There are times when the three hour time difference between the East and West coasts is significant in ways one could never imagine. On April 16, this time difference meant that when I arrived at work at 8:00 am the events at Virginia Tech had already occurred, although it would be some hours until a more complete picture about the magnitude of the tragedy became clear. In the days since I have again felt myself to be part of that unique family that is Hokie nation. I have been in contact with roommates, friends, and teachers that I had not spoken with in years. And I have thought a great deal about the meaning and implications of the shootings. In many ways, this is just part of my normal activities. I work for a research center that examines how forces of global change are transforming security threats that confront states and their citizens. I often spend much of my day thinking about threats and vulnerabilities from terrorism, crime, and infectious disease. But the events of April 16 have presented me with a challenge as I consider the events not only from a security studies perspective, but also as someone who lived in Blacksburg for five years and earned two degrees from Virginia Tech. A few years ago, the center I work for conducted a project on school safety and emergency preparedness. One of the lessons I came away from the project with was an understanding that school shootings occur in places that seem unlikely, most often suburban and rural areas. In this way, Virginia Tech is like many of the other campuses - California State University at Fullerton, the University of Iowa, San Diego State University, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Virginia Appalachian School of Law, the University of Arizona Nursing College, and West Virginia Shepherd Universityâï¿½ï¿½that have been victims of shooting incidents. None of these schools are located in areas that spring to mind as particularly dangerous or crime ridden. Another lesson I came away from our project with is the understanding that school shootings are like many other forms of modern crisis in that they are often over before first responders arrive. In such instances, the real first responders to incidents are whoever happens to be at the location of an incident. The stories that have emerged about April 16 show a remarkable amount of heroism and selflessness. When faced with an unexpected danger, teachers and students responded, often with very little time to consider their situation, to help others and try and reduce the danger they faced. In the aftermath of the events of April 16, 2007, many people have been trying to make sense of what occurred and asking about the lessons that can be learned from the events. One lesson that seems clear is that geography is no real protection from these sorts of tragedies. As someone who studies security threats, I can see that the events at Virginia Tech make it clearer that on the changing security landscape on which we now find ourselves, people and organizations at all levels of society must ask what they can do to prevent and prepare for events like these. But as someone who spent an important and formative part of my life at Virginia Tech, I am deeply saddened that Virginia Tech will now be among the events we discuss, and that many people's memories of Blacksburg will be of the scenes of tragedy they saw unfold on April 16. Bryan McDonald B.A. English (1997) M.A. Political Science (1999)
Tech students are happy with proposed design By: Bryan Schamus (June 7) Virginia Tech released its plans today for an intermediate memorial for the victims of the April 16 shootings, one day after announcing that Norris Hall, the site of 31 of the 33 shootings, would reopen on June 18. The memorial site will be located on the Drillfield, in front of Burruss Hall, where a makeshift memorial sprung up after the shootings. "The university community, and particularly the students, has become attached to this location. It seems only appropriate that we continue this tradition with something more substantive while we begin the process of looking elsewhere on campus for a permanent and fitting memorial to honor the memory and lives of our fallen students and faculty," Tech President Charles Steger said in a press release. Thirty-two small, upright Hokie stones - each etched with the name of one of the victims - will be installed in crushed gravel and surrounded by a semi-circular walking path. Construction is expected to be completed by the time students return for fall semester. Students walking around campus today seemed content with the decision when they saw an artists' rendering of what the memorial would look like. "Wow, that looks nice," and "Very cool" were their reactions when I showed them a copy of the design pictured above. "I personally really like the design," said Sumeet Bagai, a coordinator of Hokies United, the group that helped erect the first temporary memorial on the Drillfield. "I think it affirms the university's commitment to what students want and is more of a permanent version of what Hokies United did." The intermediate memorial and its location were chosen by a committee of about half a dozen Tech community members, including four students. Vice President of Alumni Relations Tom Tillar chaired that committee. Part of the temporary memorial currently on the Drillfield is a 33rd stone with Seung-Hui Cho's name next to it. That stone was not placed by the university or any university-affiliated group but by the community, Bagai said. The university's design for the intermediate memorial includes no plans for a 33rd stone. All 33 stones from the original memorial will be offered to the families of those who died, according to university relations and Bagai. The intermediate memorial will remain until a permanent one is constructed elsewhere on campus. Another committee will be convened to decide on the location and type of permanent memorial that the university will construct. Tillar's committee suggested the area on the Drillfield across the street from the Duck Pond and off of West Campus Drive as a location for the permanent memorial. "This is a prominent position and a place of honor immediately opposite the Memorial Chapel with its Pylons that honor Virginia Tech war dead. The memorials will symbolically anchor either end of the Drillfield, another hallowed location on this campus," Tillar said in a statement. The permanent memorial will likely take several years to construct. -- Original Source: Big Lick U - June 7, 2007
Chris Winston <Chris.Winston@biglicku.com>
Norris Hall reopening is one step toward healing
