By:Anonymous Posted: 4/24/07 Many believed last week's Virginia Tech shootings would trigger immediate gun-control legislation from the Democrat-controlled Congress. But apparently, that won't be the case. Rep. Michael Capuano seemed to represent the Democrat majority's attitude Monday when he said tackling gun control is "just not worth it," as reported by an April 23 Boston Globe article. He said although he would ideally like to support stricter gun-control laws, putting up a losing fight on such a divisive topic could be political suicide. Capuano added it would be a difficult battle because, when it comes to Congress, "the NRA has this place wrapped up." And most other Democrat leaders seem to agree. But that doesn't mean the fight shouldn't be made. Some of this country's greatest societal changes came after long struggles. The United States entered a civil war in part to end slavery. Activists lost their lives fighting for civil rights in the 1960s. Gay marriage is an undying debate on Capitol Hill. Change is never easy. The last time Democrats held a majority in Congress, they made headway on gun control. In 1994, President Clinton passed a federal ban on selling semi-automatic weapons. This ban expired in 2004 under a Republican Congress. Now that Democrats have regained dominance in the legislature, gun control should be championed again. Many Republicans will see gun-control efforts as an irrational reaction to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Too much emphasis on the issue will appear as if Democrats are trying to take advantage of emotional circumstances to push their agenda. But gun-control efforts are necessary even if they are reactionary. Politics are about responding to society's demands and addressing issues that need to be fixed. It cannot be stressed too often that April 16 was the worst shooting in U.S. history, and it should have been prevented. In 2005, a Virginia court determined Cho Seung-Hui to be mentally ill. Virginia law prevents people who are mentally ill from buying weapons, yet he still acquired the weapons that killed 32 people and himself. Background checks must be more thorough for purchasing guns. There must be more strict limitations on what types of weapons can be bought. Such legislation may be reactionary, but it is appropriate. When 32 innocent people are murdered, Congress not only has the right to respond, it has the responsibility. -- Original Source: The Daily Free Press - April 24, 2007
By:Anonymous Posted: 4/19/07 When a chilling multimedia package containing 27 video clips, 43 still pictures, a 23-page document and one audio clip composed by cold-blooded Virginia Tech murderer Cho Seung-Hui arrived on NBC's doorstep at Rockefeller Plaza yesterday morning, the station's editors faced a difficult decision. They held in their hands a firsthand account of Cho detailing his twisted motives. With such information comes tremendous responsibility. NBC had the power to shape public perception about the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. But should it provide viewers the valuable details they deserve while giving the gunman the publicity he clearly wanted? It had to be an incredibly difficult decision to make, but on its "Nightly News" broadcast, NBC aired video clips, pictures and words from Cho's package. And the broadcasting corporation handled its reporting as tastefully and tactfully as it could have. Before even thinking about putting the information on the air, NBC contacted the FBI so investigators could begin looking at the vital material. NBC executives understood that it is more important to contribute to the case than it is to immediately post breaking news. But NBC also understood the public has the right to learn as much as possible about the killer. Most will never understand Cho's motives, but everyone deserved to hear them. If NBC knew details but didn't expose the pertinent ones, it would not have been doing its job. Before releasing any footage or sound bytes, though, Brian Williams made sure to preface the broadcast by saying the station knew it would be "airing the words of a murderer." And NBC had to be careful when doing this. If people who share Cho's beliefs think a violent rampage can warrant mass exposure of a killer's message, airing an overload of footage could inspire copycat actions. Cho's actions themselves mimicked past rampages. In his statements, Cho made reference to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the 1999 Columbine High School murderers. Cho's motives, lifestyle and tactics in many ways mirrored the two Colorado killers. And yesterday, BU experienced a copycat threat following Cho's massacre. Part-time BU student Andrew Rosenblum told a woman he dated that he wanted to recreate the Virginia Tech shootings at her Wheelock College campus. But sadly, these threats will surface regardless of whether the media provides all the information or not. As a journalistic enterprise, NBC News had the responsibility to tell the story as it developed. And by carefully combing through the material in the package, NBC offered the most current and telling story it could yesterday. -- Original Source:The Daily Free Press - April 19, 2007
By: Posted: 4/18/07 As expected, even before tears were able to dry, and before the reality of the Virginia Tech tragedy could really set in, officials began discovering details about what happened Monday morning. Yesterday, Americans saw the face of the shooter -- the first step in putting the pieces together in this country's deadliest shooting. And with that name came information about Cho Seung-Hui's troubled past. He was taking medications to treat psychological illnesses, according to an April 18 New York Times article. Pieces that Cho had composed for a creative writing class contained violent material, concerning one professor so much that she had passed the work onto police and other officials. Reports about Cho's criminal tendencies spurred much speculation about why it wasn't addressed before he caused nightmarish destruction. It also inspired security leaders and university administrators across the country to meet and discuss how to improve campus safety. The Boston Police Department met with administrators from surrounding universities to review their own security procedures. One of the biggest things that came out of Tuesday's conversation was the need to find potentially dangerous students and pluck them out before they follow in Cho's footsteps. While officials are correct in holding these meetings because safety is so important and relevant to consider, this sort of psychoanalytical prevention must just be the very start of security discussions. Leaders were merely addressing the most important evidence that had come from the Virginia Tech case at the time. But when more specifics come about what enabled the gunman to strike twice, leaders must try to never repeat whatever mistakes police made Monday. It is unrealistic to think school counselors can identify potential mass murderers within enormous student bodies like those at Virginia Tech, Boston University, Northeastern University and many other colleges. Afterall, not everyone who writes disturbing material about death in an English class is a possible criminal. The reality is that the two murders at West Ambler Johnston Hall were not preventable. However, it is possible that if students had known of the first shooting almost immediately after it happened, fewer might have been shot two hours later at Norris Hall. But until all the details of the shootings surface, it will remain unclear what could have been done. After the first shooting, police began tracking the boyfriend of the female victim, but during their pursuit, the second series of shots were reported at Norris Hall, according to the Times. University officials cannot completely improve security based on unknown errors. Monday's massacre must be put under a microscope. Police need the closest possible look at everything that transpired on the Virginia Tech campus to learn what went wrong, what could have been prevented and what was unfortunately inevitable. Only when all of this is revealed will officials know how to improve university security. -- Original Source: The Daily Free Press - April 18, 2007
