Virginia Tech: The Challenge of Instant Communication in a Crisis
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 I have been percolating some ideas about how to better integrate technology into a crisis plan I am currently working on. My work with the Red Cross over the years has sharpened my senses and I do have some idea of how to successfully communicate during a crisis. However, this week's events at Virginia Tech have given me some further ideas. I don't want to start getting clinical about this before I say that I am deeply moved by the tragedy this week. Having lived in Virginia for many years I feel close to the tragedy, and moreover, because we have a dear friend who is a professor in the engineering department in V-Tech. I heard from him Tuesday night and am grateful that both he and his freshman daughter are okay. That expressed, there are many lessons to start learning, especially as we prepare for the unexpected and communicating to large groups in crisis. There was a great story in the Wall Street Journal today that (registration req.) discussed the use of disseminating information via texting in a crisis. I have pulled some of the information about services from that article. My main takeaway from this event is the need for redundancy of communication. There need to be both high and low tech layers of communication to be most effective. First and foremost, an organization has to have a strategy to get in touch with all of the stakeholders and employees that need to be reached. A good start is a list of employee cell phones and home phone numbers that are ready to use in an emergency, as well as emergency contacts. Having a crisis communication plan is essential to get the most out of our communications, but here is an incomplete checklist of tactics to consider: High Tech Strategies Have a service set up to send instant text messaging (SMS), one such service is run by Omnilert and costs about $9,000 per year, another for schools is and opt in service run by Mobile Campus Set up redundancy in the servers to handle any increased load Set up and Instant Communication Platform, something my friend Ike Pigott calls the Situation Room. Running this on a blog platform is a really handy way to control the speed of getting the message out. Immediate updates on the web page that could be pulled from a blog platform E-mail blasts Harness the culture of Facebook and MySpace and maintain profiles there for instant communication, especially in the aftermath of events Make the online information you share easily viral so that it can be passed on via blogs and other social media without diluting the message Use YouTube to distribute video responses to a wider audience which includes advertisements High Touch and Lower Tech Equip employees across the areas that might be affected in a Paul Revere-like system of notifications. Distribute pagers and give training for instant response in disseminating messages across wide geographic or spread out operations. Consider a service to deliver mass phonecalls to cell and home numbers Employ an audio warning system, like the siren system installed at UT Austin after the shootings there in 1966, or better yet, one with audio voice warnings, as by this video it seems they used at V-Tech Have good relationships with bloggers and mainstream media to get messages out fast This is just a start of the list and it will be governed by the needs of an organization and budget. However, these kind of "incidents" could happen anywhere and we need to be prepared to meet the challenges. Do you have anything to add to the list? posted by Kami Huyse at 1:41 PM -- Original Source: Communication Overtones http://overtonecomm.blogspot.com/2007/04/ambulances.html This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License
April 23, 2007 Filed under: Feminism, Minnesota Monitor, Virginia Tech — Jeff Fecke @ 12:21 pm It is human nature to try to figure out why bad things happen. Long ago, we blamed natural disasters on the capriciousness of the gods. The flood was caused by Poseidon's wrath, the storm by Thor's fury. Gifts were given to the gods, sacrifices of fruit, of animals, even of people, in order to placate them and turn their anger into love for their human charges. Today most of us (Pat Robertson excepted) reject the notion that bad things happen because of an angry and vengeful God. And yet, when tragedy strikes, we still seek to find the pattern underlying the madness, our ultimate failing that led to our punishment by...well, we're never quite sure, but we're sure we're being punished. After Cho Seung-hui opened fire on his classmates in Blacksburg, Va., it was only natural for us to ask why. The primary answer — that he was a deeply troubled, possibly schizophrenic and certainly psychotic man who was operating outside the bounds of normal society — is unsatisfying and seems to beg more questions than it answers. And so some writers have seized on an explanation that has a mythic history as rich and powerful as any blameworthy figure in human lore: It's the women's fault. Not all women, of course, but specifically feminists. These horrid people have, we are told, upset the natural order. They have made women more like men, causing them to demand for themselves the same privileges and prerogatives that men alone have traditionally enjoyed. At the same time, they have demanded that men stop behaving like louts, thus feminizing them, making them more female, robbing them of their manly virtue. National Review columnist John Derbyshire started the drumbeat by arguing that all of the students should have been armed, the better to kill the shooter. But that wasn't his main point. "Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals," he wrote, "why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns, for goodness' sake — one of them reportedly a .22." Nathan Blake, a writer for the weblog Human Events caught Derbyshire's meaning and amplified it. "Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that." Now, you may think that blaming students for not rushing a man with two semi-automatic handguns is, to put it nicely, insane. Especially since there were more than a few examples of bravery that day, from the resident adviser who gave his life trying to protect the first victim of the shooting to the students who held the door shut with their feet while Cho fired away above them. But of course, one should never let facts get in the way of a good session of blaming women. Besides, it wasn't just the men hand-wringing about those wimpy men; there were also women hand-wringing about those tough women. Sarah Baxter, writing for the Sunday Times of London, fingered female sexual promiscuity as the reason that Cho Seng-hui went on his rampage, going so far as to quote long-time scold Camile Paglia in her argument. "The pervasive hook-up culture at college," wrote Baxter, "where girls are prepared to sleep with boys they barely know or fancy, can be a source of seething resentment and alienation for those who are left out. "'Young women now seem to want to behave like men and have sex without commitment. The signals they are giving are very confusing, and rage and humiliation build up in boys who are spurned again and again' [said Paglia]." As the Kinks once said, it's a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world. And that's when the gods get angry. The scolds, of course, never really explain why it is that "young women behaving like men" is confusing and enraging — or at least, why young women behaving like men is worse than young men behaving like men. They don't have to bother. We all know that good girls don't, and cool boys do-the message is driven into us, all of us, from the moment we become aware of what sex might be. If anything exacerbated the insanity of Cho Seung-hui, it was this message — the message that if he was worthy, he should be having sex, and lots of it. That if he was worthy, women would and should be lining up for him — but not the pure and chaste ones. Normal people learn, at some point, that this message doesn't make a lot of sense; that sex, while entertaining, is neither the best nor the most important measure of human worth and human happiness. We learn that whether you're having sex or not is a truly meaningless measure of your worth as a human being — whether you're a good girl who is, or a cool boy who isn't. But Cho Seung-hui wasn't equipped to deal with this message, this drumbeat that he was a failure because he wasn't successful with women. And so he turned his rage to violence, first stalking women, then ultimately attacking them. That his rage reached a violent crescendo that included men as well was unsurprising, for it wasn't women he hated, or men — it was himself. The killer internalized the messages of what men are "supposed" to be, and when he could not measure up in his mind to that standard, he did the only thing he could think to do — he became ultra-violent, violence being another acceptable proof of manliness. It wasn't a shortage of manliness that was the problem last Monday, it was a surfeit. And so we come to find that the fault, if there was fault that we can assigned, lay not at the feet of the women who rejected a stalker, nor at feminists who want people to have rough equality, nor at men and women who faced a horrific massacre and did not all fight back against nigh-impossible odds. If there was a fault, it was that we as a society continue to try to tell people what they're supposed to be, rather than letting them determine that for themselves. That's not as satisfying as blaming women, nor as simple as blaming victims. But it's the truth, and we do ourselves and the dead no favor by pretending otherwise. (Cross-posted from MinMon) -- Original Source: Blog of the Moderate Left http://moderateleft.com/?p=3324 Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States
Confessions of a Would-Be School Shooter
By now the subject of Virginia Tech has been much publicized and probably hackneyed. We talk about lax gun control laws, wasted lives, disturbed young men and how we wish things like these would never happen again. In my previous entry[link], I talked about how problematic Cho Seung-Hui is and the difficulty with which we tend to see the minds of these people. We always talk about things like these happening to someone else. However, as Bill Watterson once said in his great comic strip series Calvin & Hobbes, "We are all someone else to someone else." And so instead of talking about Cho from a distance and saying how crazy he was, I'd like to talk about how I was probably just like him. As I read through TIME's articles on the VTech massacre, I began reflecting on my own past and how disturbingly close I came to becoming a school shooter. In real life, I'm a very quiet person—meaning I don't speak much. If I have something to say and feel it's absolutely necessary, I have a very loud voice. Most of the time, though, I prefer to keep to myself and do not really talk. This habit caused one of my co-teachers to remark "You know, if one of us is going to become a psychopath, it would be Joey." Of course, I'd just laugh and shrug off the remark. It was only today that I realized how close I was to this. In one of my earlier posts I talked about how I was so maligned by my classmates in grade school. I really hated them; there were times I'd think about seeing their corpses hanging from a large weeping willow tree on campus. Seriously. I think this started after my parents' marriage was annulled, but I don't blame it entirely on them (and I presently harbor no bitterness toward them in this matter). There were a lot of events that led to certain, er, emotional imbalances I had in the past, I myself am not really sure how they add up to one another. Regardless, I was a young boy who was full of hate and I can very clearly remember that at one point I really thought about