The U.S. Department of Education informed Virginia Tech on Tuesday that it intends to fine the institution $55,000 for violations of a federal campus crime-reporting law in its response to the shootings that claimed 33 lives on the Blacksburg, Va., campus four years ago.
The university plans to appeal the fines.
The department’s announcement, in a letter to Virginia Tech’s president, Charles W. Steger, affirms the findings in a final ruling issued in December that determined Virginia Tech had violated the Clery Act by failing to provide a “timely warning” on the day of the shootings, April 16, 2007.
Early that morning, a student, Seung-Hui Cho, fatally shot two other students in a residence hall. The university sent a campuswide e-mail about the incident more than two hours later, at 9:26 a.m. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Cho entered an academic building and began shooting at students and professors. Thirty more people were killed before the gunman killed himself.
The Education Department’s report said that the e-mail alert that went out at 9:26 was too vague—it mentioned a “shooting incident” but not any fatalities—and too late. The report also asserts that the university failed to follow its own policy for issuing timely warnings.
In the letter to Mr. Steger on Tuesday, the department said that it was imposing the maximum fines of $27,500 each for two violations of the Clery Act.
In a written statement, the university indicated its intention to appeal the fines.
“Virginia Tech respectfully disagrees and will appeal this action,” said Larry Hincker, associate vice president for university relations. “We believe that Virginia Tech administrators acted appropriately in their response to the tragic events of April 16, 2007, based on the best information then available to them at the time.”
Mr. Hincker argued that the university was being held accountable for regulations that the department did not put in place until after the shootings.
He referred to an independent investigation commissioned by Virginia Tech, in which Dolores A. Stafford, a national expert on campus crime, said she thought the university’s response met the standard in place at the time.
The Education Department “isn’t going to give you concrete guidelines, but they will judge you after the fact, basing their findings on whether or not they believe that you should have determined that a serious ongoing threat to the community existed,” she said in a statement responding to the department’s report. “The downside is that they are provided the benefit of knowing the rest of the story when they make that decision.”