A student perspective By: Bryan Schamus (June 6) I will admit that I once uttered the statement, "There is no way any student should have to walk through that building again." Norris Hall being "that building" - the site on campus at Virginia Tech where 31 of the 33 people killed on April 16 were shot. But now, almost two months later, I just don't feel that way anymore. When the university announced Tuesday in a press release that Norris will reopen on June 18, I was surprised. But after the initial shock wore off (about five minutes), I was not only OK with it, I realized that I am very glad. A lot of fellow students agree. "I think it's a good decision," said Caitlin Czeh, a 2005 graduate who has lived and worked in Blacksburg for the past two years. "It seemed like it just the right amount of time. A decision now will give students and professors who will be working in that building time to acclimate themselves and prepare themselves for being in there. And it gives those students who won't be in there some closure." As announced, the building will open for office and laboratory use only. It once accounted for 5 percent of the classrooms on campus but will never be used for classes again. I understand that not every student will be ready to return to that now-infamous building. But once again, the university is bending over backward to take care of students; other arrangements will be made for those not wanting to return there. Personally, I feel very comfortable with this decision, especially since the engineering faculty themselves requested to move back in, according to the press release. Many of them had laboratory equipment and other materials necessary to do their research that would have been difficult to relocate or replace. "As someone who was here [at Tech] on April 16, I don't know if I could go back into the building, especially so soon," said Jennie Tal, a 2007 graduate and a fellow BigLickU writer. "But on the other side, while this is a little soon, I think it is a good step in the direction of recovery." Eventually, the empty classrooms will turn into more offices and labs. For now, many areas of the building have been repainted, and new lights have been installed. Plans are under way for an official memorial somewhere else on campus. Students and faculty will be able to enter the building using the Holden-Norris tunnel entrance. The building will be unlocked from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on weekdays, locked on weekends and accessible by key during off-hours. The building will not be open to visitors. I spent a good portion of today on campus at Tech and could not find one person in my travels who really opposed this decision. Like me, some were surprised, but then most talked of the healing that has already happened and needs to continue. To me, closing Norris or knocking it down is just giving in to the evil that was perpetrated on this campus that day. On June 14, four days before the scheduled reopening, the school will give tours of Norris in groups of 25 to the media. Dean Amy - our editor - and I will be on the first one at 10 a.m. It will not be easy. I'm 21 years old, a senior at Virginia Tech. A close friend lost her best friend in that building in April. But I am honored to be able to report to you the state this place is now in. Look for our coverage on the walking tour of Norris Hall on June 14. And to all those engineering students and faculty out there who will return to Norris on the 18th, good for you. -- Original Source: Big Lick U - June 6, 2007
Un roman admirat in toata lumea Liviu Librescu, profesorul de eroism A supravietuit Holocaustului si comunismului, dar l-a ucis un student. Presa internationala scrie pe larg despre profesorul israelian de origine romana Liviu Librescu, care a murit salvandu-si studentii in timpul masacrului din campusul Universitatii Tehnice din Virginia. Profesor de peste 20 de ani in SUA, Librescu a murit in timp ce bloca usa de acces in sala de curs, pentru ca studentii sa poata fugi de atacator. Universitatea Politehnica Bucuresti (UPB) a declarat marti - zi de doliu in memoria profesorului Liviu Librescu, fost absolvent al Facultatii de Inginerie Aerospatiala. · Universitatile din SUA - in stare de alerta. Ieri s-a inregistrat inca o amenintare · Studentii de la Virginia - reporteri care au filmat cu telefoanele · Atacatorul de la Virginia Tech - un student de origine sud-coreeana · America sub soc: masacru intr-un campus universitar Moartea lui Librescu si a colegului sau, Profesorul Kevin Granata, a fost anuntata prima data pe site-ul oficial al institutiei. Articolul postat in versiunea engleza a HotNews.ro, despre moartea lui Liviu Librescu, a fost preluat pe blogurile Claremont Institute for the Study of Statemanship and Political Philosphy. Un material dedicat de Associated Press lui Liviu Librescu a fost preluat de sute de publicatii din intreaga lume. Articolul povesteste cum familia lui Librescu a primit e-mailuri de consolare de la studentii acestuia, care au povestit despre modul cum s-a jertfit pentru studenti. CNN, The Times, The New York Times si Haaretz se numara printre multele publicatii si televiziuni care au relatat pe larg despre cum i-a aparat Librescu pe studenti cu pretul propriei sale vieti. Pe site-ul oficial al Universitatii Tehnice din Virginia, a fost anuntat decesul a doi dintre dascalii universitatii: Profesor Liviu Librescu si Profesor Kevin Granata, morti pe data de 16 aprilie 2007, in timp ce isi tineau cursurile in cladirea Norris Hall de la Universitatea Virginia Tech. Potrivit "The Jerusalem Post" online, profesorul, in varsta de 77 de ani, a murit impuscat, iar site-ul ynetnews.com scrie ca profesorul a fost ucis in timp ce bloca accesul atacatorului in sala de curs, pentru a-si apara studentii. Alec Calhoun, o studenta aflata in sala de curs in momentul atacului, a povestit pentru Associated Press ca l-a vazut pe profesorul Librescu blocand usa in timp ce unii dintre colegii ei se ascundeau, iar altii sareau pe geam. Profesorul fusese condus la scoala de sotia sa, cu mai putin de o ora inainte de a fi impuscat. Potrivit sursei citate, sotia sa Marlina si copii, Arieh si Joe, au inceput deja sa faca pregatirile pentru inmormantarea lui Liviu Librescu in Israel. Nora sa, Ayala, povesteste ca profesorul era foarte pasionat de meseria sa si un om dedicat familiei. Colegii de la Universitatea Tehnica din Virginia il descriu drept "un adevarat gentleman". In incident, cel putin 33 de persoane au fost ucise si 28 au fost ranite dupa ce un student a deschis focul in interiorul campusului din Blacksburg. Cine este profesorul Librescu Profesor