shooting my classmates. Dad had bought an air rifle at that time and I was beginning to learn how to use it, and I remember telling them to stop bugging me because I had a gun. Of course they mocked me even more, at which point I just kept quiet and seriously thought about blowing their brains out. How old was I then? Ten. The next year, I was beginning to move closer and closer toward rebellion, and my mind began to darken. I just have an eerie feeling that if the events of my life did not transpire as they have, I would have ended up walking onto campus with deadly weapons and making away with the lives of those who I saw as inferior, then myself. The difficulty in getting weapons aside, I certainly had the potential to be a school shooter. I don't know how it happened, but God somehow dealt with the events of my life at that point and eventually brought me to Him. There were times I'd still feel that I was alone against the world (I still sometimes do) but I cannot deny that it was something much more dangerous before. I wanted to lash out against a world I thought was inferior to me, a world that I felt worthy to judge, a world that oppressed me. Later on in college, I met the very guy who I had really felt like killing several years before. We were both waiting for a cab outside the university, and since we were both going in the same direction we just decided to take the cab together. We talked a bit about how the other was doing in college, where we planned on going when we graduated, and so on. I really don't think this would have been possible had my Lord Jesus not wiped away the bitterness that so stained my soul at a young age. When I was a child, I felt like killing children. Now that I have grown in the grace of the Lord, I feel it is my calling to help them truly live. And this would all not be possible without my God working in my life. In His death I died to myself, and in His resurrection I rose again to a new life. Thus I have come to appreciate even more what He has done for me. "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -Romans 12:2 Teaching and not Shooting, Your Black Lion PS: I'm going on a short hiatus starting Tuesday night until Saturday. I'll be going to Pagudpud with Martin, Arghs and Fil. Yes, I'll finally be going to the beach. ~ by J. R. R. Flores on April 23, 2007. -- Original Source: http://aslancross.wordpress.com/2007/04/23/confessions-of-a-would-be-school-shooter/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License
Justify it as you like, I cannot think of Cho Seung-Hui as anything other than a murderer. A lot has already been said about the subject, so apart from the links to his plays here[link], I won't be saying much. The content of his plays being sophomoric aside (in all honesty my high school freshmen have written richer and deeper material than this), I don't think the content of his plays immediately says that he "fits the profile of a school shooter." As a previous entry said, there is no such thing as a profile; each situation is born of unique circumstances mingling with the unique turmoil in each unique individual. However, it is a definite warning sign of a person being disturbed, coupled with his general attitudes and way of pushing others away. Help was offered, but he refused it and did what he wanted to do anyway. One can't help but feel powerless when confronted with a person like this. The other school shootings we had in the past were perpetrated by children who I think could have been talked to—just that insufficient attention was given to their behavior. However, this guy was already an adult—like many other instances of adults going on a rampage, they have already made up their minds and will no longer respond to reason. This is why it is imperative that schools should take events like this seriously. Sure, they are aberrations, but this implies that somewhere, something went wrong. The most immediate problem seems to be security, of course. Students will not be able to bring firearms (or poison, as in the case of Gelyn Fabro) if the security weren't so lax. Guards search bags, yes, but do they know what they're searching for? Of course, there's also the whole issue with of how the person is treated. The school can only do so much—personal and parental problems are already beyond the reach of guidance counselors—but still, the school can provide the student with an environment where he or she can express his or her frustrations in a harmless way. Cho's situation was different—this guy was already an adult, and that's why I believe that his problems were already beyond reasoning. He had to deal with them by himself, and he couldn't. He had to choose the worst possible option. But for high school students, I believe that something can be done. Of course, people are different. There are university students who might be receptive to counseling. Cho's case is indeed an aberration, but aberrations do not excuse the school from not taking any action. In his case, action was indeed taken. Schools just have to be sure that they've done everything in such cases. I've always believed that elementary students need a teacher who they could see as a parent. In high school, they need a teacher who they could see as a friend or elder sibling. In college, a student needs a teacher who he or she could see as a mentor. Thankfully I've had such teachers in all my years in the academe. On a less serious note: Another Mario parody[link] ~ by J. R. R. Flores on April 20, 2007. -- Original Source: http://aslancross.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/in-the-mind-of-a-murderer/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
These flags flew at half-staff in front of the Metropolition Art Museum in New York City the weekend after the shootings at Virginia Tech, showing national solidarity and support for the University.
With both state and national flags flying at half-staff, the memorial balloons are released into the heavens.
ANOTHER INCONVENIENT TRUTH: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech
Bethany Gizzi and Christine Plumeri 26 Apr 2007 The tragedy at Virginia Tech on April 16th, 2007 is no doubt on many of our minds. We struggle with the impossible task of trying to understand how such a horrific act of violence could occur on a beautiful, thriving college campus. Some of us have to try to explain this to our young children. We turn to the media for information, for facts, evidence, and perhaps, an explanation for something that is so difficult for us to comprehend. As those who work in the media work tirelessly to gather information and share it with the public, we cannot help but notice that almost all of the attention thus far seems to be on individual, blame-centered explanations for why this troubled young man took his and 32 others' lives. Certainly, this is understandable and necessary to help us to make sense of such incredulous violence. Yet, we wonder why not also focus on the larger, cultural, macrolevel factors that are common denominators in our nation's acts of mass murder in the workplace and in educational institutions? We would like to raise our voices to encourage the media to follow one of the most important aspects of this story. One which can provide us with an understanding of this tragedy and a way in which we can create positive and necessary social change out of this tragic act. As professors of Sociology, we study and teach courses on Sex & Gender and Criminology. It is obvious to us that the time is now to face the issue of gender and gender based violence. This is not just a gun control or "hawk versus dove" debate and this is not just a woman's issue. To quote Jackson Katz, an anti-violence educator who writes and lectures on gendered violence, "we need to say this is a men's issue", too (www.jacksonkatz.com). In 2003, according the F.B.I.'s arrest-based Uniform Crime Reports, 90.1% of homicides were perpetrated by males and 77.5% of their victims were other males. The perpetrator of these violent acts at Virginia Tech was male. In fact, this crime is only the most recent of a long history of mass shootings committed by males in this country - many of them committed by young men and boys at educational institutions. You may recall the stories: 2 killed and 7 wounded by 16 year old Luke Woodham in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997; 3 killed and 5 wounded by 14 year old Michael Carneal in West Paducah, Kentucky in 1997; 5 killed and10 wounded by 13 year old Mitchell Johnson and 11 year old Andrew Golden in Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1998; 2 killed and 22 wounded by 15 year old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Oregon in 1998; 15 killed and 23 wounded by 18 year old Eric Harris and 17 year old Dylan Klebold in Littleton, Colorado in 1999; 2 killed and 13 wounded by 15 year old Charles Andrew Williams in Santee, California in 2001; 2 killed by 15 year old John Jason McLaughlin in Cold Spring, Minnesota in 2003; 10 killed by 16 year old Jeff Weisse in Red Lake, Minnesota in 2005; 6 killed and 5 wounded in an Amish school house by 32 year old Carl Roberts in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania in 2006; 33 killed and 15 wounded by 23 year old Cho Seung-Hui in Blacksburg, Virginia in 2007. These are not the only stories of male-perpetrated gun violence, but those that received the most media coverage over that past decade. In the coverage of each of these stories, including the murders at Virginia Tech, the media has failed to appropriately address the fact that men and boys are committing these crimes. It is time for that to change. Addressing the issue of male-perpetrated violence is not about blaming men, nor is it about locating the cause of violence in a biological explanation of aggression, given that the rates and contexts of male violence vary significantly across cultures and among individual males within them. It is also not about expensive, band-aid solutions such as metal detectors and armed security, over long-term, meaningful societal transformation. Rather, we must address the ways in which we socialize our young boys in our culture. Masculinity becomes associated with dominance, aggression, power and violence and these characteristics are encouraged, accepted and perpetuated. We have to stop believing that "boys will be boys" who grow up to kill people with guns. Boys are taught, and they see, hear and live what they learn. If these crimes had all been committed by young women, we would no doubt be asking ourselves "why?" How could a young woman perpetuate such an act of horrible violence against someone else? It would be even more unthinkable than it already is. Yet current social trends show that we are increasingly socializing our girls into more traditionally masculine characteristics as they seek to gain power and equality in our patriarchal society. As long as masculinity, and more importantly power, is associated with aggression and violence, it may be just a matter of time before females start lashing out in similar mass, destructive ways. Well, we should be asking ourselves that same question now instead of ignoring the fact that these perpetrators are male. In doing so, we are accepting the association of aggression and violence with masculinity. That should be unacceptable to all of us - men and women. We must stop ignoring the importance of gender socialization and its strong, consistent correlations with many forms of violent crime. We owe it to our sons and daughters to have this conversation and to start changing the way we raise our young men. Bethany Gizzi & Christine Plumeri Instructors of Sociology Monroe Community College bgizzi (at) monroecc.edu cplumeri (at) monroecc.edu -- Original Source: http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/20291/index.php Licensed under Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.
Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication
Israeli VA Tech massacre victim laid to rest
Hundreds of mourners accompany Prof Librescu to his final resting place. 'After surviving the Holocaust and Nicolae Ceausescu's regime in Romania, he ended up being shot in Virginia,' friend says Ines Ehrlich Published: 04.20.07, 12:44 / Israel News Professor Liviu Librescu, who was murdered in the Virginia Tech shooting this week, was buried Friday morning at the Ra'anana cemetery. Hundreds of mourners accompanied Librescu to his final resting place. Among those who came to pay their respects was the head of Jewish Agency Zeev Bielski who was also the former Mayor of Ra'anana, the Romanian consulate general, friends, relatives and media from all over the world. Shmulik Moyal, a neighbor and friend of Professor Librescu for twenty years, spoke of how one can never know how life will turn out. "After the professor survived the Holocaust and Nicolae Ceausescu's regime in Romania, he ended up being shot in Virginia." "He died in the place he most loved; he stopped the killer with his own body so that students could live," Moyal said. 'Never gave up on his dream' Choked by tears, the professor's wife, Marlena, thanked her husband for the two sons he gave her, saying that she hoped he would look after them from above. The professor's two sons, Joe and Arieh, eulogized their father in Romanian, English and Hebrew, saying that their father had always taught them to be good people, but he never taught them how to become heroes. In his eulogy Bielski said that it seems that the way Librescu met his death reflects more than anything his personal life story. "As a Holocaust survivor he managed to rehabilitate his life, to raise a warm and loving family with his wife Marilena who had also been through the Holocaust," Bielski said. "He struggled to come to Israel, never giving up his dream of living a meaningful Jewish life; he realized his dream of coming to Israel in 1978 thanks to the personal intervention of Menachem Begin with Romania's leader at the time Ceausescu; he became part of the academic world in Israel; he taught and made important achievements as a researcher and a scientist at the Technion, the Tel Aviv University and later at Virginia Tech, where he lectured and researched during the past 20 years." Gheorghe Angelescu, adviser to the president of Romania, presented Marlena Librescu with the Star of Romania - the country's highest civilian honor, which was previously granted to the prime ministers of France and Italy. Among the Chabad representatives present was Rabbi Motti Seligson, who told ynetnews how they had taken care of the burial arrangements, and accompanied the family with the coffin on their way back to Israel. Seligson said that the professor's wife had asked Chabad to organize the lighting of Shabbat candles at the university campus in memory of her husband, who cherished this tradition -- Original Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3390258,00.html
Efrat Yaari,Marketing Manager,Ynetnews (Efrat-ya@y-i.co.il)
One of victims in Virginia Tech shooting rampage Monday is Prof Liviu Librescu, senior researcher at university. Librescu was killed after he stayed behind his class to block door and protect students. Massacre claimed lives of 32 people Yitzhak Benhorin Latest Update: 04.17.07, 17:04 / Israel News WASHINGTON - Prof Liviu Librescu, a senior researcher and lecturer at Virginia Tech, is among the 32 people who were killed during a shooting rampage at the university Monday. His wife, Marlina, and two sons, Arieh and Joe, have already begun making arrangements for his burial in Israel. The Virginia Tech Police Department identified the campus gunman as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a student and native of South Korea. An official at the South Korean Foreign Ministry said that it could not rule out that the shooter was from South Korea but said it had not received any such notification from the US Embassy. One of Prof Librescu's students, Alec Calhoun, who was with him at the classroom when the shooting started, told AP that at about 9:05 am, he and classmates heard "a thunderous sound from the classroom next door, what sounded like an enormous hammer." When students realized the sounds were gunshots, Calhoun said, they started flipping over desks for hiding places. Others dashed to the windows of the second-floor classroom, kicking out the screens and jumping from the ledge of the room. Calhoun said that just before he climbed out the window, he turned to look at the professor (Librescu), who had stayed behind to block the door. Librescu's wife drove him to work on Monday, and he was killed about an hour later. His daughter-in-law Ayala, who is married to his son, Joe, told Ynet: "I heard he blocked the door of the classroom he was teaching... he must have realized that the murderer was approaching. He saved his students and was killed by gunshots." "He has been teaching there for 20 years, and was a senior, world-renowned lecturer. He is the professor with the highest number of publications in the history of Virginia Tech. In the past, he taught at Tel Aviv University and the Technion," she added. Ayala said that her father-in-law was passionate about his research and a dedicated family man. A true gentleman Prof Librescu and his wife are both Holocaust survivors who immigrated to Israel from Romania in 1978. Librescu was an accomplished scientist in Romania, and the Communist regime had tried to prevent him from making aliyah to Israel. He was allowed to leave the country only after the Israeli prime minister at the time Menachem Begin appealed the matter to President Nicolae Ceausescu. Several years later, Librescu left for a sabbatical in the United States and has remained there since. His first son, Arieh, lives in Israel, while his other son, Joe, resides in the US. "I understand from friends that my father was a hero," the son Joe told Ynet. "In fact, by blocking the door with his body he saved all the students who were in the classroom." Joe said that his parents were very happy in the United States, where they have been living since 1984. "He and my mom led a simple life, at a pastoral place in West Virginia, between hills and mountains, and he loved the school in which he taught." "He is scientist who did not work for money, but for the pleasure he got from his occupation," he added. AP contributed to the report First Published: 04.17.07, 07:17 -- Original Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3388753,00.html
Bush honors Israeli professor killed in Virginia Tech shooting
'This Holocaust survivor gave his own life so that others may live,' US president says during Shoah memorial service in Washington. On Iran: You who have survived evil know that the only way to defeat it is to look it in the face and not back down Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 04.18.07, 20:24 / Israel News WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush on Wednesday honored Professor Liviu Librescu, an Israeli Holocaust survivor who died trying to keep a gunman from shooting his students in a killing spree at Virginia Tech University. Librescu, an aeronautics engineer and teacher at the school for 20 years, saved the lives of several students by using his body to barricade a classroom door before he was gunned down in Monday's massacre. "That day we saw horror, but we also saw quiet acts of courage," Bush said at a memorial service held at the US Holocaust Museum to a crowd that included many survivors. "We saw this courage in a teacher named Liviu Librescu. With the gunman set to enter his class, this brave professor blocked the door with his body while his students fled to safety. On the Day of Remembrance, this Holocaust survivor gave his own life so that others may live. And this morning we honor his memory and we take strength from his example. 'You who have found refuge in a Jewish homeland' President Bush continued to say that, "This is a place devoted to memory. Inside this building are etched the words of the prophet Isaiah: You are my witness. As part of this witness, these walls show how one of the world's most advanced nations embraced a policy aimed at the annihilation of the Jewish people." Turning his attention to the Iranian nuclear threat, the American president said, "You who bear the tattoos of death camps hear the leader of Iran declare that the Holocaust is a myth. You who have found refuge in a Jewish homeland know that tyrants and terrorists have vowed to wipe it from the map. And you who have survived evil know that the only way to defeat it is to look it in the face and not back down." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and newly appointed US ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, were also on hand for the Holocaust memorial service. Associated Press contributed to the report -- Original Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3389555,00.html
Evenimentul Zilei Nr. 4846 7 Iunie 2007 Silvia Vrinceanu Focsaniul va avea, de luna viitoare, un nou cartier, "Erou prof. dr. Liviu Librescu", situat chiar in centrul orasului, in jurul templului evreiesc, construit in 1896. Consiliul Local Focsani a decis, saptamana trecuta, sa atribuie fostului cartier evreiesc numele profesorului in semn de omagiu pentru ca si-a aparat cu viata studentii in timpul masacrului din 16 aprilie de la Universitatea Virginia Tech din SUA. Propunerea se afla acum la avizare la Comisia Judeteana de Atribuire de Denumiri de pe langa Institutia Prefectului, urmand sa fie aprobata in cateva zile. Decizia municipalitatii focsanene a fost salutata si de fostii studenti ai profesorului evreu de origine romana. Tinerii au facut o baza de date digitala cu toate materiale publicate in lume despre masacrul din 16 aprilie. Baza de date, care cuprinde peste 350 de documente, poate fi accesata pe site-ul www.april16archive.org. Profesorul Liviu Librescu a stat la Focsani pana la varsta de 14 ani. -- Sursa Originala: http://www.expres.ro/article.php?artid=308428
Silvia Vrinceanu-Nichita (silvia@ziaruldevrancea.ro)