By:Anonymous Posted: 4/17/07 On one of the most celebratory Mondays on Boston's calendar -- a day when students forget about classes and hit the streets for a citywide party -- the Virginia Tech campus was in shock and mourning. In the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, a gunman murdered 32 community members and wounded 15 others before taking his own life yesterday. This page can barely begin to express its deepest sympathies to the Virginia Tech community. When Boston University loses any one of its members, the campus has a difficult time recovering. To lose 32 community members in fewer than three hours is unimaginable. The most frightening element of this tragedy is that it was virtually unpreventible. No matter how much money a university pours into its security plan, no matter how often safety procedures are rehearsed, little can prevent a suicidal gunman from going on a rampage. This mass murder is part of the violence this country has been forced to become accustomed to. Many may not consider Monday's shooting an act of terrorism, but that is exactly what it was. Ever since Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher in Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, this sort of terrorism has been part of our reality. But that doesn't remove the distress and pain felt after it happens. Blacksburg, Va. may be more than 700 miles from Boston, but the emotions still hit close to home. College students have a connection to universities across the country. Most students know someone, or have a friend of a friend, or have some other tie to Virginia Tech. Even if students don't have these personal connections, they have the bond of being college students -- going to class, sleeping in late, going out on weekends and being close to friends. And sadly the thought about the possibility of a gunman coming into their classrooms and opening fire is a concern that crosses many students' minds. But no one can possibly fathom what this horrific experience would actually feel, sound or look like. Hopefully, most never will. Virginia Tech will likely never fully recover from what happened yesterday. Coping with the most destructive shooting this country has ever seen will be a slow and seemingly impossible task. Though it may sound insincere or contrived because it will be so difficult, this message isn't meant to be such: We wish the speediest recovery to the Virginia Tech community. -- Original Source:The Daily Free Press - April 17, 2007
School security proposal shoves aside prevention
By:Anonymous Posted: 4/27/07 Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones urged April 19 that the Ohio state legislature and Governor Ted Strickland consider drafting a new law that would require armed guards in all of Ohio's schools, colleges and universities. In the wake of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute shootings, during which a crazed student killed 32 students and faculty, debate within the Ohio General Assembly has focused heavily on how future tragedies of this sort can be prevented. Nonetheless, the extraordinary cost of this program and its doubtful effectiveness makes it a proposal that the legislature should overlook in favor of more proactive approaches that would act to prevent another school shooting. The high cost of putting an armed guard in every Ohio school raises some serious questions regarding the state's ability to fund this program. Such a program appears to be a colossal waste of expenditures, especially given the fact that the state's budget is already in the red. Given the rarity of such attacks, it is neither prudent nor feasible to devote such a large amount of state resources to a program such as this and more cost effective measures can be implemented instead. Additionally, the presence of an armed guard is unlikely to dissuade a deranged and suicidal student from carrying out a planned attack. It is naive to think that a security guard is a deterrent strategy, or that he or she would be able to intervene in time to stop a determined shooter. Furthermore, Jones' suggestion that teachers and faculty members could be trained and equipped with firearms is a frightening proposition. The answer to school violence does not rest in turning Ohio's public schools into armed camps, thus creating a culture of anxiety. Placing armed contingents within Ohio's schools sends the wrong message that guns are the way to prevent violence. Indeed, Virginia Tech has one of the best campus police forces in the country. Rather, focus must be shifted toward a proactive preventive strategy that involves more funding for school counselors and an increased effort on behalf of teachers to spot troubled students and refer them to professional help. While schools should be allowed to place armed guards on their campuses and in their halls on a district by district basis, this decision should remain a local matter. Ultimately, Sheriff Jones' proposal is a reactionary measure that will do little except further Ohio's financial crisis and create an unnecessary police presence in elementary, high school and university buildings. -- Original Source: The Miami Student - April 27, 2007
"Skotzko, Stacey Nicole" <skotzksn@muohio.edu>
Media's response to VT tragedy warrants criticism
By: Posted: 4/20/07 In the time between the two horrific shootings that took place at Virgina Polytechnic Institute April 16, the killer, Cho Seung-Hui managed to mail disturbing video clips and pictures of himself to NBC News in New York. While NBC News did contact the FBI about the materials, they unveiled the disturbing images to the American people on the nightly news Wednesday. This insensitive move is representative of the mainstream media's disappointing coverage of the tragedy, and The Miami Student editorial board finds the glorification of this mass murderer appalling and offensive. NBC News is effectively giving Cho Seung-Hui exactly what he wanted - a pulpit from which he can speak his insanities. Cho's chilling and senseless photographs only adds to the pain of the victims' friends and families and are not worth playing over and over again. In another sign of sensationalist coverage, other networks, such as CNN, aired a running gunshot tally based off of a cell phone audio clip captured by a Virginia Tech student, almost oblivious to the fact that with each shot another innocent person was being murdered. This theatrical media coverage suggests that the lessons from Columbine have not been taken to heart. In the aftermath of the 1999 Columbine shooting, the media covered the event with a similar circus-like attitude. Contemporary 24-hour coverage has led to poor journalism that thrives on ratings, melodrama and editorialized field reports, all of which takes away from the actual event. Rather than these sad examples of media irresponsibility, The Miami Student editorial board feels the American public deserve staid reporting. Moreover, rather than glorifying Seung-Hui's acts, the press should focus more on the victims of his acts. For example, Liviu Librescu, a 76-year-old engineering professor and Holocaust survivor, saved his students by blocking his classroom's door with his body, sacrificing his life in the process. Stories such as this represent a sign of selfless humanity amidst the horror of the random violence. In the end, the media coverage of the tragedy has been disrespectful toward the families and friends of the innocent victims. Just hours after their deaths, the media swarmed the college town of Blacksburg, Va. with little regard for the students and families who lived through the violent act. In many ways, the networks' theatrical coverage has helped to desensitize the American people to the horrors of the April 16 attack. The media should simply allow the tragedy to speak for itself - its horror is self-evident. -- Original Source:The Miami Student - April 10, 2007
Virginia Tech shooting a sign for contemplation and change