israelian de origine romana, Liviu Librescu a absolvit Facultatea Politehnica din Bucuresti in anul 1952, specializarea inginerie aeronautica si apoi s-a inscris la masterat. In 1972, primeste premiul "Traian Vuia" al Academiei de Stiinte din Romania. Intre anii 1979-1986 a fost profesor de inginerie mecanica la Universitatea din Tel Aviv. Potrivit ynetnews.com, profesorul Librescu si sotia sa sunt supravietuitori ai Holocaustului care au emigrat in Israel din Romania in 1978. Regimul comunist nu i-a dat voie sa plece din tara, dar a reusit acest lucru numai dupa ce premierul israelian de atunci, Menachem Begin a intervenit pe langa Nicolae Ceausescu. Cativa ani mai tarziu a plecat in SUA. Din iunie 1986 preda ingineria mecanica la Universitatea Tehnica din Virginia, unde era titularul a patru cursuri. In anul 2000 primeste titlu de Doctor Honoris Causa al Universitatii Politehnice din Bucuresti. A publicat numeroase articole si studii de inginerie mecanica in presa americana, a obtinut zeci de premii si titluri onorifice si a prezidat mai multe congrese internationale pe acesta tema. Zi de doliu la Universitatea Politehnica din Bucuresti Universitatea Politehnica Bucuresti (UPB) a declarat, marti, zi de doliu in memoria profesorului Liviu Librescu, absolvent al Facultatii de Inginerie Aerospatiala. Rectorul UPB, Ecaterina Andronescu, s-a declarat consternata de incidentul petrecut in campusul universirat din Virginia, Statele Unite, si a declarat ca va pastra poza lui Liviu Librescu in holul rectoratulului pentru a-i aduce un ultim omagiu acestuia. "Ne-am hotarat sa transmitem un mesaj de solidaritate, incurajare si de sustinere la Universitatea Virginia Tech si am declarat zi de doliu in universitate. Liviu Librescu este membru al comunitatii noastre academice, cu atat mai mult ca in anul 2000, domnul profesor a primit titul de Doctor Honoris Causa al UPB", a declarat Ecaterina Andronescu pentru HotNews.ro. „Prin curajul de care a dat dovada, Liviu Librescu a adus o mare onoare atat Universitatii Politehnice, cat si intregii scoli romanesti" a precizat Andronescu. HotNews.ro, C.N.A., C. Marin, 17 apr 2007 -- Sursa Originala: http://www.hotnews.ro/articol_70002-Un-profesor-de-origine-romana-a-fost-ucis-in-masacrul-din-Virginia-in-timp-ce-si-apara-studentii.htm
Korean Reaction to VA Tech Shootings: Guilt vs. Solidarity
Sunday, April 22nd, 2007 At the risk of overanalyzing the events surrounding the shootings at Virginia Tech last week, I would like to offer one last set of observations. In my previous posts, I've acknowledged that certainly, there are many complicated emotions and reactions to these tragic events. This also applies to Koreans and Korean Americans, for whom this event stirs up additional feelings that include guilt, shame, and embarrassment based on the fact that the gunman was Korean American. As one article from New American Media describes, many Koreans felt that Cho's murderous rampage tarnished the image of Koreans and Korean Americans and that it would lead to a backlash against them. Korean government officials have also issued repeated apologies, perhaps fearing that an association with Cho would interfere with their diplomatic and/or economic relations with Americans. In talking about this particular issue with my Korean American colleagues, many of them observe that for whatever reasons, many Asian Americans in general, but Koreans in particular, are very quick to personalize and internalize the high-profile public failures of anyone identified as Korean or Korean American, and to therefore feel a deep and profound sense of humiliation and guilt about such events. The implication is that somehow, the entire Korean/Korean American community is "responsible" or "at fault" in some way for Cho's actions. In contrast, many Koreans/Korean Americans, particularly younger or more "Americanized" members, feel that while they obviously share in the shock, grief, and sorrow regarding the tragic events at Virginia Tech, their community should not have to feel that they are somehow responsible for what Cho did just because he was Korean American, in the same way that Whites as a collective group were not responsible for the shooting massacre at Columbine High School eight years ago, nor any of the other high-profile school shootings in recent American history. I happen to agree with that sentiment, but I think it's a more complicated issue than that. The question that comes to mind for me is, where do we as Asian Americans draw the line between shared guilt versus group solidarity? In other words, in most other respects, many Asian Americans including myself have consistently tried to encourage a sense of pan-Asian American unity and solidarity. This effort is based on the notion that in emphasizing our commonalities and uniting as a collective group, Asian Americans can speak with a louder and more powerful collective voice in American society, rather than as isolated individuals or ethnicities. But with that in mind, is it then a contradiction to disassociate ourselves from Seung-Hui Cho in this case, and basically say that he wasn't "one of us" and to reject any insinuation that his ethnicity had anything to do with his actions (which would also imply that some Asian American may share some of his feelings of alienation, etc.)? Ultimately, I don't think that it has to be an either-or proposition. That is, we can still say that ultimately Cho's actions should be understood as the aberrant behavior of an extremely troubled individual, while at the same time saying that his mental illness could have been made worse by feeling like an outsider and ridiculed for being different -- sentiments that inevitably do exist among many Asian Americans. Thankfully, even though many Asian Americans may have similar feelings of alienation, they do not react by going on a murderous rampage. Nonetheless, we as Asian Americans should recognize and advocate that (1) we be treated with respect and tolerance -- especially those who might be otherwise seen as outcasts, (2) members of our community who are emotionally troubled be actively encouraged to seek help, and (3) mental health services should be readily available and culturally-competent. These efforts would go a long way in preventing not just tragic incidents like this, but also in reducing the difficulties many Asian American face in the complicated process of finding our identity within the complicated American racial landscape. -- Original Source: C.N. Le / CNLe.net http://www.cnle.net/2007/04/korean-reaction-to-va-tech-shootings-guilt-vs-solidarity/
Immigrant Status of VA Tech Gunman: Does it Matter?
