of all the messages of abstinence that are drilled into the nation's youth from elementary
school years on, many students come to higher education with histories of excessive drinking.
Against the backdrop of violence that exists in American society, the loss of control heightened by
substance abuse, including alcohol, often is accompanied by violent outbursts. The various
preventive efforts such as mediation and conflict resolution offered by some schools are not effective
techniques for preventing the acts fueled by the presence of alcohol.

Universities formerly had acted in loco parentis. When the national age of majority was lowered to 18,
college administrators had to alter their relationship with students because institutions no longer
could behave as substitute parents for youths who now could vote, drink, and go to war. While it is
not documented how effective such supervision of students was, it is clear that those who wished to
violate the rules had to work harder to do so. The current relationship is adult-to-adult, even though
the institutions recognize that many students are not fully mature. That poses a continuing dilemma
for campus personnel in helping students to develop control over their behavior, thus assuring their
own safety and that of their peers.

Although the legal drinking age has been raised to 21 in each state, the national community of 18-
to 20-year-olds simply does not accept this constraint. Some estimates are that as many as 80% of
underage students carry fake proof-of-age identification. Drinking has become a standard pastime,
and binge drinking - five or more drinks at a sitting - is condoned by 85% of college freshmen. The
number of students who report excessive drinking is less in the sophomore year and decreases in
each of the subsequent years. It has not been determined if the excessive drinkers have dropped
out or changed their ways. It probably is some of both. The people who have been most responsive.
to the substance abuse education programs are the casual users who reportedly are abstaining
totally now. The laws are not effective despite substantial efforts. No way has been found to govern a
population by laws they do not accept.

Seeking understanding

College students are among the nation's brightest and most successful people. In general, they
come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds than the non-college attending members of their age
group. Although there has been no formal study of their behavior after university attendance, it is
unlikely that perpetrators of college incidents will commit other violent crimes later. Most do not
repeat offenses on campus. A contributing factor may be that many schools require those
responsible to attend substance abuse intervention programs as a condition of returning to or
continuing to attend the university.

Administrators are at a loss to understand why such an increase in student violence has emerged in
the past two decades. They have tried to study the problem from several approaches, but the only
factor that remains the same in the majority of cases is alcohol abuse. It is not known if as many
students in the past drank as much as current ones do. Research shows, though, that almost 50% of
freshmen had been drunk within two weeks preceding the study.

Behaviors that lead to violence usually are tolerated by students. Resident students are reluctant to
complain, even in cases where their rights and their living space are violated by the conduct of
others. They may ask for alternate housing, but are not apt to make a formal complaint. Only
victims report crimes. Most actions that lead to assaultive behaviors are tolerated by the student
community. Students who dislike the rowdiness are more apt to move away than to assert their rights
to a more appropriate living environment.

On more and more campuses, housing options available to students include alcohol-free residence
halls. Those who choose them have quieter and less disruptive lives. Such an option is not successful
when someone other than the students themselves make those choices.

It is easy to prevent violence if each student is kept under lock and key. It is a more challenging
problem in a society that values freedom. The message to students is that a safe community
requires their participation. The role of police is to facilitate safety, not assure it. It is a challenge to
have an environment appropriate for growth and learning and safe in today's society.

Student society evolves and changes. For instance, women increasingly are the assaulters. Though
still in the single-digit numbers and not nearly as high as the amount of incidents with male
perpetrators, the total is going up. More students are participating in communal efforts to help
others, which may indicate that they are assuming more membership in the campus community.
They increasingly are riding the escort vans that for so long were available, but appeared
inconvenient. More are working actively for a civil environment. Although they continue to prop open
doors for the pizza man, we are seeing some effort to make the school safer. More are complaining
about the amount of drinking on campus, but they still are not willing to say that a roommate drinks
too much. Many student governments, fraternities, and sororities have supported the efforts, but
continue alcohol-dominated parties. Students at many colleges no longer sponsor dances because of
the enforcement of alcohol laws by the institutions. More students are walking with others at night.
Nevertheless, the struggle remains to help students pursue safer ways.

In our community of 10,000 full-time students, we held administrative hearings for 11 cases of
physical assault in 1992. No sexual assaults were reported. Other years, the number of assaults was
as high as 35, and the highest number of sexual assaults in any year was six. When colleges were
required by the 1992 National Higher Education Security Act to inform their faculty, staff, and students
about crime statistics on campuses, several reporters were sure that the colleges were hiding
numbers. However, the amount of crimes on campuses never has been large. Still, even a single
violent act requires that everyone become more discerning.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

Toomey, T.L., Jones-Webb, R.J. and Wagenaar, A.C. Policy-alcohol. In: Langenbucher, J.W., McCrady, B.S.,
Frankenstein, W. and Nathan, P.E. (Eds.) Annual Review of Addictions Research and Treatment, Vol. 3, Tarrytown, NY:
Pergamon Press, 1993, pp. 279-292.

Toomey, T.L., Kilian, G., Fitch, O.B., Fletcher, L. and Wagenaar, A.C. Characteristics and rates of illegal alcohol sales to
pseudo-intoxicated patrons. Paper presented at the American Public Health Association's 127th Annual Meeting, Chicago,
IL, November 7-11, 1999.

Toomey, T.L., Kilian, G.R., Gehan, J.P., Perry, C.L., Jones-Webb, R. And Wagenaar, A.C. Qualitative assessment of
training programs for alcohol servers and establishment managers. Publ. Hlth Rep. 113: 162-169, 1998.

Toomey, T.L., Rosenfeld, C. and Wagenaar, A.C. The minimum legal drinking age: History, effectiveness, and ongoing
debate. Alcohol Hlth Res. World 20: 213-218, 1996.

Toomey, T.L. and Wagenaar, A.C. Policy options for prevention: The case of alcohol. J. Publ. Hlth Policy 20: 192-213,
1999.

Toomey, T.L., Wagenaar, A.C., Gehan, J.P., Kilian, G., Murray, D. and Perry, C.L. Project ARM: Alcohol risk management
to prevent sales to underage and intoxicated patrons. Hlth Educ. Behav. 28: 186-199, 2001.