A week ago, on the two-year anniversary of the shootings, families of April 16 victims Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde filed lawsuits against Virginia Tech, Cook Counseling Center and several school officials in an attempt to "receive accountability for the tragic events of April 16, 2007.
By doing so, many people believe these families are simply pouring alcohol on the already open wounds from that day. But I think the lawsuit might cause new information to surface - information that could bring closure to those closely affected by the tragedy and maybe prevent future shootings from occurring.
The Petersons and Prydes were the only families who did not agree to a settlement offered to the survivors and victims' families in 2008. By agreeing to the settlement, they would have abandoned the option of filing a later suit. The two families said they respect the decisions made by other families to accept the settlement, but they aren't satisfied.
One legitimate issue mentioned in the lawsuit is that on the morning of April 16, 2007, Tech officials were more concerned with saving face than providing a safe environment for its students. According to the lawsuit filed by Erin Peterson's family, "the university's image as 'a safe place to send one's child' had been damaged by three incidents in the preceding eight months."
One of those incidents occurred in August 2006, when escaped prisoner William Morva killed two people off campus. In that case, Tech was on lockdown within an hour, though no student was ever harmed.
Then on April 2 and April 13, 2007, bomb threats shut down various academic buildings on campus. In both cases, students were informed of the bomb threats and warned of possible danger within an hour.
The families want answers as to why, on April 16, after two students were killed in a residence hall, the Tech community wasn't immediately informed about what happened.
When an e-mail was finally sent at 9:26 a.m., more than two hours after the dorm shooting, it did not give an explicit warning to students and didn't mention that two people were killed. It said, "A shooting incident occurred in West Ambler Johnston this morning," and that "the university community is urged to be cautious."
The families of Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson believe the e-mail was an insufficient warning, mainly because of the magnitude of the incident that had already occurred that morning and the attention given to similar situations in recent history.
I find that to be a reasonable concern. Were university officials concerned that Tech would be viewed as a dangerous place if these lockdowns kept happening? Were they worried fiscal donations would suffer from such speculations? Or did they honestly think the only possible suspect was already being pursued?
Another issue this lawsuit will examine is the treatment Seung-Hui Cho received at Cook Counseling Center, as the families allege negligence on the part of several therapists at the Center. Cho made three visits there in 2005 and was triaged each time, with no diagnosis or treatment provided.
The suit filed by the Peterson family expresses their discontent with how Cook Counseling treated Cho, despite the concerns brought forth by multiple members of the English department. Fingers are also pointed at Cook Counseling for not creating and/or maintaining records of his three visits there, which is required by law.
"Because the professional staff of the Cook Counseling Center professes to have lost all records of Seung-Hui Cho's contacts with the professionals at the center, it is clear they rendered no mental health services to an obviously disturbed student," the suit reads.
Would more thorough psychological services have prevented April 16? We will never know. And will these accusations give us any new answers? It's impossible to say.
But the families of Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde want more information, and the American judicial system says they should have it.
With that said, I'm fully aware that what's done is done. The only person truly responsible for April 16 cannot be brought to trial. And no high court or massive settlement will bring back Erin or Julia. Furthermore, to most people, the questions constantly being asked will never have satisfactory explanations.
But it's important to acknowledge that mistakes were made if we want to prevent them from happening again. And if laws were broken, people should be held accountable.
It's also important to remember that we can't understand the pain these families feel. We can't say with absolute certainty that we'd be satisfied with the information that's been provided thus far.
So before we cynically assume that money is the only motivation these families have, we should remember that we don't see April 16, 2007, through their eyes.
And we shouldn't judge the choices of those whose shoes we don't stand in.