By: Posted: 4/23/07 Last week was one of tragedy as schools and universities across the United States faced the terror of threats of bombs and shootings on their campuses. The events of April 16 have brought the issues of gun control, freedom, mental health and emergency preparedness to the forefront of the news and our minds. But no one suffered more than the students, teachers, family and friends affected directly by the Virginia Tech shooting on April 16. For all of those with connections to Virginia Tech who are grieving from the tragedy, we'd like to express our sincere condolences. We'd also like to commend everyone who has given University of Nebraska-Lincoln students, faculty and staff members opportunities to contemplate. We've been impressed by the outpouring of compassion that occurred on the UNL campus in many forms: signs, cards and candlelight vigils. But Friday's events on the UNL campus put a damper upon the solemn nature of the week. Like dozens of other college campuses around the country, UNL endured its own copycat scenario on Friday, the anniversary of the Columbine shootings in Colorado. We can't fathom what would motivate a person to say a bomb was planted in the College of Engineering - or anywhere else for that matter. Early Friday afternoon, a man called the dean's office claiming he planted a bomb in the engineering college. Othmer and Nebraska halls and the Walter Scott Engineering Center were subsequently evacuated and closed while police searched the building. The terrorist threat led to the cancellation of the engineering college's recruitment day, for which some prospective UNL students traveled hundreds of miles to attend. It also fostered a sense of fear that had already emerged for some on campus who realized the Virginia Tech shootings could have happened anywhere, even here. Luckily, the threat was an empty one, as were the dozens of other threats that shut down college and high school campuses across the country last week. Not that the threats shouldn't be taken seriously. Virginia Tech encountered two bomb threats during the two weeks before the shooting. Police are still investigating to see if the threats and the shooting were related. Of course, no one wants to live in fear of a similar shooting. And no one should advocate restrictions on our freedoms and civil liberties like those invoked as the United States embarked on the war on terror. At the same time, we're all left asking what can be done to prevent this from happening again. Some are saying we need to strengthen our gun-control laws - or even more extreme, allow people to carry concealed weapons on campus for their own protection. According to an article published in The New York Times, Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui should never have been allowed to purchase guns. In 2005 he was declared a danger to himself and referred to psychiatric treatment, which according to federal law should have prohibited him from buying a firearm. But Virginia's background checks failed, and Cho fell through the cracks. To prevent gun-related tragedies of any magnitude in the future, our state government leaders need to ensure Nebraska's background checks are accurate and thorough, let alone invoking stricter gun-control laws. Gun-control laws would not be enough, however, in a culture that is so immersed in violence. It's on our prime time television and in our movies. Early investigations suggest Cho studied violence. And as his video released to NBC indicated, he glorified the Columbine High School shooters and considered himself a martyr. Politicians and lobbyists on both sides of the gun-control debate will use the Virginia Tech shooting to further their own interests. But our only true solution will be to cultivate an environment in which violence is no longer seen as the first answer to every problem, a sign of masculinity or an expression of power. Without that attitude change, what happened at Virginia Tech could happen anywhere. And we shouldn't have to live in fear. -- Original Source: Daily Nebraskan - April 23, 2007
Josh Swartzlander <jdwriter19@yahoo.com>
We cannot begin to imagine what the community is going through, but we do know they stood strong in the face of terrible acts of violence. We would like to specifically recognize the Collegiate Times, the student newspaper at Virginia Tech, for its excellent news coverage as the rest of the University faced crisis. While the entire school was in a state of shock, the newspaper's staff managed to provide up-to-date information on the paper's Web site, and we want the paper to know their efforts did not go unnoticed. As student journalists, we can understand the horror of working through the greatest school tragedy in history. Many members of The Plainsman staff referenced that site throughout the day to get the latest information, and we are proud of these strong students. As the details of the tragedy continue to be released, we have confidence the newspaper will continue its excellence in reporting. While we watched in shock as the tragedy unfolded, we began to wonder what we would do if something like this happened at Auburn. We discussed the safety measures at Auburn, and we began to realize that is is almost impossible to prepare for an emergency situation of this magnitude. It is the kind of situation that takes one by surprise in the worst way imaginable, and we feel no amount of preparation could have completely prevented the events at Virginia Tech Monday. We commend everyone involved in the tragedy for the efforts they put forth to help the Virginia Tech community. Again, we offer our deepest sympathies to everyone affected by the events on Virginia Tech's campus, and you will remain in our thoughts. -- Original Source: Auburn Plainsman - April 18, 2007
By: Anthony Galanos Posted: 4/20/07 The media coverage of the tragedy at Virginia Tech is rewarding insanity and complicating grief. But there are 32 families, and an entire university who are grieving. Not sad, not upset, not disgruntled... but GRIEVING. And how we treat them in this critical period will determine how they cope now and what the legacy of this past week will be for them. Almost as sad as the loss of life is that this American culture acts like it knows not what grieving is. You want to see grieving, find any child 10 years of age or younger and watch them after their dog or cat dies. It is not a profound concept; it does not require a degree in philosophy or theological training. It is a natural process, common to all humanity. Why we ignore it or complicate it, I do not know, but to accent anything at this raw moment but the grief of the people involved is to confuse them-no, is to use them and to make their journey more complicated and more traumatic than it already is. If my 18-year-old daughter were shot and killed in her dorm, and the only way it was described by her college president was as a "domestic situation" because they thought she had dated the shooter, I would be outraged. I would wonder why this man or woman was on TV and not acknowledging my loss. I would wonder why a famous news anchor is blaming him for police matters (my assumption is that most college presidents know little, if anything, about police work) when I just lost my daughter. And, if the task of losing my child were not difficult enough, then I would have to cope with the media, stating without any evidence whatsoever, that perhaps my daughter's life "could have been spared". Now, and forever, that "what if" question would dominate me. It was not random or the product of psychosis. It was someone's fault, or so say the pundits. What would have been a normal grieving process, is now complicated. I was not afraid to grieve, but my grieving may have no end point. As a clinician, let me pronounce, just like the talking heads on TV, that you have no right to comment on my loss. Indeed, unless you have every fact available, know without doubt how and why it happened or I abdicate it to you... you have no right to judge or comment on my loss. That right does not belong to Matt Lauer or NBC or my priest. It belongs to me and my family. She was ours, not yours. Neither your camera, your microphone or your best intentions allow you to take this moment from us. We teach doctors in training how to deliver "bad news." We have learned that such moments belong to patients and families, not to us. And that our simple presence there, however silent, is more powerful than our explanations of physiology or what went wrong. Cannot we just say "let us let the grieving begin" and we can sort out the details when all of the data are in... and the facts are known? Can we not just let the students at Virginia Tech and the families, just tell us about the people they lost. Who were they? What were they like? How do you want us to remember them? This would be the line of questioning that would let any healing have any chance of taking hold. Can we not simply acknowledge that this moment is theirs, not ours or that of the media? Who was not