E-mails sent to Cho
Thursday, December 18, 2008; 9:15 PM
A series of e-mails sent to Cho's Tech e-mail address.

You might be interested in... Related Topics: december, archive, april 16, english department, cho, e-mail
Posted by: Exceptions to Privacy at Jan 22 Well, you can't have it completely both ways...total confidentiality yet being able to act on all those obvious "red flags". I mean the judge will ask: "WHAT disturbing emails?!" BTW: copyright smopyright...read up on "fair use" by the press (CT qualifies). The FERPA clarification on exceptions what universities can do is a step in the right direction: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2009/01/20/in_wake_of_april_16__ferpa_exceptions_clarified Flag Abuse
Posted by: Beverly Bishop at Jan 22 As for Poet Giovanni, she is a wonderful woman who has went outside of the campus to listen to many people and also to read their work and never once complained about doing so! In exchange for her taking the time to read my work I created a painting for her! And to, babying a student and allowing their actions of destruction and disruption in a classroom full of students wanting to learn is not acceptable! I could go on here in words forever but I will not do that! Virginia Tech is quite lucky to have such a Professor as Nikki Giovanni and I will end my statement here! Flag Abuse
Posted by: Beverly Bishop at Jan 22 What Cho wrote about Professor Nikki Giovanni is simply not true! I have never been a student at Tech but Poet Giovanni took the time to read my book and she took the time to send me a letter by mail and my book back to me with wonderful feed-back! These emails are very sad and very much damning to many people! I personally am glad that I got to read them for they have enlightened me as to how a person could be ate up with misery! On April 16th 2007, I was on campus and not once told to get off of campus, as stated earlier I am and was not a student of Virginia Tech, safety for our students and professors have always been overlooked and even today! Thank you to the individual who published these emails, we as the community have a right to know just went on and led up to Cho killing 31 and then taking his life! Flag Abuse
Posted by: Not Quite That Simple at Jan 20 "VT had a PLETHORA of chances to STOP the tragedy from happening." Wow, its all so clear now. Anyone who has known someone who is severely mentally incapacited ...especailly with paranoid schizophrenia knows the difficulty for even FAMILY members to keep track of them. This includes making sure they take their meds, showing up for appointments, having friends & neighbors keeping you informed, etc. If that person takes their life....there's usually a "PLETHORA" of evidence leading up to it. Naturally, a family familiar with these problems, would hand this responsibilty (with no warnings of his prior condition) to a university administration looking after roughly 28,000 students. Yeah, there's something missing from this equation...FAMILY....who didn't even clue in his roommates. Yes, they are VICTIMS too...but since nobody wants to blame them ("he was an adult" reasoning)...guess who's left holding the bag as his legal guardian. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Never Forget at Jan 17 I will go to my grave always KNOWING that VT had a PLETHORA of chances to STOP the tragedy from happening. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Steven Miller at Jan 13 The main thing these emails reveal is the irresponsibility shown by Tech administration not to "do whatever it took" to assist Cho with his obvious psychological issues. But, let us not forget, VT is all about bringing in the revenue for the State, Steger, and the administration.... it's not about the welfare of the students (or the faculty for that matter). Flag Abuse
Posted by: JM Hokie at Jan 6 Writing on the wall, that's just stupid. First of all your "assault weapons" comment has nothing to do with this article, or even a previous comment. Second, these were not legally defined "assault weapons" anyway (I say legally defined because the term "assault weapons" is simply used to cause controversy and scare people into passing legislation that does not change anything). The magazines used in the Glock may have been higher capacity than allowed under the 1994 Clinton "Assault Weapons" Ban, but they were still available as pre-ban manufactured models. Do a little research before making stupid comments. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Writing on the Wall at Jan 3 I can't believe you printed these without permission. Then again, all they show is: he was a horrible person, and the English department faculty went above and beyond the call of duty to a student who deserved to just be given his F. I am an English professor myself, and I have to say that they were utterly professional. Instead of printing these "sensationalist" letters, why don't you focus on changing the gun laws in Virginia to keep assault weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Outraged VT Alum at Jan 3 These should not have been published,and you should not be repeating this unethical breach on your website. Digusting. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at 12/26/08 You're right, John s. there is no perfect answer. However, this seems like a bad decision on all accounts. I don't buy that this was done to educate people on how to avoid another similar tragedy. Did the school even claim that as it's reasoning? Besides, there are much better ways to do that. Furthermore, it shows no respect for those who lost their lives, neither does it respect the still tender feelings of everyone involved. We need to stop basing our decisions on technicalities (the emails were sent through the schools servers) like a bunch of lawyers, and instead out of simple human decency. We're all capable of this. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/23/08 WHAH: Fair enough. On the ethical issue, I think that everyone agrees that we need to learn from what happened so similar events may be prevented. At the same time, it seems everyone believes that any disclosure/publication of information about the case should be done in a way that respects the dead and their families. Easy enough. All the disagreements relate to what information is disclosed, when it is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed. What we have in the archive is the (apparent) maximum openness model: free public distribution of everything, banking on that to ensure the maximum amount of learning and preventative knowledge can be gleaned by the most people. However, this is the least sensitive to the privacy for the families and the victims. I could easily be persuaded that an archive open only to any bona fide researcher (broadly defined) would still gave as much help to society to prevent these disasters without rocketing every scrap of people's personal data into cyberspace. There are no perfect answers here. Flag Abuse
Posted by: WHAH at 12/23/08 Again....I must state that I really dount any of this would passed through the courth system in ANY form if the proper steps were not taken by anybody relevant to these being released. I think the discussion on the MORALITY here is fine (it is a matter of personal opinion which I respect no matter agree or disagree), but to "discuss" this from a legal point of view seems irrelevant and a waste of time because we are probably lucky if we know even 10% about what went on before these were released. I wasn't there, you weren't there and no lawsuits have been filed, so until we have a plaintiff and a defendant, we must assume this was legally done. Innocent until proven guilty. and besides, if the VICTIM'S FAMILIES actually WANTED these released, who is ANYONE BUT THEM to say any different (even morally speaking)?? Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/22/08 Jennifer Case: You have said that the "emails [were] processed through Virginia Tech's server and they have full rights to disclose them." You might be right, *if* V.Tech expressly requires a user to surrender copyright to his or her email an pre-condition of using their system. While web boards and discussion forums run by the legally savvy usually do this (this discussion forum does not), it is very rare at email services. It is unlikely that V.Tech did this-but maybe you can find out for us? In any case, when thinking about this, be careful to avoid conflating privacy and copyright. Also consider that sending an email via a system conveys a practical license to the sysop to handle and copy and even archive the email in the usual manner, but not to spontaneously publish it to the world or even send it to a few unintended recipients. (Privacy issues are at stake here too, but I'm only talking about copyright.) I've tried to make a (rather simple) technical point here. As I've said, I favor the disclosure as a question of politics. Any legal issues that stand in the way of it should be handled correctly if the haven't been already. The reason I doubt that it was handled correctly is well-illustrated by the general response here which holds that there simply is no issue at all. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/22/08 Sauerkraut: You say "[s]ome of these comments show people's lack of familiarity with copyright laws . . . " This is true. However, to say that "any rights he had died with him," is wrong. The cite is 17 U.S.C. § 302. Look it up if doubt. If you were actually right, then I could freely publish any posthumously discovered writing, including copies of Patrick O'Brien's half-finished novel "21," which was not published until four years after the author's sad passing in 2000. The law says, for better or ill, post-1978 copyright lasts for the author's life plus 70 long years-that goes for nearly all that you or I write, every note, email, cartoon on a napkin, etc. Generally, it doesn't matter since what we write is, publically speaking, quite insignificant. This case is not insignificant and what was normally ignored is now important. Let me reiterate that I regard Cho as utterly despicable and that anything we do or say pales next to the ineffable the loss suffered by the families of his innocent victims. I support public access to all relevant information about the shooting in a way that shows respect for these victims. I believe the archive does this. I have, however, pointed out an issue of law that may need to be considered by the archive operators if they have not already attended to it. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jennifer Case at 12/22/08 First, I agree that these are emails processed through Virginia Tech's server and they have full rights to disclose them. I also think that the emails will hopefully shed some light - open the doors people! I am frankly shocked this boy wasn't flagged more as in need of serious help. I know his counselor / professor tried but she seems to have been the only one. Having said that, I think CT coulda waited as requested to publish this stuff. But hey, they're only journalists, so what do you expect? Flag Abuse
Posted by: sauerkraut at 12/22/08 Wow. Some of these comments show people's lack of familiarity with copyright laws and privacy issues. That said, let's remember who were the actual victims and who was the person who killed them all. Any rights he had died with him. http://www.run4chocolate.wordpress.com Flag Abuse