Profesorul-erou LIVIU LIBRESCU a fost ploiestean
Vineri, 20 Aprilie 2007 De ieri, el este Cetatean de Onoare - post mortem, al municipiului Cea mai oribila crima savarsita vreodata intr-un campus universitar din SUA - dupa cum a fost caracterizat atacul armat de la Universitatea Virginia Tech, in urma caruia au fost asasinate 32 de persoane - a adus in prim-planul atentiei opiniei publice mondiale un erou. Numele sau - Liviu Librescu, profesorul care si-a aparat studentii, blocand cu propriul corp, usa de acces criminalului. Strapuns de gloante, ultima lui lectie urma sa fie aceea a curajului, a sacrificiului, a apararii studentilor sai cu propria-i viata. S-a spus despre profesorul erou ca este de origine romana. Cu fireasca emotie aveam sa aflam insa, ca profesorul Librescu este ploiestean. Aici s-a nascut, in 1930, aici a locuit si si-a facut studiile liceale. In memoria si pentru cinstirea jertfei sale, ieri, la Sinagoga din Ploiesti, a avut loc o manifestare omagiala. Aceasta a constat intr-o rugaciune traditionala spusa in limba ebraica si a fost oficiata de Gilu Iuftariu, vicepresedintele comunitatii evreiesti din municipiu, organizatie ce aduna in prezent, aproximativ 100 de membri. "Liviu Librescu s-a nascut la Ploiesti acum 77 de ani dintr-o familie de evrei, a facut studiile la Liceul "Sfintii Petru si Pavel" si a absolvit Institutul Politehnic din Bucuresti in 1953. Profesorul erou era considerat, in lumea academica, drept o somitate; a fost recunoscut ca fondatorul teoriei aplicatiilor in domeniul petrochimiei si, de asemenea, foarte apreciat datorita muncii sale de cercetare in domeniul aerospatial. Din nefericire, profesorul Librescu a fost ucis in incercarea sa de a-si salva studentii de ploaia de gloante", cu aceste cuvinte si-a inceput discursul vicepresedintele comunitatii evreiesti. De asemenea, acesta a mai precizat: "L-am cunoscut pe profesorul Librescu, cu multi ani in urma si chiar am mentinut legatura prin intermediul corespondentei. Intotdeauna a demonstrat un grad de cultura si de bunatate deosebit, nu a uitat niciodata de unde a plecat, drept pentru care a revenit in tara acum cativa ani cu urna cu cenusa a tatalui sau, pentru a-l inhuma in cimitirul din Ploiesti. Gestul sau de sacrificiu demonstreaza o marinimie sufleteasca deosebita, acesta oferindu-ne o ultima lectie de viata". Printre cei prezenti la manifestare s-au mai numarat reprezentanti ai Primariei Municipiului Ploiesti, ai Muzeului de Istorie si Arheologie Prahova, ai Muzeului de Arta Ploiesti etc. *** Ieri, consilierii locali i-au acordat prof.univ.dr. Liviu Librescu, Titlul de Cetatean de Onoare al municipiului Ploiesti, post-mortem. Ana-Maria DRAGOMIR -- Sursa Originala: http://www.ziarulprahova.ro/articol~categorie-cultura~stire-21252~profesorul-erou-liviu-librescu-a-fost-ploiestean~perioada-aprilie-2007.html
Dumitru Carstea, Director al Editurii Prahova (edprahova@asesoft.ro)
April 18, 2007 [Update: I stand by my piece, which is mostly a bunch of questions, rather than statements linking race and culture in the explanative way it is being taken. I merely pointed out that as an American working deeply in the education field for years now, and having identified just such problems (and seen them connected in the Korean-language media for years), that perhaps questions about culture, as related to specific conditions that surround child-rearing, education, being educated overseas, the taboo of discussing mental health in Korean society, etc. might not have played some role here, on top of the fact that many Asian and Asian American males indeed might have specific ways of feeling alienated in "white society." Obviously, to even broach mere questions is deemed "racist" by many readers. Fine. I don't delete comments (unless they are abusive) and people have a right to come in and say what they want - that's why I blog, after all. Yet, before we start flinging around the "R-word" I hope people actually think about what I'm saying, and remember that what I said was that cultural context may be helpful as far as looking at context, but that "Korea" and the rest of the world should look at him as an individual. I spend half my post saying that, and the two need not contradict. And yes, when it comes to the fact that most serial killers have been/are still white men, it does astound me that America seems to have trouble talking about this obvious fact, and mums was the word when Columbine happened. Yet, broaching the topic is going to get one accused of saying their horrendous acts were committed "because they were white," which would again, be not what I said. But pundits of all kinds of backgrounds have license to talk about the concerns of "black youth" as it relates to drugs or violence for years. I don't call doing so "racist" although some strains of it certainly can be. For those who call such explanations as this "back-tracking," well, I guess you can call it what you like. I feel that despite the obvious difficulty anyone can have theorizing culture as a backdrop for what are undeniably individual actions, people are only reading one side of what I am actually saying, even after I have carefully delimited the extent to which "culture" can be expected to lead to culpability. I speak as an educator who watches (and inevitably participates in) the nearly inhumane grind of the education system here, the extreme testing regime these kids are expected to endure, the harsh penalties meted to those who can't, the sudden skyrocketing of youth suicide due directly to mental health problems linked to academic achievement, and myriad other pressures that quite often lead to education in the US as a goal for Korean kids. And even in the Korean American community, the culture of such processes, as well as the patterns of culture do not necessarily end with a green card or an American address. So, in that context, this does frighten me, and I think this incident, while extreme, does warrant reflection on some serious structural shifts in Korean education, the family, and other factors between which Korean kids get crunched in the middle. If you want to call such efforts or lines of thinking "racist", I can't stop you. Yet, I think it's significant, from this side of the water, to think about the fact that yes, he is not a white kid from Colorado, especially against the backdrop of what's been happening in Korean education in recent years, as well the socialization of males in Korea and Korean culture. And since mine is an identity partially shaped AS an Asian American man, as well as an African-American one, I have a more direct interest in asking these questions. And if you think I am saying I lay claim to all the answers, I want to make very clear again that I don't profess to have them, and I don't consider culture as responsible for his actions here. But to assume from the very beginning that "it doesn't matter," when I think it may be worth looking at, especially given the copycat nature of high-profile suicides in Korea over just the last couple of years, I would hate for there to be a similar effect over there. Call it "racist" if you will, but mental health professionals have been saying for years that there are cultural factors when it comes to mental health concerns, especially in communities in which such talk is considered taboo. I guess to raise such issues in this context, no matter how carefully prefaced or qualified, is taboo as well. So, are all Muslims terrorists? Clearly not. Are the vast majority of terrorists in recent years Muslim? Clearly, yes. I don't confuse the logic, yet it's easy to do. Yet, the mainstream media talks about the mindsets and motivations of many of the young men who get recruited up into horrible acts. To talk about "culture" as some generalized, essentialized force would indeed be "racist;" but to talk about the factors of poverty, religion, and the motivations for entering such groups isn't; they are reasonable questions. Do they dismiss the actions of individuals? No. People are all responsible for their actions. Just as we talk about the "culture of poverty" or in more recent years, have more elevated conversations about African-American culture and what often leads black male youth to join gangs, or commit crimes in ways that white males generally don't - I also don't consider that "racist." But is a black gangster responsible for his acts? Damn straight s/he is. I find it unusual that it can be legitimate for me, as a student back at Brown in the 1990's, as an active Asian American and "multiracial" on campus, to listen to job candidates for the Psych Services position talk about the "special mental health needs of Asian American youth" and for Asian American campus reps to sit there and nod approvingly while they talked about educational and familial pressures, relate those to Asian American notions of masculinity and femininity, and a lot of factors that I mention in this article as clearly relevant, but merely broach the subject now is completely out of bounds. Unlike the mainstream American media, or whichever talking heads are on TV right now in the States, I've been thinking about something like this happening for years now, in a Korean context; I've actually wondered when and if something like this might happen, and how this may play out. I come at this from someone who lives and works in South Korea who works with kids in high schools, college, and alternative schools daily. And as I look at this both as an Asian American and an American living in Asia, I don't think cultural pressures and patterns can be so easily discounted out of hand, as mere "racism", and suddenly unworthy as points at least worth thinking about. In the end, Cho wasn't just another white kid who committed yet another school shooting. But he also isn't the representative of Korea, nor his diasporic nationality, nor his supposed "race." He was a warped individual. I am simply saying that perhaps there are factors in his "warping" that may have had cultural aspects worth thinking about, especially for those of us concerned about the mental and spiritual health of both Asian and Asian American youth. And that's where