touched by the dad being interviewed who said at the end of the segment that his daughter's body had not yet been released to him or his family, and that they wanted to see her. The interviewer asked him what he would do if he could see his daughter, almost puzzled by why this guy was asking to "see my daughter." He responded, "so that I can kiss her face." Is that not grieving? Is that not how this man will cope and heal over time? Do we not instinctively know what he is saying? Of course we do, and parents all over America hugged and kissed their children this week. How many phone calls did Duke students receive from parents this week? For some reason, we often wait to express our feelings for one another at the end, on the "death bed," but this man's open grief spurred us to action in the moment. Indeed, "why wait?" This should not just be the purview of doctors, chaplains and counselors. This belongs to all of us, all of humankind. Put grief on the front page, and let the culture of blame do its bidding on the back pages, whether it is Virginia Tech or Iraq. Wherever there is loss of life, particularly of the magnitude of this past Monday or every Monday in Iraq, let us learn how to grieve and how to allow the families involved to grieve. Do not ask me who is to blame, or whether my child could have been spared. Ask me who my child was and then just sit there and be quiet. I will share with you that I need to kiss my child one more time. I will grieve. Do not let the media, however well intentioned, teach you how not to grieve. You already know how. Anthony Galanos, Trinity '75, works at Duke University Medical Center in the Department of Medicine and the Palliative Care Service. -- Original Source: Duke Chronicle - April 20, 2007
The Moon-After, Virginia Tech Memorial (2007) 40"x30" oil on canvas It is the first time the full moon is observed after the massacre of Virginia Tech. For many, the moon will never look the same again. This is a quest to extract the feelings for the souls that will be missed in the lives of many, and for the souls among us that were touched in different ways. A trans-mix of materialistic and spiritual elements is represented by colorless buildings, lilies to convey an overwhelming feeling of surprise, shock, grieve and hope. Thirty-two different types of lilies in white and orange emerge from the gray-shaded mix of figures, symbolizing the spirits of the 32 victims. With the absence of the victims from sight, they become like images, or like seasonal plants, that are soon gone. Lilies were chosen to represent the diversity of the victims, as lilies grow all over the world in different types. The work on this memorial started with the first full moon after the massacre, and was concluded early June 2007. Original Source: http://www.tonysky.net/tony/pntg12.htm
Ethnic identities questioned after Virginia Tech
Korean community reacts to blame and guilt following massacre April 24, 2007 By Aram Hur In the aftermath of last week's Virginia Tech massacre, the national Korean-American community has reportedly suffered a backlash similar to that unleashed against Muslims in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, but Asian Americans on campus largely agree that they are being treated with respect and sympathy and credited the media's portrayal of the attack as objective and fair. A number of Facebook groups, such as "Cho Seung-Hui does NOT represent Asians," are continuously amassing new members, while a YouTube post with the words "I belong in Korea" over Cho's face is receiving hundreds of hits per day. While the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was South Korean, other ethnic groups have expressed empathy for Asians in the wake of last week's attack. Ahmed Ashraf '07, vice president of the Muslim Student Awareness Network, said he had similar fears before the identity of the shooter was disclosed. "I know that when I first heard about the Virginia Tech tragedy, I was very, very nervous about the gunman's background," Ashraf said in an email to the Daily. "If a Muslim student were involved in the massacre, it [would have] hit way too close to home." Media coverage of the shootings has drawn an ambiguous reaction from Asian students and faculty members at the University. "This shows that race and ethnicity is still a key source of collective identity in the United States," said Sociology Prof. Gi-Wook Shin. "Non-white ethnic groups and females can be self-conscious and extra careful precisely because they are still minorities in American politics of identity." Others said they were pleased with the focus on Cho's mental state, rather than his ethnicity. "The media has been pretty good at being neutral," said Kenny Kim '08, co-president of the Korean Students Association. "As a member of the Asian-American community, I was inclined to think of the worst possible outcomes, but the discussion has now turned more to Cho's mental health than to his ethnic background." "This, sadly, is not a new crime in America and is not seen in new terms now that the latest perpetrator is of Korean origin," Shin added. "Experts have compared him to the Columbine shooters, saying that he fits the same profile. This is a judgment about mental state and behavior patterns that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity." In South Korea, reaction to the Blacksburg, Va. tragedy brought up deeper, cultural issues. Shortly after the shooter's ethnicity was revealed, the South Korean government and media went into a frenzy, debating whether Cho's actions warranted an official national apology. Such a phenomenon has raised discussion of collective guilt. Yet Kim emphasized the importance of a clear-cut distinction between guilt and shame. "Koreans are a unique race," he said. "We often blur the lines between the nation and the people. Thus when we found out that the shooter was Korean, every Korean felt a bit of shame that one of 'us' committed a horrible act." "However, this is not to say we feel any guilt for what happened," he added. "The act that Cho committed is an isolated event and has no linkage with him being Korean or Korean American." On campus, students and faculty said they have faith in the community's power to overcome the blame and guilt. "This tragedy was not about Korean or Asian Americans, and I am sure the Stanford community is well aware of that," Shin said. "In a sense, Cho himself was a victim and we have social responsibility to make sure that this kind of tragedy won't happen again." Comments on this article: Joe - 4/24/07 Muslims were not the brunt of the 9/11 backlash. Ignorant Americans labelled all brown-skinned US CITIZENS as Muslim, and acted accordingly. East Indians, who are as far away from the middle east as the US is from Brazil, were killed in retaliation. Cabbies, convenience store owners, even an old man sitting on a park bench "had his turban ripped off his head and his face slapped" by two white females. The Korean community can have some solice knowing that Americans will ignorantly take their anger out on Chinese and Japanese CITIZENS of their country. a - 4/24/07 I really don't fear any backlash against the Asian-American community, because Cho's actions do not fit with the stereotype of the quiet, polite Asian. People are always unwilling to throw away their stereotypes, so in this case, the preexisting stereotype will work against a development of hatred against the community. Whereas, if the shooter were Muslim, it would be a disaster for that community. Gary - 4/24/07 Joe, why would Koreans take solice in the reprisal against other members of the Asian community? Next time, try to bring a point to your post. Zangief - 4/24/07 The difference between the Korean response after Cho and the Muslim response after 9/11 is very telling. Korean leaders *rushed* to decry and distance themselves from Cho. Muslim leaders became terrorist apologists. The sad thing is, even moderate Muslim leaders cannot learn from the Korean experience. Because, if a moderate Muslim leader speaks out against fundamentalist Islam, he will almost certainly be assassinated. Joe - 4/24/07 Gary, I guess my point is that if there is a backlash, it will not just affect Koreans, as 9/11 did not just affect Muslims. Thus, fewer Korean-Americans will be terrorized by the caucasian Americans, just as fewer Muslims were (partly because Muslim men do not wear turbans like Osama, and so it's