Thursday, April 19th, 2007 Following up on my last post about Seung Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, the evidence that’s coming out seems to suggest that among other things, he felt ridiculed for his social class background (at least in comparison to the ‘rich’ kids that he railed against in his suicide note and video) and for being quiet -- but apparently not specifically for being Asian. In other words, it does not seem that he was lashing out in reaction to incidents of racial prejudice or discrimination. I personally feel somewhat relieved to know that prejudice can now be removed from the equation. Why is that comforting to know? Because to me, it means that Asians and Koreans on the one hand, will not have to engage in the “blame game” with non-Asians on the other (specifically those who would have been the perpetrators of prejudice against him). Nonetheless, a different aspect to the media’s coverage of his situation has gotten my attention and that of many others. Specifically, a lot of analysts, commentators, and observers have brought up the fact that he originally immigrated to the U.S. from Korea. One example of this is to refer to him in the traditional Asian way of using the surname first -- Cho Seung-Hui, instead of the American version-- Seung-Hui Cho. Does his immigrant status make a difference in trying to understand what he did? For many Asian Americans, the answer is no. First of all, even though he was originally from South Korea, he immigrated at a relatively early age -- 8. According to sociologists and demographers, that makes him part of the “1.5 generation” -- in between the first generation (that would be his parents) and the second generation (those born in the U.S.). The distinction of being 1.5 generation also includes being raised and socialized primarily as an American. In other words, most of his formative schooling took place in the U.S. and by all accounts, he was perfectly fluent in English. In fact, he was so Americanized that he majored in English, rather than majors normally associated with Asian immigrants such as engineering, math, the ‘hard’ sciences, etc. So why is it that so many people commented and even focused so intently on the fact that he originally immigrated from South Korea? I think the answer is that they were consciously or unconsciously trying to culturally distance themselves from him. In other words, by emphasizing that he was an immigrant, they were basically saying “He was a foreigner, an outsider -- he wasn’t one of us, he wasn’t a ‘real’ American. ‘Real’ Americans would never have done something like this.” That is, even though he was basically socialized as an American, much of America refuses to accept that he was in fact an American. And with underlying sentiments like that, they only function to reinforce notions of Korean Americans and Asian Americans as perpetual foreigners. In other words and unfortunately, many Asian Americans still need to overcome the perception that they are not “real” Americans. This particular stereotype exists even though many Asian American families have been in the U.S. several generations, even though we tend to be the most educated racial group in the U.S., even though we are the group most likely to have high-skilled jobs, and even though on the family level, we have the highest income of all racial groups. Of course, there are specific ethnic differences in this generalization, but the point is that in virtually all other respects of what it means to be an “American,” we meet or exceed those standards. But for various reasons, most of which have to do with our skin color and distinct physical appearance to be perfectly blunt, we’re more likely to be seen as foreigners. That is exactly what is going on in this instance, with the American media’s focus on Cho’s immigrant status. In trying to distance ‘real’ Americans from him, American society is only reinforcing the notion that Asian Americans are not ‘real’ Americans. In the end, even though we may grieve and cry just like the rest of American society, we still have to pay a price for what he did. -- Original Source: C.N. Le / CNLe.net http://www.cnle.net/2007/04/immigrant-status-of-va-tech-gunman-does-it-matter
Tuesday, April 17th, 2007 By now, I’m sure everybody has heard of the tragedy that took place yesterday, Monday April 16, at Virginia Tech University. Words cannot adequately convey the profound shock and sadness that I feel about this unthinkable human catastrophe. As an educator, a parent -- as a human being -- I am struggling to come to grips with the enormity of what happened but at the least, I want to convey my deepest, most sincere condolences to everyone affected by these killings. You may have also heard that gunman has been officially identified as an Asian American -- Seung-Hui Cho, a 23 year old senior English major at Virginia Tech who originally immigrated from South Korea in 1992. The Associated Press article cited above notes that he was referred to school counselors after his instructors found his creative writing rather disturbing. The Chicago Tribune also reports that he apparently left a rambling suicide note that railed against “‘rich kids,’ ‘debauchery’ and ‘deceitful charlatans’ on campus” and that he had committed several strange and violent acts in recent weeks. As a sociologist and Asian American Studies scholar, I will try to to put some sociological context into this horrific tragedy and several initial reactions come to mind: If the gunman were White, his racial identity would go virtually unnoticed and unmentioned. However, because he was a person of color, much will probably be made of his racial identity. Specifically, because he was Asian American, much of the nation’s attention will be turned to examining what kinds of cultural characteristics may have influenced his behavior. Also, inevitably, there will be some extreme reactions from xenophobes and people with anti-immigrant positions, perhaps along the lines of “This is what happens when we let in all kinds of immigrants, so we need to shut down our borders” or “We let in these damn foreigners and give them a chance at a better life and this is how they return the favor?” In addition, those who have anti-Asian sentiments are likely to say something like “Well, this just proves that Asians are so weird, foreign, and inscrutable --we just can’t trust them.” Unfortunately these sorts of opinions are a classic example of confounding individual traits with group traits. In other words, yes, this one particular immigrant was responsible for this tragedy, but that does not mean that all immigrants or all Asian Americans are ticking psychopathic timebombs just waiting to go on a murderous rampage. More likely, I think typical reactions will be along the lines of “Wow, I always thought Asian Americans were so quiet and passive” or “As an Asian, he must have been under a tremendous amount of pressure to do well in school.” Admittedly, these types of responses are a little harder to respond to because there are some kernels of truth to these particular sentiments. For example, some Asian Americans do tend to be quiet and unassuming, although that is changing and also, much of these perceptions are based on biased media portrayals and cultural stereotypes. Nonetheless, the perception -- whether it’s true or not -- of Asians being quiet does exist. Similarly, it is also true that many Asian Americans, particular students, do experience a lot of pressure to succeed. In fact, I’ve written about such examples before and other barriers many Asian American students regularly face. To this mix, we can also add other examples in which various social