Posted by: WHAH at 12/22/08 ok...this is kind of ridiculous...SO, let's just say, if a lawsuit comes out for copyright infringement, YOU win, if no lawsuit, I win. Lord knows in the US of A, nothing goes by without someone trying to sue. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/21/08 First, what you suppose to have happened may really have happened-I'm not saying it couldn't have happened that way-maybe it did. That being said, for several reasons, I think that you're reading more into the quote than you should. Briefly, the quote raises questions about its own internal consistency: It talks about "a court settlement" but it says that the settlement is to "avoid lawsuits," not settle existing suits. This seems more consistent with a so-called "out-of-court settlement," where a process of contract and release (without a court's approval) is used. Even if existing suits were settled with a court's involvement, you place too much meaning on that fact. The parties have a dispute (I guess: victims' families versus school, no Cho family involved). They draw up a settlement agreement that says "families swear off all lawsuits and school promises to pay $100,000 per victim, get new security, and set up public archive with all documents it has related to the shooting except those it is prohibited from releasing under Title 4, U.S.C." No one talks about copyright-that is not what they are arguing about. If involved, the court really just supervises the dispute between the parties and approves the agreement if the court doesn't think it's unconscionable vis-à-vis the parties. It is entirely possible that Cho's copyright was never discussed-or maybe it was. Maybe it was all worked out-or maybe not. Flag Abuse
Posted by: WHAH at 12/21/08 ok..this is being waay over complicated. Once again...The archive was set up under terms of a court settlement with the families earlier this year to avoid lawsuits over the shootings. Relatives had sought disclosure of all records related to the shootings and the school's response to it so others could learn from them." So it would seem permission was granted in return for not being sued. I don't think the COURT could grant this permission if one of the parties were not the actual owners of the emails. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/21/08 There is an ocean of difference between email privacy and email copyright. Saying an email can be looked at is different from saying it can be published. If you are really interested in the split of cases on email privacy, look at Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.2001). Copyright is totally different. Essentially, Robb has it backwards. The email system's TOS may expressly require you to surrender any copyright as a condition of use, but if it does not do so (and it usually does not) you retain copyright to your email, while the email system acquires only a license to handle and copy the email for normal technical purposes. The employer-employee copyright situation has a wrinkle inasmuch as emails composed as part of the agent/employee's work vest copyright in the employer not the writer. You point about the copyright interests of others. So far I've only been talking Cho's writings, but the same goes for all other authors, living and dead. Unless the copyright holder (student, school, teacher, parent, friend of student, each case is different) consents to publication or surrenders copyright to the public domain (unlikely here) publication by a third party not permitted. You obviously think all this issue of copyrights is a nuisance. Don't like it? Lobby you congressman. However, if your email was being published online, you might see it differently. Flag Abuse
Posted by: WHAH at 12/21/08 Thank you Robb - That is why employers are allowed to look at employees emails used on the system. It's impossible to get EVERYONE's consent...you seem to forget about all the OTHER people who's emails could be released. Are they supposed to get consent from ALL the students? Hardly possible...So obviously, the school agreed to make these public because the victim's families requested they do so as part of an agreement not to sue the school. SHHEESH! But further, I am tired of the posts like that of Tom below. Sensationalism? The VICTIMS FAMILIES wanted them published to LEARN from them so that perhaps we could PREVENT this from happening even just ONCE! What is so "sensational" about THAT? I hope they ARE satisfied when they prevent this from happening somewhere else because of somebody seeing these emails and recongnizing the language, pattern, attitude, etc. It's way more fun when people think OUTSIDE the box and leave their cliches to those with unoriginal thought. Oh let's keep this all secret so we never learn from ANY of this and just sit around and WAIT for this to happen AGAIN. Right....GREAT idea! I guess people like Tom are half glass empty type people. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Tom at 12/21/08 Posting this information online is pure sensationalism. Publishing these messages- some of which are confidential- is extremely insensitive. Your publication must be of such a high standard to stoop to this level. Hope you are satisfied. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Robb at 12/21/08 If you use your school or employer's email system, they own all the content in that email system. If you're using Yahoo or your own email system, then unless the TOS specifies otherwise, you are the owner of that data. Employers always have the write to review your email and do what they wish to do with it. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/21/08 Only that Cho's family or whoever owns (or then owned) the rights must be a party to any "court settlement" in order for the Cho copyright to be compromised. The article is talking about Cho's victims' families, not Cho's family--and Cho's is the only family that counts for copyright purposes. The "disclosure of all records" refers to the release of lots of records the school kept secret because of the threat of negligence suits. Throwing Cho's works in with the school's own records poses this special problem: The school and the Commonwealth cannot bargain away Cho's copyright without consent of the owner. Flag Abuse