harder to pick them out, and partly becaue Americans want to live in ignorant bliss, believing that they're patriots when they terrorize recent immigrants, ignoring that unless they are Native Americans, they are relatively recent immigrants as well) Wang - 4/24/07 Joe are you suggesting that caucasian americans are now terrorizing Koreans? Give me a break. Koreans feel collective shame becauses if this crime was committed in Korea, Koreans know that they would hunt down any white person and hang them. Just look at how Koreans acted in 2002 when two young girls accidentaly got run over by a "tank". Koreans attacked every foreigner they could get their hands on. Don't start painting koreans as victims of some kind of terrorism in the USA. Joe - 4/24/07 Wang - no, I'm not saying that the whites are terrorizing Koreans. I said *if* there's a backlash, it won't affect just Koreans. Who knows what will happen. Who knows what Koreans would have done if it happened to them at home. I did say, however, that caucasians in the US *are* terrorizing brown-skinned Americans, and that is unjust. Those are the recent immigrants I refered to. East Indians had nothing to do with 9/11, but just because they kinda sorta almost look like arabs, they're walking around with targets on their backs. All I'm saying is that the author shouldn't have said that Muslim-americans faced the backlash after 9/11. That gives undeserved credit to the American people, whose ignorace and hate is causing suffering not just to Muslims, but to anyone who looks remotely similar to them. question.... - 4/24/07 why is it okay to make blanket statements about a certain group acting violently, but not others? do caucasians (or 'americans', as some posters have curiously chosen to use the term interchangeably) need to start facebook groups telling others, 'not all white people are violent bigots'? yes there are some quite ignorant whites who have done horrible things to innocent people, with racism as the primary motivation. however, i would argue that most (or at least a significant enough majority of) whites do not see this the virginia tech massacre in terms of racial identity, and it has been those who are preemptively trying to avoid a backlash that have framed the issue as such (i do not say this to deny the injustices of the certain amount of backlash that has been felt). just as it is wrong to blame koreans or korean culture because of the actions of one person who shared their national identity, it should not be tolerable to make judgments upon all americans (and/or whites) and their culture because of the comparatively few violent bigots who happen to share their ethnic/national identity. yes, there are deep-seated racist tendencies in american culture, discrimination was once the status quo, and racism is still a huge problem that demands everyone's attention. nevertheless, i would argue that many posters have shown the same sort of prejudices that they fear by painting an entire group according to actions of some individuals. this is unnecessary; it would not be thoughtlessly denying the injustices committed upon the victims to show care when naming the aggressors. yes, the effect of some white people being mislabeled as bigots due to blanket statements is a far lesser injustice than members of minority groups experiencing violence as result of racism. this, however, is not a complaint of "reverse-racism"; what i mean is that by casting all members of a group as victims and those of another as the aggressors, many people are reinforcing the social roles of various ethnic groups that lead to prejudice. i'm not demanding that all people who rightly rail against prejudice adopt PC language...i just mean they often are just cementing the 'us vs. them' mentality that buttresses an ideological atmosphere that leads to such injustices. yes, there are historical precedents that lead people to speak in blanket terms...but by allowing their speech to be informed by the past in such a manner, i would argue that they are merely perpetuating it. citizen - 4/25/07 Wang. The case of the 2 girls involved alcohol and reckless driving and the 2 perpetrators got away scot free by an all american jury. It also followed several rapes and violent crimes that were committed by the military (which again went unpunished). No foreigner was killed as a result of the anger. The military folks got the "evil eye" and that's about it. You're way out of line in bringing up these examples. you are just full of hate and want to get something ugly started. -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - April 24, 2007
Permissions granted by James Hohmann Editor-in-Chief The Stanford Daily <jhohmann@stanford.edu>
By Ari Rabkin Apr 26 2007 Between the Lines One of the striking facts about the Virginia Tech shootings was how predictable the murderer's identity was. The authorities knew long before his rampage that Cho Seung-Hui was not merely "troubled," but dangerous. A court had ruled two years previously that he posed an "imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." As a result, he was civilly committed to an outpatient mental-health clinic. He checked out the next day, however, without being effectively treated. In the wake of the shootings, many commentators have decried the gradual decline in involuntary commitment to mental health facilities. The courts, so the thinking goes, should have been more aggressive, and should have committed Cho to an inpatient facility, and not released him until he was judged to be no longer dangerous. But this sort of confinement poses awkward questions. The mentally ill are confined — locked up — not because they have done anything wrong, but because they might be dangerous in the future. Sun Podcast: A podcast is available for this column. Click here to listen to or to download it.Sun Podcast: A podcast is available for this column. Click here to listen to or to download it.To lock people up, not because they are criminals, but because they are dangerous, subverts many of our normal notions of due process. To go free, a criminal defendant needs to rebut a factual allegation; he needs to show that he didn't commit a particular act. A prisoner confined for being dangerous, however, is in a much more precarious position. "Danger" cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of laymen, but can only be assessed by expert judgment. To avoid making such judgments, American civil law does not have a general category of "dangerous persons" other than the mentally ill. Sane individuals can normally be imprisoned only after a criminal conviction, for a crime they have already committed. Civil confinement, as it is called, is restricted to those judged to be "mentally abnormal." This category, in addition to violent psychotics and the like, includes repeat sex offenders, a group that society has become increasingly eager to keep off the streets. Many states now allow the government to confine serious sex offenders even after they have served their criminal sentence. Proponents of such "civil confinement" laws argue that these individuals have so strong a compulsion to sexually abuse others that it would be dangerous to release them, and that so long as they are a menace, they should be confined. Enemy prisoners in wartime are yet another class of prisoners, held not as criminals, but as menaces. Unlike the mentally ill, they are held outside of the ordinary legal system entirely. The United States is currently holding hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and many others at detention sites in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. These detainees are not criminals, and often can be charged with no crimes, since American civilian courts do not have jurisdiction over acts committed by foreign nationals outside the United States. Altering the law to cover such cases is an unattractive option. Scooping up foreigners, and trying them before American civilian courts, for acts that were legal when and where they were committed, is a precedent that the government is rightly loathe to set. Non-judicial detention is absolutely necessary. School shootings and suicide bombings have this in common: the perpetrators do not expect to survive, are prepared to go to great lengths to kill others and cannot be deterred. The normal criminal justice system is not designed or equipped to stop such acts. Stopping such acts requires