pressures or contentious incidents have pushed Asian Americans over the edge, causing them to snap and commit murder. But does that mean that Asians are more prone to psychotic episodes that result in them killing those around them? My answer is, absolutely not. If anything, I believe the opposite is true -- that despite having to frequently deal with various incidents of prejudice, hostility, and outright racism, the vast majority of Asian Americans react with dignity, courage, and perseverance. Perhaps too many still keep their emotions buried inside them and need to share their frustrations more openly in order to move beyond them, but as a group, I think that in the face of persistent examples of inequality and injustice, we do not react more violently than any other group. Did the Virginia Tech gunman’s reasons include having to deal with racism as an Asian American? At this point, I don’t know. But if that turns out to be the case, my reaction would be the same as it was in the case of Chai Soua Vang, the Hmong American convicted of killing six White hunters in Wisconsin after a hostile encounter that allegedly contained anti-Asian profanities. That is, many of us Asian Americans face racism as well, but we don’t go on murderous shooting rampages. In other words, my point is that ultimately, what Seung-Hui Cho did at Virginia Tech was an example of someone who was clearly emotionally unstable and that he just snapped for whatever reasons known only to him. I would not be a sociologist if I did not also point to the culture of violent masculinity that frames mass shootings like this. My UMass Amherst colleague Sut Jhully has produced several acclaimed documentaries that detail this phenomenon, most notably the video Tough Guise. For now, I will leave it up to him and others who have greater expertise in this particular sociological context to contribute their analysis. In the end, this entire episode is an opportunity to remind Asian Americans and anyone else out there who are facing emotional issues or challenging situations that there are resources out there for them to access in order to more constructively deal with those pressures before they get out of hand. Suffering in silence doesn’t help anyone. -- Original Source: C.N. Le / CNLe.net http://www.cnle.net/2007/04/asian-identity-of-virginia-tech-gunman/
Editorial: The necessary right of self-defense
From the May 2007 Print Edition Respectfully observing tragedy is never easy. Tempering a respect for the deceased and their families with a desire to draw upon lessons from the tragedy to prevent future occurrences is touchy. Indeed, allegations have already been levied that some have exploited the Virginia Tech shootings for political gain. Within hours of the attack, gun-control advocates began a full-fledged campaign against gun-rights politicians, as many in the media were quick to call for increased regulation of guns, ostensibly to prevent future tragedies. We at the Patriot give our condolences to the families of the deceased, and pray for a quick recovery of those affected by the attack. At the same time, we take a firm stand against gun-control advocates who attempt to offensively use the recent tragedy to silence other voices. The aftermath of Columbine was no different. Second Amendment advocates were branded "insensitive" and politicians seized the opportunity to put gun-control measures on the table. However, Virginia Tech bears little resemblance to Columbine. Though the first two student deaths in the dormitory were unexpected, the subsequent slayings in Norris Hall could have been prevented with adequate campus security and warnings. The issue at question should be the shoddy campus security and an administration's apparent complacency in the face of red flags; campus officials issued only an e-mail warning to students after the first two victims were found murdered. Virginia Tech's administration is not unique. UC Berkeley's own stance on security is laughable, in the face of a locus of crime around People's Park. Vagrancy exists as a catalyst for crime, yet is permitted to continue. Admittedly, muggings and university shootings are on separate planes, but the complacency about student safety is the same. Unfortunately, it takes a tragedy before bureaucratic and disconnected administrations get serious about student safety. Despite the fact that the Virginia Tech administration could have done more to secure the campus, gun-control advocates nonetheless spuriously seized the opportunity to make the Second Amendment the primary culprit. However, existing gun-control laws outlawed the killer from having guns. Even The New York Times pointed out that existing laws "made the killer ineligible to purchase guns" since law "prohibits anyone who has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective ...' from buying a gun." The killer slipped through existing statues because enforcement of such laws is spotty. Local mental-health records are often not synchronized with national records, which let killer Seung-Hui Cho slip through. Gun-control advocates shouldn't be championing more legislation, but instead should be focusing their efforts on enforcing existing laws. Even if one philosophically supports additional gun-control laws, they would only serve to stretch existing enforcement budgets thinner, and result in a net decrease in enforcement. Yet reasons to oppose gun control aren't just pragmatic. Freedom is often confused as the philosophical justification for the Second Amendment. However, the philosophical base for the right to bear arms is much more profound. Such a right empowers individuals to defend themselves, so they don't have to leap out of windows when threatened by mentally defective maniacs. It gives individuals the ability to defend themselves when a government or administration does not take the adequate steps to protect them. During the rampage, students were at the mercy of the killer and the Virginia Tech administration. Were even one mentally stable student, instructor, or janitor armed, the outcome would have likely been much different. Far from demonstrating a need for extensive gun control, the Virginia Tech tragedy demonstrated the dangers of relying heavily on a bureaucratic entity for protection. It's true that enforcement of existing laws could have helped prevent the tragedy, and a more vigilant administration could have prevented two deaths from turning into 32. The underlying lesson to take from the tragedy, however, is markedly different. At the end of the day, neither a university administration nor government can ever be trusted to safeguard an individual's safety, because such amorphous bodies lack the direct accountability to do so. The university president and security force may lose their jobs over the tragedy, and that may compel future officers to be vigilant. Yet the students who barricaded themselves into classrooms won't forget that they owe their lives to their own abilities to save themselves, not to a university administration, police force, or government. -- Original Source: California Patriot Online http://californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8/editorial Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License