I'll leave it. If you're looking for "answers," keep looking, and don't think you'll find them here, or blame be either for professing to have them, or not having them. I don't, and don't claim to. I lay out some things to think about below, but mostly ask a lot of questions that I think are worth asking. And I am somewhat surprised that even broaching the topic, no matter how tentatively or awkwardly, is somehow "racist."] This is sort of a followup piece to "The Walking Wounded" post that clearly is spurred on by the recent events at Virginia Tech, with the mass murder-suicide of Cho Seung-Hui, the worst in American history. As I try to formulate a response, I do so while trying to stay true to my own intellectual convictions, while trying to make sense out of something that is far more complex than any single person can make out. How will I interpret this? How can I? I can't profess to know the mind of the killer, nor work from information that I don't have. And the media speculation will go on and on, while the Korean media will work in "national shame" mode that is the necessary flip side of the extended "national pride" that is taken in anyone of Korean descent who does anything of note overseas. I'm of two minds about this, but I don't feel my impulses are in conflict. On the one hand, I feel like this incident makes it worth looking at some of the social factors that very well could have helped determine one man's actions; on the other, we have to remember that Cho was an individual, and that the faulty logic that "Korea" is the bearer of collective guilt over this incident is just as flawed as Korea taking full responsibility for a member of its "own" who had been socially cast aside, as was the case with Hines Ward. My posts on the issue: "Korean Folks Don't Like Black People" "Hines Ward - Lost in Translation" "Hines Ward - Nail On the Head" "On 'Korean Blood," Social Policy, and the Dangers of Race-Based Nationalism" "Where Do Koreans' Ideas About Race Come From?" "Hines Ward - What If?" "The Gates of the Minjok" í˜¼í˜ˆì¸ 내가 'ì›Œë“œì‹ ë“œë¡¬'ì— ì§œì¦ë‚˜ëŠ” ì´ìœ (in Korean) 한국 ì˜ì–´ì‚¬ì „ì€ ì¸ì¢…íŽ¸ê²¬ ì „ì‹œìž¥? (in Korean) More interesting to me than the details of all this and trying to figure use the blunt tool of structural arguments and social psychology to tease out the subtle and complex motivations of an obviously troubled individual, are the implications this will realistically have for Korea tomorrow morning, when this hits the Korean public when it gets up to read the paper or catch the news over coffee and the morning commute. This is a big moment - and I am thinking mainly along these two lines. There will be a lot of things worth thinking about, social problems worth looking at - but at the end of the day, Cho was an individual. And "Korea" can no more be held "responsible" for this horrible crimes than it could have been for Hines Ward winning the Super Bowl. On the issue of someone like Hwang Woo Suk, the folly of setting him up as a hero and the irony of his inevitable fall was much more of a marker of the society in which he lived, because his status as a public figure depended on the collective mind and will of the public. He was not a true individual, but rather a figure created according to the needs of a government, media, and public who created him. The shooter in Virginia was a Korean (the extent of his ties here having yet to be determined, regardless of when he apparently gained residency there), but he was also - and importantly - an individual. That is something that will be hard, but necessary, to remember over the days and weeks to come. Cho Seung-hui will live in the national identity of Koreans forever. He is the anti-thesis of all the national "heroes" whom Korea imprudently lauds as extensions of the national character (again, Hwang Woo Suk), as somehow expressions of the positive character traits imbedded into the genetic material of Koreans itself. Now, after this horrible affair, perhaps the faulty logic of those connections will be apparent. I wonder if the move will be away from that logic itself, or an ongoing circus show of national shame. I do hope that the logic of not performing the latter will be apparent. Strategically, the best thing to do would be for the South Korean government to express its remorse and regrets, make meaningful yet symbolic gestures expressing those sentiments, and move on. If an American did this while studying in another country, I would expect the same from my government. "That crazy dude has nothing to do with me." But that's not the way this is going to go down, is it? At least at first. There is going to be serious national shame, expressed through the shock of this "representative of the culture" - even if the kid had been living in the States most of his life. There will be Korean media pointing at the parents, expressions of shock that "a Korean could do such a thing" (despite the fact that violence in the schools and against women are actually rampant in Korean society), and the glee that many people here in South Korea have at pointing out "American" character traits whenever horrible things happen in the US will be inevitably tempered. Because the flip side of the logic now applies, like a mofo. Let me just say that I don't know the details right now, besides the basics of the shooter having been identified. Nor does anyone else at the present time, really. I'm writing, getting a million Messenger messages a minute, and don't have time to closely scan the papers as I write this, not that there's a lot of information, anyway. In a way, I don't want to, as I want to write what I write clean, before the details make the issues temporarily more obfuscated, as they surely will. But in the end, will we ever know why Cho did this? Like the Columbine shooters, we'll speculate forever. Even when if and when we realized a concrete motive, how does one truly know when or how an emotionally fathomable rage becomes a horrible, inexplicable madness? So I'll go with what I got, which is a lot of opinions about South Korean society, education, and social problems involving youth, education, and women in this society. I will say right now that I am extrapolating far too much from this incident from the git-go, but I think my lines of argument will tend to make more sense than the Chosun Ilbo or Hangreoreh will, or most "explanations" of this horrible incident. In a nation that wants to crack down on the rash of gang rapes and ongoing sexual violence committed against girls and women by launching a campaign against foreign porn sites as the main solution and logical conclusion, what, oh what, sense will the media make of Cho Seung-hui? Let me just start by saying that I see a lot of social factors converging that might offer a social context - not an explanation - to this situation. It's also an excuse to talk about some social issues in Korea (since this is, after all, what this blog is about) and do some more productive hand-wringing than I think the mainstream Korean media will. I wouldn't even be surprised if this is used as more ammo to show just how much America can "corrupt" good Korean youth. Just like Western porn is responsible for Korean boys (and girls!) conspiring to rape and sexually extort the victims that have made the news in a couple of pretty scandalous cases over the last few months. And since my posts can tend to go on quite a bit, let me just list these topics, in no particular order: This isn't new (HT to reader). Several years ago, I was with a group of university administrators being given a tour by the US State Department, hosted by Fulbright Korea, and being given a tour by a respected mentor of mine when several of the administrators stopped to ask a question that seemed to be burning at them for some time. "Why is it that Korean male students seem to have the most trouble adjusting to life in the US?" Kind of surprised, but yet not, I and my mentor pressed further, and they explained that the students who had the most disciplinary problems of all their international students were Korean males. These representatives of large state universities all then cited incident after incident of Korean males threatening Korean students seen walking with a foreign man (a graduate student walking with her black professor - she received dozens of insults and death threats on her answering machine), physical conflicts with other graduate students over simple matters, and a some domestic violence in cases of Korean couples living on campus. In that conversation, what came out is that many Korean men felt displaced and disempowered as males who lived in a society that catered to them, while in the US, those forms of automatic power and status - being male, rich, or having come from Seoul National University - mean nothing. And at the same time, Korean women experience a social liberalization compared to where they would often be in Korea; many Korean female friends and colleagues of mine who studied in the US cited how they felt constricted and uncomfortable (부담) when a Korean male would end up in a seminar with them, because often, the man would expect them to acknowledge or "respect" (ì¸ì •) them. When they didn't receive it, and often were dressed down by people younger than them or female, or by the professor in front of the class, they often felt particularly frustrated. And that has been a big issue and has led to social conflict and trouble before. And that is just about all I'll say on that. Then there's the interesting fact that the record holder for the worst shooting in world history, Woo Bom-gon (우범근), is also Korean, this time a Korean national who lived in Korea. That's not in the least bit interesting? From about the only other site on the Internet I could find on this subject (there is exactly one I could find through Korean search engines, and that's a pretty weird site): South Korean spree killer. Has argument with girlfriend. Being a police officer, Woo Bum-Kon robs the police armory and goes on a drunken 8 hour shooting spree through three villages, leaving 57 dead and 35 wounded before he suicides with two grenades