Posted by: WHAH at 12/21/08 Got really bored reading all that ...so...let me just re-itterate because obviously the artile which accompanied the emails was missed... "The archive was set up under terms of a court settlement with the families earlier this year to avoid lawsuits over the shootings. Relatives had sought disclosure of all records related to the shootings and the school's response to it so others could learn from them." Is there really more that needs to be said?? Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/21/08 Regarding the court settlement: A court can only determine the rights of parties to a proceeding. It is unclear whether the "relatives" in question included Cho's relatives. I believe the families Cho's victims were the relatives involved. It is possible, if not likely, that the estate's representative, or Cho's parents, or whoever finally held the copyright after his death, have already given it away, sold it, licensed it for this publication, or explicitly placed it in the public domain. What I am saying is that unless that was done, the public publication of Cho's private writing and communications will be in violation of his surviving copyright. If the school treats it like their property or gives it out under FOIA, that does not covert it into their property or make it public domain. Even if they act in good faith, it is a mistake to regard potential damages as trivial. If they do not already have the rights to publish, they should secure them before they publish further. If they have obtained rights, the issue is moot. Please, don't shoot the messenger. Understand that I have nothing but extreme contempt for Cho, and I also favor public access to this information, but how I feel is irrelevant. As to your glib remark, "[g]otta love arm chair lawyers"? In respond in your (copyrighted) words, of which I make fair use: "I am at a loss for words to explain how silly that is." Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/21/08 Dear WHAH: Please excuse the grammar in my previous post, but what I have said there is correct. When you write an email it is your copyrighted property upon creation. It was not always that way in the U.S., but it is now. For new works the duration of the right is life plus 70 years. Sending the email does not end the copyright, though it extends a limited license to the recipient. You claim "[i]t becomes public record when it is taken as evidence in an investigation. It becomes state/federal property." Really? You sound like a CJ major . . . So if my car, or my belt buckle, or my diary is held or entered as evidence in a criminal case, it escheats to the state? Various books and documents are entered into evidence in court all the time. That does not, itself, render them state property or kill off their owner's copyright. (Property is often forfeited as an instrumentality or fruit of a crime, and the courts are privileged to freely use copyrighted matter in evidence for their official business. The government may hold tangible property as evidence for as long as the law permits, but that doesn't make it public property any more than prison inmates are.) Flag Abuse
Posted by: This information deserves to be free at 12/20/08 This information is in the public domain and deserves to be free. It has been available via Freedom of information act request now for months - except you had to show up in Burruss and make an appointment with University Relations. The Collegiate Times is doing 100% the right thing by making these so publicly available. If you want to see some more documents, visit www.prevailarchive.org. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Cecilia at 12/20/08 I'm an english major too and really, I sometimes wish that my teachers were that concerned with the well being of all their pupils. To me, it is very clear this guy was deeply disturbed and was unwilling to recieve help. Even more, you can't consider an English Major if you aren't willing to let others hear you talk (as in participating in class, reading a poem out loud, stuff like that). I think this guy's issues are also rooted from the fact that he didn't chose a major that fitted him. Flag Abuse
Posted by: deborah at 12/20/08 hale, i agree w/you, but i didn't say his parents taught him he was a victim.. i don't know what they taught him. but, the point is/was, he was so self-focused and mad at the world, everyone else, that he turned it into the ultimate self-focus which is reacting by playing God on everyone else's life, killing them, killing himself. he loses all sympathy from me when he turns it into that. i have children who are african american (i have five children and three are adopted.. all from *very* difficult situations previously..abuse, neglect, and one from foreign orphange). while i am very compassionate towards their past situations and current struggles, giving them the confidence and focus them on helping others has done a great deal to relieve the pain and prejudice they have suffered in lives. their focus is not on themselves and they know others have it harder, and that they can do so much to bring joy to the lives of others and also enrich their own. must cultivate a positive, loving, charitable type of atmosphere and mentality, and not let children (as far as we can control, which is not entirely in our hands, obviously) let themselves get in a habit of allowing themselves to hate and destroy others b/c of their own difficulties. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jessica at 12/20/08 I think the CT did a good thing posting these. From one student paper's editor in chief to another -- nice work being a real journalist! Flag Abuse
Posted by: pv at 12/20/08 poor guy... Flag Abuse
Posted by: WHAH at 12/20/08 Oh and let's just add this tid bit... "The archive was set up under terms of a court settlement with the families earlier this year to avoid lawsuits over the shootings. Relatives had sought disclosure of all records related to the shootings and the school's response to it so others could learn from them." ipso facto...bahahahahaha Flag Abuse