To Students, Faculty, Staff and Friends at VTU: On April 16th 2007, a day before my 16th birthday, a tragedy that you know all too well struck your campus, your city, and the entire United States. I received our local paper and couldn't believe what I read. I tried initially to shake off the event and continue with my own life, but I couldn't. My mind was constantly filled with questions... "How?"... "Why?" To help articulate my thoughts, I took this newspaper and over the next few weeks wrote the song contained on this CD. For mostly selfish reasons I put to words and music what I've observed through my 16 years on this earth. These lyrics aren't meant to have a complex political or religious meaning; rather they should be taken just as a straight forward observation. I hope that this song can help comfort and heal those that need it, and to put at ease a few questions that April 16th 2007 left heavy in your hearts and minds. Sincerely, Cameron Girard Chelsea, Michigan (Submitted by Cam's dad, Tom Girard)
On One Year Anniversary of VT, Many Move On But Remember
By Can Tran April 16, 2008 April 16, 2008, marks the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre as Korean student Cho Seung-hui in a fit of madness and depression went on a shooting rampage as he took the lives of thirty-two students and teachers on the Virginia Tech campus, before turning the gun on himself. This day would forever be engraved as a moment of darkness in the history of twenty-first century American let alone for Virginia Tech. While a year has pasted with many working hard to move away from the dark incident, there are those that are still coping. Many have lost friends and family members in the Virginia Tech shooting. Bryan Cloyd lost his daughter Austin, in the VT shooting. "I won't be able to walk my daughter down the aisle at her wedding. I won't be able to bounce her children on my knee," Bryan Cloyd said. He added: "And I don't think it's helpful to dwell on that, because where that leads is just more sadness. I think what's helpful to do is to dwell on what can be. What can we do with what we have?" In the case of Cho, the one responsible for the shooting; there are no public memorials planned. In related news, eight months after the Virginia Tech shooting, 21-year-old Korean student Daniel Kim had taken his own life. His father, William Kim, said that the school was not taking the warning signs of suicide that serious. In the case of Daniel Kim, he fell into state of depression out of fear that he could be mistaken for Cho Seung-hui. The scars of the Virginia Tech shooting could extend towards South Korea, whose government had issued an apology for Cho's actions. On an interesting note, the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting comes on the same day as the Democratic debate in Pennsylvania between Democratic frontrunners Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. On that note, the hot button topic could be gun ownership rights. In Pennsylvania, there are almost one-million licensed hunters. There are at least 250,000 registered members of the NRA living in the state of Pennsylvania, making it the one state with the largest number of members. However, there is at least one gun-related death a day in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For that reason, Philadelphia is known as "Killadelphia." However, the issue of guns could possibly be overshadowed by "green jobs." The day of the April 22 Democratic primaries is the same day as Earth Day. Licensed under Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License -- Original Source: http://www.groundreport.com/US/On-One-Year-Anniversary-of-VT-Many-Move-On-But-Rem
[Philosophical Musing on Media Culture] By Carl Davidson 20 Apr 2007 The universe throws curve balls at us, now and then. It seems to want to wake us up, and teach us lessons in impermanence and interconnectedness. Take the killings at Virginia Tech. A strange, quiet young Korean man, Cho Seung-Hui, writer of tortured and violent plays and screeds, makes his own solipsistic martial arts-gangsta video of himself, and sends it to the media, in the course of slaughtering 32 people, then killing himself. The media sensationalizes it. MSNBC ratings go through the roof as its images are repeated, to millions and millions, then all the networks join in the frenzy. As expected, other troubled youth respond, in copy-cat fashion, often only with words, and scares shut down numerous classes across the country. At the same time, discussions of 'healing' get underway. Talk show commentators are having a time of it. I hear both liberal and conservatives alike carry on about 'looking in the face of evil' and trashing the notions of illness and therapy. Rush Limbaugh and one caller on his show go on about how the Korean youth is an 'America hater,' 'suicide bomber,' and simply evil. Retired FBI guys talk about 'training' students to be able to respond better, and hiring tougher 'security.' People debate police tactics, censorship and guns. Then a British paper goes to a tiny hut in Korea, and a reporter talks to the boy's grandparents, who say he was a bad kid and 'deserved to die' for his sins. But the grandparents also reveal the poverty of his parents as they immigrated to the U.S. Most important, they reveal their grandson was diagnosed early with autism, but the poverty all around prevented them from doing much about it, either in Korea or here. Autism is recently growing with unusual speed in the US. Parents, rich and poor, are desperate for help, since dealing with an autistic child is often beyond any couple, however well off. One radio personality, Don Imus, takes up their cause. He helps grow their organization for families of Autistic children, and raises millions. His wife, an environmentalist, believes toxins, perhaps in vaccines, are partly to blame, and demands independent research. Wealthy pharmaceutical companies and the Wall Street Journal counter-attack, smearing the couple. But Imus is relentless, and blasts away at their money-grubbing and lies. Largely through his efforts, a compromise measure, offering some relief, gets through Congress, but he pushes on for more substantive solutions, and raises millions more. Now the effort has stopped, or is at least severely reduced. Imus, as we well know, also indulged in racist, sexist and chauvinist commentary and locker-room 'jokes,' repeatedly, and finally went too far. He realized it, blamed himself and tried to make amends. He promised changes in his show, but accepted whatever he got, saying he had dished it out long enough, now it was his turn to take it. But a groundswell wanted more. They wanted his show shut down, period, and it was. Many people declared victory over racism and sexism, and to a degree, it was. The media moguls preened about their new-found responsibility and the need for change. At least until 32 people died at Virginia Tech. Now we have a new wave of violence featured in the media, and Imus is old news, history. And we have a new wave of blame, and a new staking out of moral ground against evil. But you can make a good case that untreated autism, rooted in poverty, was the root cause of what happened at Virginia Tech, however terrible the consequences and the suffering visited on those who didn't deserve it in the least, just as the Rutgers women didn't deserve it in the least. The whole thing reminds me of Thich Nhat Hanh's long poem, 'Call Me by My True Name.' It's about looking deeply, in the poem, about a Thai sailor, and his raping and killing Vietnamese boat people. It's too long a story to retell here, but do yourself a favor and read it, or better yet, listen to it sometime. But given this latest curve ball, I think I'll wait a bit before declaring either Don Imus or Cho Seung-Hui, connected in this curious way, to be evil, or at least, in the case of Imus, who's still with us, beyond public redemption. Related http://carldavidson.blogspot.com -- Original Source: http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/77298/index.php Licensed under Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.
Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication
Creado por Carlos Albaladejo 18 de Abril del 2007 10:44 am Es la frase más repetida en las últimas horas en el sector educativo norteamericano. La triste noticia de la matanza provocada por un estudiante asiático en la universidad de Virginia Tech ha provocado reacciones a lo largo y ancho del país: desde autoridades gubernamentales y universitarias hasta familiares y amigos pasando por las incontables respuestas aparecidas en tan poco tiempo en la Red. Hoy vamos a hablar de esto último, dado que la reacción en la Red está siendo abrumadora, merece la pena decicarle un post al tema. Antes de ello, es inevitable descargar esa opinión subjetiva que todos llevamos dentro, así que tendrán que perdonarme por el abuso del medio para expresar una opinión personal. Entiendo que el derecho a tener un arma de fuego es un derecho fundamental recogido por la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, y que, por tanto, la conveniencia o no de ese derecho es un debate muy difícil. Nunca ha sido sencillo poner en tela de juicio parte de una Constitución, con todas las dudas, las polémicas y las manifestaciones de uno y otro lado que se derivan de este tipo de discusones. Lo que no entiendo es por qué, ante la dificultad de echar mano al motivo que se presenta como de mayor evidencia cada vez que algún adolescente armado pierde la cabeza en EE.UU., se acaba arremetiendo siempre contra otros posibles motivos que a poco que se analicen caen por su propio peso. Me refiero a la continua acusación que se hace a los videojuegos violentos cada vez que ocurre una desgracia. En España los adolescentes también pasan muchas horas jugando a Grand Theft Auto, y ninguno de ellos se hace con un arma y dispara contra sus compañeros de clase. Sencillamente, porque en España no es fácil conseguir un arma. Recuerdo que cuando José Rabadán asesinó a su familia con una katana en Murcia se habló largo y tendido de la conveniencia de productos para adolescentes como Final Fantasy, pero el debate no duró demasiado tiempo, porque como era de esperar no se encontraron argumentos que justificaran el asesinato a través de un videojuego. Finalmente, recuerdo también las palabras de un buen amigo mío sobre los videojuegos violentos: "menos mal que existe Grand Theft Auto, si no pudiera liarme a puñetazos en este videojuego cuando algo me enfada correría el riesgo de querer intentarlo en la vida real". Ahí queda eso, de nuevo disculpen por el abuso del espacio. Disertaciones morales aparte, es hora de volver al asunto principal de este post. Resulta conmovedor comprobar la ola de reacciones que la matanza ha provocado en la Red. A pesar de que no es la primera vez que una desgracia provoca un verdadero aluvión de movimientos en la Red (recuerden que en el caso de Katrina se encontraron víctimas gracias al testimonio de algunos bloggers, o los vídeos grabados con móviles durante los atentados en el metro de Londres en aquel 7J), sigue resultando conmovedor ver cómo una gran masa de usuarios se organiza a través de la Red para expresar sus opiniones y condolencias. Por ejemplo, si entramos en Flickr y buscamos el tag "virginiatech", comprobaremos que hay una cantidad ingente de fotografías de muy diverso tiempo sobre la matanza. La mayoría de ellas ha sido publicada por alumnos de la universidad que han vivido de cerca la noticia. Collegiate Times, la publicación digital universitaria de Virginia Tech, está completamente volcado con la noticia estos días. Resulta una buena fuente de información, en la medida en que han dedicado todos sus esfuerzos en recoger reacciones a la tragedia. A través de ella hemos podido saber que en Facebook (una comunidad virtual de universitarios, pronto les hablaré de su equivalente español) se ha registrado una cantidad ingente de reacciones. Hay más de 300 grupos sobre Virginia Tech. Uno de ellos, que pide un momento de silencio para las víctimas, cuenta ya con más de 8.000 usuarios. Entre decenas de testimonios de estudiantes que estuvieron allí, encontramos también algún grupo dedicado a lanzar un mensaje positivo: "estamos bien en VT". La rapidez con la que han aparecido blogs en memoria de las víctimas es apabullante. Uno de ellos se ha llevado la palma mediática (OneDayBlogSilence), al tiempo que algún que otro diario donde su autor recogía las impresiones vividas durante la matanza ha estado a punto de morir de éxito (por culpa del conocido efecto slashdot). Mención especial merece el profundo seguimiento de la dimensión tecnológica y social de la matanza que ha realizado la prestigiosa revista Wired: en su versión digital no se les ha escapado ningún detalle. Hablan de cómo el asesino había anunciado la matanza en un sitio web de Virginia Tech, de cómo se han creado comunidades sobre VT en myspace, de cómo diferentes dominios relacionados con el nombre de Virginia Tech ya están en venta en eBay, etc. Finalmente, queda recordar el papel que los repositorios de vídeo como Youtube han jugado en esta movilización social. Según cuenta hoy el diario El Mundo, la búsqueda "Virginia Tech Shooting" en Youtube arroja 777 resultados en este preciso instante. En la lista hay de todo: desde grabaciones caseras hasta cortes de televisión pasando por reacciones en vídeo a la matanza... Definitivamente Virginia Tech somos todos, pero también es cierto que eso es lo que se dice siempre que hay un asesinato de determinada proyección social. Se lleva diciendo desde los peores tiempos de ETA, cuando Internet no tenía un papel relevante en las manifestaciones sociales. Ahora que la Red es el gran vehículo de nuestros mensajes, Virginia Tech somos todos. Potencial y realmente. -- Fuente Original: Educacion y Cultura - Sitio en Linea http://blogs.creamoselfuturo.com/educacion-y-cultura/2007/04/18/todos-somos-virginia-tech/ Derechos Reservados: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5