in Uiryong. The Korean interior minister resigns. (28 Apr 1982.) Sound familiar? So the top two spots for shooting sprees in history are now held by two Korean men. Hey - I just find this interesting. Is this information not somewhat relevant to the issue at hand? Don't know why the Korean media isn't picking up on this. Or maybe it will? This is another interesting fact to throw in with the others. Even The New York Times had a piece on it back in 1982. Well before this incident, and with the high number of suicides and actually pretty gruesome serial murders that take place in this country without guns - and I've heard Koreans joking about this as well - people wonder what Korea would be like if guns were legal and freely available here. Given the recent spate of violence and suicide in the schools here, I also give a shudder. Suicide is rampant in South Korean society. It's the #1 cause of death in people in their 20's and 30's in Korea. And since I consider these incidents of mass murder as actually horribly violent forms of suicide - "take a few with you" - I think it's something worth thinking about. I've blogged about this extensively, especially as it's related to the education system. How do you add up the affects of parental, societal, and other kinds of pressure on Korean youth, the extent of which few American kids I know even come close to feeling? I've already said enough about this that doesn't need to be rehashed here; it's better to just read them directly. "The Walking Wounded" "On Suicide in Korea" "On the Korean Obsession With Educational Success" "Podcast #27 - The Korean Education System" "EPIK as Case Study: Why Korean-Style Management Sucks" "Attack of the Clones" "The Phantom Menace" Violence against women is endemic in Korean society. What would be called stalking or considered inappropriate is often standard practice here in terms of dating, sex, and marriage. I often cite the case of when I saw a man slap his apparent girlfriend as hard as he could, sending her head back with visible shock. In front of a police station in Chungmuro, where, as a photographer, I had made my haunt. I immediately walked over, shooting away with my motor drive, saying that "you can't do that" and that I witnessed it. He looked annoyed and ignored me, at which point I walked to the police station about 20 meters away and informed the older officer on duty of what I had seen, in fluent Korean. He seemed annoyed, but obliged to get up out of his chair, and he went over to the door, cracked it, observed the couple still fighting, and said, "It's OK. They know each other." After I asked him if "this is all cops do in Korea" and "shouldn't he go check?" he just told me to go home. He never even asked if she was in trouble. That's a lot better than the incident, circa 2004(?), when a group of boys from some small town outside of the capital were convicted of serially raping 2 high school students (they had been in middle school at the time, if my memory serves) after one boy had had consensual sex with one of the girls but had videotaped it and used it as a weapon to make her sleep with other boys - up to 30 or 40, I recall - and also impress her friend into similar sexual service. When this was discovered, the girls were berated by police as having run a prostitution ring, and were called sluts and whores, while the parents of many of the boys as well as members of the community gave death threats to the girls' mothers for "ruining their sons' lives." And such stories keep popping up again and again here, while the tendency is to not punish the men at all, if possible. I personally attended a small protest around a large police station in relation to this issue, which many Seoul residents and the more enlightened did, to their credit, find reprehensible. But the level of violence against women here, as many Fulbrighters have heard as they lived with Korean host families all across the country, in apartment complexes where you regularly hear women being viciously beaten and screaming at night - no one calls the cops, except for me, it seems - and the many times I've seen women just straight slapped around in public...the level of violence against women that is readily apparent if you live here is undeniable. I can't speak for all foreigners here, but this is something I hear again and again and again. And yes, there is sexual and domestic violence everywhere in the world, but this is a place where I can't even count on two hands the number of times I've seen a women slapped down in public. And no one does anything. How much is a woman's body really worth here? Other factors? In the end, we just can't know. So it's not even clear how much time Cho spent in the US, although it appears he has spent a considerable amount. The information is changing by the hour. How does one sum up one's connection to culture(s)? But I do think it is worth at least mentioning the factors that often affect Korean men living as foreign students in the US, the pressures that come from living in one of the least happiest developed societies in the world, where I argue that the mental violence of the repressively harsh developmental dictatorship has finally started to find expression, even as the pressure cooker that is the failed Korean education system sends more and more Korean students overseas at an earlier age, to experience more stress and even higher parental expectations. What can we make of this? Well, it just strikes me that the motive for a male Korean student to commit this heinous act apparently includes being feelings of revenge against his girlfriend and was precipitated by a fight with her. Beyond that, one can't really speculate. One can only talk about factors that might illuminate. But speculate and make specious extrapolations the Korean media will, and I assure you, dear readers, that they won't stop at mere speculation around social factors, but there will be a slew of culturally essentialist assumptions that lead to really suspect "conclusions" as to what the "real problem" was. It will get more complex if he turns out to have lived most of his life in the US. Then, the onus of cultural responsibility can and will be shifted to "America." If his ties to Korea are stronger, then perhaps his parents will be blamed for his actions. They will be anyway. Although it is not a nice thing to foresee, I wouldn't be surprised if other suicides out of shame come from this, especially if "national blame" gets shifted to the individual, and by extension, the parents. In Sum But sometimes, we just can't "know." The pathology of the individual isn't something nations should be responsible for, because this isn't a logical or fair thing to do. If I go out right now and kill all of my officemates and then blow up a building, much will be made of my political leanings, little "signs" from the scribblings on my blog here, and most likely the anger I had after Katrina and talking about the song "Bin Laden Didn't Blow Up the Projects." But maybe it was me. Me who was crazy, me who wanted to take out my anger in a horrible way. Is my nation responsible? Is Bush? Are my parents? Was it because I played Sniper Elite on my Xbox, or Halo 2? When the process of going over Cho's life with a fine-toothed media freakout ends, I'm sure we'll see a lot of such explanations. But in the end, I don't think we can ever know. How does one know the face of madness like this? If we could, wouldn't it be easy to spot and prevent? However, this incident leaves a lot to think about. Not the least of which is the fact that the linking of "national pride" is just about as useless as the linking of "national shame", but the cultural logic of this is far from out of favor. Perhaps if one positive thing comes out of this, it will be a national discussion of a lot of these issues, and if we're lucky, people will be even asking the question, "Does 'Korea' even really need to feel responsible for this?" One might even see an angry rejection of this "national shame" - which in some ways, I think would be healthy; psychologically, it may be useful and hence, inevitable. In the end, this will be the beginning point for a lot of different discourses around culture, race, and nation. People can and should now talk about all the things that very well may have gone into influencing one Korean man's way of expressing his anger, however inappropriate that may have been. There are cultural patterns to things that are caused by clear and present structural influences, customary and culturally-informed modes of interaction, and a great number of things. But that doesn't mean "Korea" is responsible. Thinking about both factors will involve walking a subtle line that will be very, very easy to cross. I just hope the conversation can be more elevated than some of the things I can imagine being said about this incident, this one troubled man, and the culture of which he was, to some extent, a part. A few more thoughts... And on the American front, things are still swirling. How will race, gender, and sex play into this, as well as the stereotypes of Asian Americans in general and Korean Americans specifically? One thing that occurred to me was that I'm sure Arab Americans are breathing a sigh of relief that the shooter was not of Arab descent or Muslim. That's the last thing the Arab community needs in the States. I'm sure most people were expected the shooter to be a white male, as almost all mass murderers in recent years have been. What is interesting is the fact that the mainstream American media has never made much of the fact that serial killers are almost exclusively middle-class, white men. The FBI and criminal psychologists have this as a base assumption; interesting that in the public mind, this is not even a question. Imagine if nearly all serial killers were Korean; or Arab; or black; or female. Then, it would mean something, right? The gun control lobby will have a field day with this, while the NRA will likely emphasize (thanks, Jacco, for changing my mind about this) the kid's immigrant status and the fact that it wasn't the gun who killed those people, but an immigrant