preemptive confinement. But on what terms should so extraordinary a confinement be imposed? There is a striking parallelism between the military's procedures for detaining enemy combatants, and our civil responses to mental illness. These parallels may help us understand each case by reference to the other. In many states, the mentally ill can be confined after an administrative hearing, with no jury. The standard of proof is generally "clear and convincing evidence," not the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal conviction. Likewise, terror detainees are evaluated by military review boards, not civil juries. The standard of proof required to hold prisoners at Guantanamo is not precisely defined, but prisoners are routinely released as "no longer dangerous." Locking people away and forgetting them is, of course, abhorrent, and both the mentally ill and terror detainees, are reevaluated on a yearly or bi-yearly basis. Preemptive confinement, while necessary, must not be overused, and the courts have created a number of limitations on its use domestically. Only the "mentally abnormal" may be confined, and only if they pose a substantial risk. Similarly, detention in wartime is constrained by the scope of the war. The prisoners held at Guantanamo are in our custody either because a government with jurisdiction over them turned them over, or because they were seized in an area of active combat operations. The U.S. does not have a general legal right to take prisoners from the soil of the United States or friendly powers. The procedures appropriate for the mentally abnormal are obviously different from those suitable for handling enemy combatants in wartime. The threats posed by the two groups and our legal obligations to each are very different. In both cases, though, the normal mechanisms of reactive justice are insufficient, and society has a compelling interest in confining them, not as punishment, but as prevention. Likewise in both cases, we must balance the risk posed by a dangerous individual versus the rights of that individual, and the risk of confining the innocent. There is no guarantee that a court would have found Cho to be "abnormal," or that harmless individuals will not be confined. Consequently, we owe ourselves, and our prisoners, a clear account as to when this sort of confinement is appropriate, and what standards of proof apply. We owe it to society to do our utmost to protect the innocent from those who, either from illness or malice, would do them harm. Ari Rabkin is a graduate student in Computer Science. He can be contacted at asr32­@­c­o­r­n­ell.edu. Between the Lines appears Thursdays. -- Original Source: Cornell Daily Sun - April 26, 2007
Jonny Lieberman <jdl46@cornell.edu>, <lieberman.jonny@gmail.com>
What could have been done to prevent to massacre at Virginia Tech?
By Arlen Parsa Filed: Thursday April 19th 2007, 9:05 AM In the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech on Monday, April 16, many asked how such a thing could have happened. It was the deadliest shooting spree in American history, and already there seems to have been several moments where the incident could have been avoided. The killer, Cho Seung-Hui, himself said in a manifesto mailed to NBC News "You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today." While there probably weren't "a hundred billion chances and ways" to have avoided the massacre that claimed the lives of 33 people including Cho, but there were several common sense things that could have been done. It's important to recognize that this horrific incident didn't happen just anywhere: the shootings happened in Virginia; a state known for having some of the most relaxed firearm regulations in the entire country. In fact, critics and safety advocates had complained for years that VA firearm regulations were wholly inadequate and substandard when compared with the rest of the country. Here are a few ideas that the Virginia state legislature ought to consider implementing. I'm not holding my breath since it's made up of staunch NRA types and has been controlled by Republicans for years. But tragedies like these force everyone to reconsider their ideologies. First, how about a law that says if you've been classified as mentally unstable and an imminent threat to yourself or others by doctors and a court- then you're not allowed to walk into a store and walk out with a gun and enough ammo to kill dozens of students? This might sound like a no-brainer, but there is currently no mechanism in place in Virginia to stop mentally unstable people from buying as many deadly weapons and ammunition as they like. In this case, the shooter Cho Seung-Hui was diagnosed with mental disorders, had been taken antidepressants and been checked into a mental hospital in 2005. But that didn't stop him from buying deadly weapons. He had also been referred to Virginia Tech's counseling service after he wrote disturbing violent plays about killing people. Through a loophole in the law, Cho wasn't added to a list of mentally-unstable people not allowed to purchase firearms even after the mental hospital episode because although all the doctors who examined him agreed that he was mentally unstable, he didn't formally get committed and left a short time afterwards. Next, how about a law that says that if you've been accused of stalking people, you don't get to walk into a store, point to a small, easily hidden powerful handgun behind the counter and get it along with 50 bullets to use for "self-defense" in a matter of minutes. Also, what about a law that requires background checks to be done for every firearm purchase in Virginia? Oh, you thought that sort of thing was already required? Nope. Turns out there's two other loopholes in the Virginia state law: one allows people who buy firearms at gun-shows to forgo the background check process entirely. The other loophole allowed Cho to forego a Virginia state background check on one of the weapons he purchased because he bought it from an out of state gun dealer over the internet and picked it up at a local pawn shop for a 30 buck fee. The out of state internet gun dealer was supposed to handle the background check, although it's hard to tell whether they did it or not. Here's another idea. How about a law that says if a gun dealer sells five weapons to murders who use those guns to kill people, then they're not allowed to sell any more guns? Call it the "five-strikes-and-you're-out rule." A gun dealer that Cho bought a glock and 50 bullets from had been responsible for selling similar weapons to at least five other murderers in the past. Did Cho hear about the dealer's reputation for being easy to get guns at? Another thing that's gotten criticism recently is Virginia Tech's reaction to the shootings, including their lack of prompt action to warn students. I won't join the group of rabid idiots blaming Administrators for deaths because I feel sorry for everybody involved at Virginia Tech. At the same time, I think in the future there could have been more done to warn students, especially since the whole incident happened over a span of several hours. Call this the "better safe than sorry" law. Require all educational institutions (from elementary up to college) to revamp their procedures on what to do if there's a school shooting or something like that. The government can pay for consultants to help poorer schools figure out a better plan, cost doesn't matter. But the plans have to include detailed procedures about how to warn students that an incident could be ongoing. At Virginia Tech, students and staff were sent a series of short, sometimes confusing emails updating them on the situation. That's okay, but what about people in classrooms who weren't their computers while the massacre was ongoing? If the school had used their indoor and outdoor PA system throughout the morning to provide updates, it is almost certain that more students and teachers would have been warned. True, they did turn it on after a couple of hours as the incident was ending, but it should have been used immediately and continuously. If educational institutions do not use every tool they have to warn students that a violent incident is occurring, a law should be put in place that would punish them. And although a punishment shouldn't really be needed, if heavy enough it would act as a motivation for schools to develop new warning abilities and actually