Por Carlos Alberto Montaner 1 de mayo de 2007 Cuando Seung-Hui Cho fue a entrar pistola en mano en la clase de aeronáutica para asesinar a sus condiscípulos en Virginia Tech, el profesor Liviu Librescu, un anciano de 76 años, menudo de cuerpo pero dotado de un carácter firme, se lo impidió durante unos minutos mientras sus estudiantes huían por las ventanas. Finalmente, el joven asesino hirió de muerte a Librescu y siguió su recorrido en busca de nuevas víctimas. Librescu era el scholar con más publicaciones de toda la universidad. Un verdadero sabio en su campo de investigaciones. Esto sucedió el 16 de abril, precisamente en Yom Hashosha, el día en que se conmemora el Holocausto que arrasó sin piedad con seis millones de judíos europeos entre 1935, cuando Hitler promulgó ''las leyes de Nuremberg'', con las que despojó de derechos a las personas de esta etnia o religión, hasta 1945, cuando los aliados entraron en los campos de exterminio y, horrorizados, encontraron a un puñado de despojos humanos que habían logrado sobrevivir milagrosamente. Uno de esos sobrevivientes del Holocausto había sido Librescu, entonces un adolescente en su Rumanía natal, a quien el destino todavía le depararía otra experiencia monstruosa: el establecimiento de la dictadura comunista en Rumanía, también teñida por el antisemitismo, la irracionalidad y la barbarie. A fines de los setenta, afortunadamente, por una gestión de Menajem Begin, consiguió emigrar a Israel y, unos años más tarde, desembarcó en Estados Unidos donde acaba de morir heroica e inesperadamente a manos de un muchacho enloquecido. Traigo a cuento la historia triste y gloriosa de Librescu porque llega en medio de un debate mundial: ¿qué hacer con los canallas que niegan la existencia del Holocausto? En Canadá y en algunos países de Europa los parlamentos han aprobado leyes por las que sancionan a quienes niegan el exterminio masivo de judíos, alegando que esa falsedad estimula el odio racial, mientras en Estados Unidos la Primera Enmienda les permite difundir sus envenenadas informaciones porque el Estado no puede legislar en materia de libertad de prensa. Creo que hay dos buenos argumentos para asumir la posición norteamericana. El primero, es que en una democracia libre les corresponde a los ciudadanos y no al gobierno decidir lo que quieren leer y creer. Si cuatro imbéciles racistas, pese a las toneladas de pruebas y testimonios, se dedican a negar la existencia del Holocausto o de la esclavitud de los negros, hay que confiar en el sentido común de la sociedad y no en el de los censores oficiales, gente que acaba por ser muy dañina. Por otra parte, vivir en libertad exige aprender a tolerar la existencia de creencias y actitudes repugnantes. Las dictaduras comunistas, por ejemplo, le costaron a la humanidad cien millones de muertos a lo largo del siglo XX, pero en todas las sociedades libres hay tipos que todavía veneran a Lenin, Stalin, Mao o Fidel Castro, y no queda más remedio que coincidir con ellos pacíficamente en el ascensor o en la cafetería. Pero tal vez existe un argumento táctico para oponerse a las leyes contra la negación del Holocausto. Cada vez que uno de estos racistas abre la boca para mentir y difundir falsedades crea una oportunidad perfecta para recordarle al mundo que el antisemitismo está vivo y coleando y que no desapareció en la Cancillería junto a los huesos quemados de Hitler. Todos los síntomas señalan que hay un peligroso repunte del odio a Israel y a los judíos en diversas partes del mundo. Todo lo que se haga por denunciarlo y detenerlo es una forma de preservar la paz en el mundo. -- Fuente Original: El Instituto Independiente http://independent.typepad.com/elindependent/2007/05/otra_vez_el_hol.html
Gabriel Gasave Reasearch Analyst Center On Global Prosperity The Independent Institute ggasave@independent.org August 01, 2007
Artist's Comments Reconstitution based on accounts of survivors of the Virginia Tech College shooting rampage, where 32 people were massacred by a gunman. (SECOND UPDATE - April 18) More accurate depiction based on photos taken by the own gunman. (UPDATE - April 18) Adding new items to image, according witnesses. 1 - Glock 9mm pistol in his right hand 2 - Glasses 3 - Jeans 4 - Maroon cap -- Original submitted to deviantart.com on April 17, 2007: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53411839/ Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5
Artist's Comments Ask yourself... -- Original submitted to deviantart.com on April 20, 2007: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53664372/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5.
Artist's Comments Experimental black and white comics on Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech gunman. -- Original submitted to deviantart.com on April 23, 2007: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53830744/ Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.
Artist's Comments Experimental black and white comics on Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech gunman. -- Original submitted to deviantart.com on April 24, 2007: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53908783/ Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.
Artist's Comments Experimental black and white comics on Cho Seung Hui, the Virginia Tech gunman. -- Original submitted to deviantart.com on April 28, 2007: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/54219309/ Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.