on a visa. Yes, people kill people, and it's not just the guns; but is sure is easier with a Glock 9mm with a low trigger weight that pops off bullets as fast as your index finger can flex. And back in Korea, I really hope that after the nation has gone through the expected paroxysms of guilt and shame, that some South Koreans will tire of it and say, "OK, enough. Why do I have to feel bad about some crazy kid who cracked? It's not my problem." And I think I'd feel the same way; I'd have to agree. From there, if that happens, the real interesting questions and debates can begin. More than anything, I hope that this might be what it takes to partially break the foundations of national identity into smaller and more interesting parts, ones that can be digested by a logic other than the dichotomy of "pride and shame" and into something more complex. An even more unlikely hope will be for the Korean media and by extension, a large part of the populace, to move past the crude and problematic stereotyping and categorical thinking that defines a lot of the discourse around foreign others, and even Koreans themselves. Perhaps now, the logic that because the murderer who dumped a girl's body in Ansan Station turned out to be Chinese means that "Chinese are dangerous" will now become suspect. Or that "Arabs are dangerous and terrorists" if the shooter in this case had been Arab, or that "America is dangerous" because of this incident, when it's much more likely that you'll be killed in a car accident than shot by a Crip in a driveby or even a crazed killer in a school. Because by extension, that would mean that "Koreans are dangerous killers" who should be avoided, or "are all about to snap." I doubt Koreans would accept that, as well they shouldn't. I just hope that this can translate into the realization that the logic is equally flawed the other way around. Posted by Michael Hurt on April 18, 2007 -- Archived with permission of author. Original Source: Scribblings of the Metropolitician http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2007/04/the_politics_of.html
April 19, 2007 UPDATE: Thanks for the various thoughtful comments, thoughtful commenters - I'm sure you know who you are. First off, I do acknowledge that I was a little snarky and "aha!" in the initial reaction to things, and I agree that it just puts people in a bad mood. But, I could have easily erased what I said, and not because I think it was wrong to have the thought, but because it distracted so much from the majority of the stuff I was really trying to say. Yet, I would somehow feel it dishonest to do so, and the reason I write is to organize my thoughts and logic for people to see; I just wish people in general, and not just over the past few days, could read this blog as one man's thoughts in motion, as opposed my final thoughts on matters. I have strong opinions, but those thoughts wend and weave according to other good opinions. That said, I also know I write a lot. Loooong posts. Opinionated posts. Wordy posts. And that's off-putting as well. I know that, but it would take me forever to get this stuff out if I had to condense it down, distill it, make it simpler. And since the vast majority of blogs out there write in short form, I don't feel like I'm adding to a trend in need of reversal - on the contrary, I wish there were more thoughtful people who tried to think carefully, put in the time to express their opinions fully, and really engage with difficult subjects. So I think that perhaps the blogosphere is better off with a few wordy fools who try to think aloud and in the sense of intellectual full-contact sports. As for race, I think the media is talking about it pretty minimally, as I assumed they would. And looking at this from primarily an American perspective. I'm inevitably looking at this from a Korean perspective, because it is here in Korea that I sit, live, and work. It's here that I have worked with a lot of kids who look just like Cho in background, culture, and personality. I thought that I'd be one of the few people talking not about there necessarily having to be some "cultural angle" on this, but that there should be room and though given to the possibility. If anything, the problem isn't that the American media is focusing on his race, because it really isn't, and even if it did, I don't think it's bad to talk about possible cultural specifics, if done appropriately. However, the real problem is that the American media should have been talking about: - why is it that only males are serial killers and mass murderers? - why are they mostly white? - when they aren't, what's the reason? Instead of shutting down a conversation about the profiles of these kind of people, we should be opening it up. Were there some factors about extreme Christianity that led to this? Does this have nothing to do with the fact that some of the most outspoken and extreme Christian groups among American youth are of Korean descent? Is this question "wrong?" I don't think so, if we are also asking, "Why are serial killers almost exclusively white?" There is a serious racial undertone to ALL such murders, in that the perpetrators are almost always white, as well as the overwhelming presence of gender, in that they are always male? This is as obvious as the hand in front of my face, yet when I was asking these same questions in Columbine, no one wanted to go there. And nobody did. Instead, we look at Marilyn Manson, video games, and other things that were obviously not determining factors, since I'd engaged in all above activities, but don't go around killing people. I loved me some NWA, and they were actually TALKING ABOUT going and killing white people. Yet, I didn't "go get my AK." I guess it WAS a good day. I'm saying that this whole brouhaha stems from the fact that Americans still have amazing difficulty talking about culture and race, in what is supposed to be the most diverse and multicultural society in the world, where anyone can be a citizen. We're getting better at it, but we're still not good at it. So now, we're told to believe, before anyone even knows anything, that Cho's particular pathology could have had nothing to do with any cultural malaise, or that some of the roots of his alienation may not have had to do with being Asian. I'm not saying there necessarily are, but to meet such a question with "this question is irrelevant. culture has nothing to do with this. conversation over" is equally un-productive. And as for people saying that my ideas can be "co-opted" for the "other side," I just say that this is thinly-vieled intellectual cowardice talking, because I'm not a hillbilly in a pickup truck talking about shooting the next Asian I see because he took daddy's factory job away. If you think that's what I'm saying, or you confuse what I'm saying with that, you're more paranoid than you think you are. People should be talking more about aspects of masculinity here, because all these killers are MEN. What's up with that? People should be talking more about whiteness because the vast majority of these people are WHITE. And when they so shockingly and brutally aren't, we might ask the question "what traits did he share with the Columbine boys?" (which the media is already asking), but we also might look at "what traits might have been different that also got him to the same place of being able to commit mass murder like this?" And if we're going to be comparing to Columbine, while never even really having an intelligent about the fact that the politics of whiteness as an identity, masculinity, and feeling of extreme alienation seem to lead to something, if we can agree to talk about all these things with the Columbine boys - IF - then in Cho's case, we'd have to also talk about the one thing he did NOT share with them and the MAJORITY of the rank of the killers he has so infamously joined, that being his Asianness, Koreanness, or whatever - in any case, his non-whiteness. That makes the case of the DC snipers ALL the more interesting, all the MORE remarkable. If you were a criminal profiler for the FBI, or a clinial psychologist, or an administrator in charge of schools, I hope these people would find such questions interesting. If someone held an academic conference about it, I'd hope they'd attend, rather than close one's ears and boycott it. But that seems like what most people want to do. I don't fear some imagined backlash against Asian men; sure, there may be a few idiots out there who do something, but overall, it's probably for any particular Asian male right now to die in a car accident, or of lung cancer. So buckle up and stop smoking - I don't think anyone has to hide in their houses. But the disappointing reaction is, "Stop talking about race! He was just some crazy fucker!" No, he wasn't. No, all the killers weren't. There are clear patterns here. Start with the fact of maleness and extreme alienation, along with feelings of victimhood and desire for martyrdom. Then work your way down to identifying any overarching cultural patterns in white or Asian (Korean) socialization patterns, similarities in self-identification, all that stuff. I'm not a psychologist. But if I were, I'd be licking my lips over this stuff. Has there been no one who's written a doctoral thesis about "The Role of White Identity, Disaffectation, and Constructions of Masculinity in Serial Murderers"? Maybe that's a wack topic, and it's not my field. But seriously - has no one done research on this? Come on? Is this really such a taboo topic, even to a research psychologist? Anyway, mums the word. All the serial killers were just crazy fuckers. Let's just leave it at that and act all surprised AGAIN when this happens AGAIN, which it will. And for all those imagined white guys who are cutting out eyeholes in sheets to go get that Asian male grad student who took that last fluffy donut from the tray in the cafeteria (those BASTARDS! they're really taking everything!), don't worry: The next mass murderer, statistically and historically speaking, will probably be a white guy, anyway. So what's everyone worried about? At least the imagined heat will be off