use the ones that they already have. Better safe than sorry. Some people have suggested that SMS messages over cell phones could be used to warn students. That's an interesting high-tech possibility, but there are a few problems with it. For one, school safety experts say that ring-tones and all other types of audio phone sounds should be stifled when schools are in lock-down- for obvious reasons. If a student is hiding in a janitor's closet (purely hypothetical) and there's a gunman on the loose, the last thing that's needed is for them to get a text message and their phone to start playing some obnoxious ring-tone betraying their location. And I'm no expert. To me, this isn't a question of banning guns, and I think the conservatives who say the debate is between having guns and not having guns are rather disingenuous. This is a matter of common-sense pro-active safety regulations that make the country safer. And these types of changes (and all the ones we haven't thought of yet) can't just be implemented in Virginia- they have to be put in place nationwide. There's no excuse to have some places in the country safer because the laws in those places were designed better. We should have learned that in Columbine in '99, and I'll be damned if we don't learn it now. Once and for all. -- Original Source: http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/04/19/what-could-have-been-done-to-prevent-to-massacre-at-virginia-tech Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0
By Armin Rosen PUBLISHED APRIL 19, 2007 It unfolded like a terrifying set-piece, and each new item of information seemed more trite and intuitive than the next: the killer had been a student. He had been a social outcast, homicidally contemptuous of the society that he felt had cast him out. The guns used had been purchased legally. And there had been warning signs that now seem to have stopped tantalizingly short of portending the coming carnage. "When this is all said and done," the online magazine Slate cited one blogger as writing a few hours after the shooting, "we will likely have an unhappy young person who probably had an unhealthy obsession with guns, violence, gory video games, and over the top blood-fest movies"-which means that, even in its horrifying randomness, the Virginia Tech shooting takes on a grim aspect of predictability. But what should this predictability teach us? Since noted poet and Virginia Tech English professor Lucinda Roy found Cho Seung-Hui unstable enough to justify contacting campus counseling services over 18 months prior to the attack, it could be argued that universities and society in general should be more aggressive in administering psychological help to those who obviously need it. We Americans are great believers in therapy: with nearly one in four adults seeking professional help and Adderall alone bringing in over a quarter-billion dollars in annual revenue, we, arguably, have put more faith in the redemptive powers of the clinical or prescriptive than any other society on earth. But it would be a mistake to let this past week's events reinforce this notion that normalcy can be clinically prescribed, or, as some have recommended, clinically imposed. As author Deepak Chopra appropriately noted in an interview with CNN, psychologist Abraham Maslow maintains that love and belonging are as fundamental to human existence as food and shelter. And the professional concern of a therapist for her patient can't fill basic emotional or social voids any better than social relationships alone can cure mental illness. Does this teach us that our society predisposes people to committing horrific killing sprees? I, for one, appreciate a certain irony in the fact that this event has ultimately strengthened the very community from which Cho felt so excluded. However, it is patently insensitive to blame the Virginia Tech community for excluding someone who was so invisible to it. And, by all accounts, Cho was not just invisible to those around him, but invisible to himself as well: by shaving off his weapons' serial numbers, carrying no identification, and committing suicide in a way that would obscure his most individual physical feature-his face-he argued against his own humanity and individuality. So if we are to blame the community as a whole for its exclusivity, then it would be disingenuous because we too fail to reach out to those in potential danger of lapsing into a permanent state of social and personal non-existence. But is the existence of such people alone enough to teach us that our society is somehow structured to produce killing sprees like the one at Virginia Tech? In his seminal work, Suicide (1897), sociologist Emile Durkheim poses a similar question, and proceeds to argue that the social and historical consistency of the suicide rate proves the act to be an unalterable "social fact," built into the social structure. It's terrifying to think of the destructive confluence of mental instability, exclusion and a propensity for violence as one such "social fact." But reactions to the massacre suggest that that's exactly how a lot of people feel: for instance, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert blamed a "staggering amount of murders" on "feelings of inadequacy, psychosexual turmoil and the easy availability of guns." According to Herbert, the only item over which we, as a society, have conscious control is the last. Yet, if we learn one thing from the Virginia Tech massacre, it should be the importance of using what sliver of control we do have. We can encourage people like Cho to seek the help they desperately need without expecting that help to be a cure-all. We can reach out to the socially alienated, and make an effort to acknowledge those people who we would usually ignore. We can also limit the availability of handguns. Most importantly, we can insist that this past Monday's event were not structural, and avoid lapsing into the kind of cynicism that might have made such an event possible in the first place. Scores of Facebook groups have a name derived from the phrase "Today, we are all Hokies." The phrase was meant as a show of solidarity with a university suffering in ways none of us can imagine. But as long as we keep internalizing, tolerating, or even ignoring the factors that led to Monday's attack it, also functions as a cynical truth: we are all vulnerable. And in that respect, we are all Hokies. -- Photo By: Shana Rubin Original Source: Columbia Spectator http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/24952
Armin Rosen (Author)/Shana Rubin (Photo)
Tuesday, April 17, 2007 The Bill Muehlenberg Trophy: Debbie Schlussel and the Virginia Tech Shootings Just when you think the wingnut Right can't possibly get more insane or logic-deprived than it already is, along comes Debbie Schlussel, writing on the Virginia Tech university shootings. First, she blamed the Muzzies without a shred of evidence. Then, updating her blog entry after reports emerged that the suspect was a Chinese national, she wrote: The shooter has now been identified as a Chinese national here on a student visa. Lovely. Yet another reason to stop letting in so many foreign students. When the suspect was later more vaguely described as "Asian," Schlussel saw this as a golden opportunity to revive her "it-was-a-Muzzie-wot-done-it" thesis. (This will take your breath away) Why am I speculating that the "Asian" gunman is a Pakistani Muslim? Because law enforcement and the media strangely won't tell us more specifically who the gunman is. Why? Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students. Got that? (Once you've stopped bashing yourself senseless against the keyboard.) Regardless of who is actually responsible for the massacre, it's yet another reason to hate Muslims. Holy dogshit! How are we expected to take that side of politics seriously when it keeps churning out half-wits like Schlussel? (Via Pharyngula) P.S. Compare Schlussel's Islamophobic dribbling to Scott Poynting's thoughtful Perspective piece on Islamophobia and moral panic. UPDATE: It turns out that the gunman was a 23-year old Korean student, acting alone. Not that it makes a lick of difference to Schlussel. Maybe he's a Korean Muslim. Or maybe the Muslim centre of his brain was overstimulated. In any case, he's a foreigner. Foreigner bad. Muslim bad. Rinse. Repeat. UPDATE II: Guess who the creationists are blaming . . . UPDATE III: Guess who's planning to show up at the funerals of the slain students (via Pharyngula) UPDATE IV: Dinesh D'Souza claims that atheists don't care about the shootings. Why? Because Richard Dawkins "has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community." Shame on us atheists! Even Fred Phelps and his WBC mourning committee have the decency to pay their respects to the victims. (Pharyngula) Originally posted at Five Public Opinions