Posted by: WHAH at 12/20/08 John - Huh? What? Are you kidding? These are emails. Period. A conversation. Just like calling 911. It becomes public record when it is taken as evidence in an investigation. It becomes state/federal property...lol. Come on dude...passing emails through his estate?? License to publish? I don't think it's theirs just as much as 911 calls don't belong to anyone...copyright? Huh? Liability? Za? This is "evidence", not a made for TV movie script. I am at a loss for words to explain how silly that is. Gotta love arm chair lawyers... Flag Abuse
Posted by: John S. at 12/20/08 BTW, not to extend him any undeserved consideration, but: Every email Cho composed is ipso facto copyrighted under the Bern Convention and the rights would have passed through his estate, presumably to his parents. If his successor's in interest have given license to publish this matter, fine. If not, the publishing entities may have significant liability. Letting the Cho family review it for privacy concerns is not the same thing as licensing copyright. TBS, I think eventually that this matter should certainly be archived and made available for review at least to those with any serious interest. This should be done with due consideration to the above. Flag Abuse
Posted by: ZAK at 12/20/08 You are only a victim if you LET yourself be one... Flag Abuse
Posted by: hale at 12/20/08 Deborah, what makes you think his parents taught him that he was a victim? This guy was obviously crazy and big time issues. As an African American, I believe that I am a victim of certain social injustices, but I am not going through destructive patterns nor do I feel the world owes me a living. Flag Abuse
Posted by: b at 12/20/08 What a nut job this guy was! The university bent over back wards for this psycho!! Flag Abuse
Posted by: ab at 12/20/08 The poor kid probably had deep seated issues, and Giovanni seems like an arrogant know-it-all kind of person. Atleast one of those kinds are present in every university, i must add...Many of these creative writing classes are unduly critical of asians and others. There are professors who assume that a student plagiarized if English isn't their first language, yet they turned in a paper well...Ignoramuses! Flag Abuse
Posted by: BAH at 12/20/08 Who is having a hay day? I don't see any celebrating here? Keep your cliches for the next bad action movie. Flag Abuse
Posted by: deborah at 12/20/08 This guy felt like he was a victim and was incredibly self-centered. Look what a high opinion he had of himself. This is what happens when people fixate on their own belly button too long. What a royal JERK he was. People should take note, in the training of their own children. Parents can't control everything and we can't make guarantees about what our children will DO with our training eventually, but there is a lot to be said for training children from childhood that they are NOT a victim, that the world does not owe them a living, and that self-focus leads to destructive patterns. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Lu222 at 12/20/08 THe CT needs to be cited in the behavior they have taken place in here. The documents were for the families, not the university's closed minded newspaper. I would be embarrassed to have published this. God bless the families and the victims. You all are having a hay day over a tradgedy. You should be embarassed. Flag Abuse
Posted by: anon at 12/20/08 I think that if the emails prove anything , it's that the University bent over backwards to accomodate a student. I cannot comment of Giovani because we only have the word of seung cho who was obviously existing in another World altogether. Even so, VT made an amazing effort to work with this kid. I see no wrong in what VT did. Quite the opposite, I thought they were more accomodating than most universities would be. Flag Abuse
Posted by: ITSTL2 (hahahaha) at 12/20/08 oh...because ITSTL is soooo different than "Anonymous" ...what's the difference? Everyone has a "cloak" on here (unless you print your REAL name). Find something better to talk about... Flag Abuse
Posted by: JTSTL at 12/20/08 2 comments RE: Anonymous. 1) Your presumption that there is journalistic integrity by a mass media source is not realistic. Most media today will publish ANYTHING regardless of the consequences. Checking facts, multiple sources, gauging reliability of the source and assessing consequences are regrettably, a thing of the past. 2) Why be anonymous? I have read the past comments of "Anonymous" and they are good, well thought out and hopefully all from you. I agree with your outrage on the release of the emails, not with your "cloak". Come out in to the "light." Flag Abuse
Posted by: steve at 12/20/08 its a public matter, everyone should have the chance to see what was going on in his life. its obvious he was troubled, but its not like any of the teachers appeared to help him. i would be disgusted if i was professor giovanni. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at 12/20/08 I am disgusted in the CT for the way that they have chosen to handle the issue involving these e-mails. This information was meant for the families of those students killed on the 16th and the university explicitly stated that they were not ready to release the records to the public. By ignoring the wishes of the university and families of the those killed on the 16th, the CT has shown that they have no respect for the university's wishes and lack the journalistic integrity expected by a mass media source. Flag Abuse






Add your opinion
Copyright 2009 Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech Inc. All rights reserved.
about | advertising | archive | contact | full edition pdfs | headline emails | join us | subscribe
All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times.
» Virginia Tech
» Custom Promotional Products
 » VT People Search
» Used Cars
 » Campus Blvd.
»