University of Michigan Vigil for Virginia Tech
April 17, 2007 at 10:30 p.m. University of Michigan students joined together in the Diag for a moment of silence to honor the victims of this week's massacre at Virginia Tech. Students also signed a U-M flag that will be sent to the VTech to show our support for the victims and their families and friends. Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/adinges/464415576/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0
Permission Contact: Ashley Dinges (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adinges/464415576/) Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0
University of Michigan vigil For Virginia Tech
April 17, 2007 at 10:30 p.m. University of Michigan students joined together in the Diag for a moment of silence to honor the victims of this week's massacre at Virginia Tech. Students also signed a U-M flag that will be sent to the VTech to show our support for the victims and their families and friends. Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/adinges/464415612/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0
Permission Contact: Ashley Dinges (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adinges/464415612/) Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0
University of Michigan Vigil For Virginia Tech
April 17, 2007 at 10:30 p.m. University of Michigan students joined together in the Diag for a moment of silence to honor the victims of this week's massacre at Virginia Tech. Students also signed a U-M flag that will be sent to the VTech to show our support for the victims and their families and friends. Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/adinges/464415616/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 This was one of my favorite shots. It came out pretty blurry because I didn't have my tripod and I was also balancing a small candle in the opposite hand. We formed a circle around the entire Diag, stretching all the way back to the Hatcher Grad library.
Permission Contact: Ashley Dinges (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adinges/464415616/) Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0
Monday, April 16, 2007 As I wrapped up my afternoon course today, my students informed me of the 31 deaths at Virginia Tech today. It was the first I heard of it and so I immediately looked to the news and am now glued to the press conference airing on NBC. It is uncanny that this shooting tragedy has occurred in the same week as Colombine, 8 years ago (the very day I was interviewing for my job here). I am not sure what to make of this event yet, other than to be utterly horrified by this event and sorrowful for the community at Virginia Tech. We don't yet know how many of the deceased are students and how many are faculty. These details are sure to emerge over time. I am dismayed by the tone of the press, who launched into an attack of VT's President for not locking down the campus after the first shooting incident in the morning. The idea of lockdown and the idea that in the future we might have to post guards on our college campuses is frightening. This is a tragedy. This was an event that no one could've forseen (unless I am persuaded by evidence to the contray), and to respond to this event with greater militarism on college campuses horrifies me (perhaps more than the event itself). I will no doubt have something more to say about this event after I learn more facts and digest the coverage. In the meantime, I would appreciate any links to blogs from VT students or other bloggers covering this story. UPDATE: From the Huffington Post A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia. "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said BARF! Posted by Aspazia at Monday, April 16, 2007 -- Original source: http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot.com/2007/04/tragedy-at-virginia-tech.html Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Aspazia / Mad Melancholic Feminista Blog
On Being A College Professor after the VT Massacre
Thursday, April 19, 2007 I had nightmares about the VT massacre last night. It was on a two day delay. I knew that eventually the horror of what had happened would start to eat away at me. In part, I think my dreams haunted me precisely because I didn't talk, or rather listen, to what students thought about this. I didn't check in to see if they were suffering, in shock, afraid . . . I had to think a lot about why I didn't, especially after the Provost sent us a thoughtful email encouraging us to do so. What it comes down to is that I didn't want to think about it. I didn't want to actually confront the horror of this event. I wasn't prepared for hearing any vitriol, anger or racist statements either (not that students would've made such statements, but I worried). I am scared and frightened by what happened, and in my selfishness, I didn't want to hear anything about it, or how it affected my students. I started to realize how frightened I was by the events yesterday while talking to my colleagues in the Philosophy lounge. I had been studying the faces of the dead at the NYTimes website. But, more importantly, I had been studying the faces of the dead professors. One of them, Jamie Bishop, looked like the sort of colleague I have here. He was young, married, and well-loved by his students. Don't get me wrong, I paused on pictures of young women and men, who could've been my own students, and found myself speechless over the loss. But, seeing the pictures of dead professors haunted me the most. And, it is precisely that which I dreamt: being hunted by a former student, being called to protect my class from an armed assailant. These are not tasks that one signs on for when he/she becomes a college professor. Kerry reminded me of a student we both had a few years ago, who I am convinced was schizophrenic. He was the right age and gender for the onset of schizophrenia. His papers were long, stream of consciousness writings full of references to disturbing sexuality. The more I was around him, the more frightened I became of him. I would shudder if he came to my office and I never had any idea of what to do with his papers. During his senior thesis presentation, I think we all just sat, aghast at what nonsense had been uttered and scrambled to figure out what to do. I think that one of the hard realities that we, as college professors, have to face in the wake of the VT massacre is our responsibility to get troubled students serious help (even if they frighten us). Many of us like to just avoid this responsibility (me included). After all, we're not therapists! And, I am not claiming we should start acting like therapists either. But, I do think we have a serious obligation to pay attention to our students who seem deeply troubled, and figure out ways to get them help. If we just try to get them out of our class, or ignore them, or rationalize to ourselves that they are just lazy, mean or insubordinate, then we may find ourselves deeply regretting that we didn't do something to stop them from hurting others or themselves. The story of Cho Seung-Hui is not an anomaly. We know that there are lots of disaffected, troubled young people in our schools. And while the news reports are starting to show that his professors, at least, tried to take action, what stands out to me is how most people just ignored his behavior. Everyone knows the loners on their campus. And, most of the time these loners are the butt of jokes. Allowing such a disconnected community to exist is no longer safe, forget the moral concerns. So, the lesson I draw from the VT massacre is that I can no longer afford to ignore the students who are manifesting very troubling behavior; I am responsible to them as well as my community. Posted by Aspazia at Thursday, April 19, 2007 -- Original Source: http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-being-college-professor-after-vt.html Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License