Asians, right? Whew! -------------- ORIGINAL POST -------------- Over the last 24 hours, it's been suggested that even broaching the issue of possible cultural issues when looking at the case of Cho warrants being labeled "racist." Salon.com has linked to a previous post from this site that relays the story that several university administrators in Korea with whom I spoke when Fulbright Korea hosted a tour here expressed concern about the fact that they saw a pattern of Korean students studying in the US having trouble adjusting, and that those students were almost exclusively male. This was several years ago. Or read this: Although Asian Americans were at relatively lower risk of homicide in the 1970s and 1980s, they have experienced increasingly higher risk since the 1990s. From 1970 to 1993, the homicide rate for Asian Americans in California increased 170%.13 Asian immigrants are also at significantly higher risk of homicide than Asians that were born in the United States. The growing trend of homicide among Asian American communities coupled with the increase of Asian American youth violence thus poses an urgent issue of concern for Asian Americans. Whence these racist, cultural arguments? Another, from the same source: Despite the model minority myth that Asian Americans as a whole are economically and academically successful, delinquency among Asian American youth has actually been on the rise in recent years. In the past 20 years, the number of API youth involved in the juvenile justice system has increased dramatically, while national arrest trends for Black and White youth have decreased. Arrest rates for Southeast Asian youth (Vietnamese, Cambodia , Laotian), are the highest within the overall API population. Studies have shown that peer delinquency is the strongest predictor of adolescent delinquency. Other suggested risk factors for adolescent delinquency among Asian Americans include personal experiences of victimization, acculturative conflict, family conflict, and individualist versus collectivist orientation. More racists? Or how about a report on "Violence Affecting Asian-American and Pacific Islander Communities", compiled by Masters candidates at the Michigan School of Public Health? But wait? For me to pose questions that perhaps young Cho Seung-hui could have had "personal experiences of victimization, acculturative conflict, family conflict, and individualist versus collectivist orientation" that maybe, maybe could have played a role in his pathology... How did I become "racist? for asking the same questions? Here's what I wrote in the original post, which was fired off in the heat of the moment, upon the initial revelation that the shooter was of Korean descent: A group of American university administrators whom Fulbright hosted nearly 10 years ago, when being a tour of Korean universities, asked the staff, "Why is it that out of all our international students, Korean males have so much trouble?" To my surprise, all of the university officials cited incident after incident of Korean male graduate students who seemed to have trouble adjusting, often got into fights with other students in the living spaces, and were often the source of trouble in dealing with romantic relationships gone bad or women in general, especially when they involved Korean females dating non-Koreans. In the longer post, I continued asking questions that were pretty basic and acceptable before two days ago, pointing out that many Asian and Asian American males often face cultural pressures particular to the Asian cultures that they come from, as well as socialization as an Asian male in the greater American context as well. How dare I say such a thing? Funny how the raison d'être for community organizations such as the Koreatown Youth & Community Center (KYCC) can talk about: ...programs and services...specifically directed towards recently-immigrated, economically-disadvantaged youth and their families who experience coping and adjustment difficulties due to language and cultural barriers. Yet when someone points out that perhaps some of Cho's pathology had to do with being an Asian male, subject to possible culturally-determined pressures as well as that of being subject to socialization/discrimination as an Asian male - all of which where conversations going on within the Asian American community until just two days ago - this is now out of bounds? So asking the question before this incident was OK. Asking it after Cho's bloody rampage is now grounds for arguing that one supports an ideology of racial superiority. That's especially funny since my mother is Korean and I have younger Korean cousins in college now who've been through the educational meat grinder here, and I have been involved in just such community organizations as the ones mentioned above when I lived in the Bay Area. And the other sad thing about the sudden "off-limits" status of this issue is the disappointing fact that Americans of all "colors" still have such difficulty talking about the overlapping boundaries of race, nation, and culture. Pointing out before this incident that Asian/Asian American males had specific identificational and cultural concerns, especially when one is talking about 1.5 generation Korean Americans (which is how Cho is generally being referred to now) was OK and actively encouraged in multicultural settings, especially since this was expected of anyone who wanted to convey one's real cultural sensitivity as an professor, teacher, counselor, social worker, or psychologist working with a variety of people from diverse backgrounds. I have worked with and am familiar with a few community-based organizations when I was back in Oakland, and had many Korean American friends who work in orgs related to specifically "meeting the needs" of Asian American youth, dealing with the issue of domestic violence in the Korean American community, and was familiar with several other non-profit orgs that dealt specifically with problems of reducing participation in gang activity among Southeast Asian youth, issues specific to that community, organizations based in Chinatown, as well as other places around the East Bay. I have friends who've worked deeply within many organizations that held the assumption that "culture matters" and that Asian/Asian American youth had specific needs that should be recognized in the larger community. I know people who stayed up long nights applying for city, state, and federal grants to operate such projects, programs, and organizations that took the relevance of disaporic culture and its effect in Asian kids in the US as a central assumption of their reason to exist. Now, after this incident, culture not only doesn't matter, even broaching the topic is grounds for being labeled a "racist," even when one is working well within a set of affective connections to a community for which such issues have been stated concerns for years - nay, decades - before Cho Seung-hui walked into a Virginia Tech classroom and started his rampage of death. Yes, of course he was an individual, and he is fully responsible for his actions. But Korean culture now stops at the airport? Or with a green card? That's certainly news to me. I guess I didn't get the memo. And I guess I should also be expecting my KKK membership card in the mail any day now. Thanks, Salon, for declaring such talk as mere "instant prejudice." Funny thing is that I, as well as the university administrators mentioned in my initial reaction, Asian American community organizers, and a whole lot of other people were thinking in these terms for years before this. Now, some would have us go in the opposite direction: As coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting continues to unfold, AAJA urges all media to avoid using racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason. There is no evidence at this early point that the race or ethnicity of the suspected gunman has anything to do with the incident, and to include such mention serves only to unfairly portray an entire people. The effect of mentioning race can be powerfully harmful. It can subject people to unfair treatment based simply on skin color and heritage. I feel that point of view, but much of the popular reaction has been to link mentioning culture or nationality with "racism" itself. And the many Asian and Asian American commenters who've written in, saying that my apparent status as "white" or a "neocon" or a "loser who can't get women at home" or far worse names. Yep. There I am. That's why I live in Korea, why I learned Korean, why I write these incessantly long posts, and why I conduct my research. But when I pull out my Korean-mom-racial-membership card, does that mean I'm a self-hating Korean American? Do I only hate half of myself? Or maybe my Korean "half" hates my black "half" and we are in eternal conflict. I think I have to go beat myself up now. It's interesting that the mode of even calling me "racist" relies on racist slurs and categorical assumptions. My point is that I shouldn't have to pull out the "my mom's Korean" as a magical shield in order to say what wasn't unreasonable to say until before this incident. I should have to play identity politics as a qualification to talk about identity at all. That's one of the thing that makes this whole thing get more and more ridiculous. Does anyone forget that the film Better Luck Tomorrow, which touched on Asian American identity, socialization, alienation, violence, and other facets of Asian American culture - especially from the perspective of Asian American masculinity? So after the fictional violence witnessed in the narrative, we can talk about such issues - which is what I assumed the filmmakers wanted when it went mainstream and didn't merely screen in art house theaters? But after a real incident that could be seen to touch on similar issues, now that real people are dead and dying, broaching the subject gets you lumped in with the Klan. I better remember to tell my mom that I hate Koreans now. That should be a fun conversation. And just as I said, here are some of the conversations people are having now in Korea, from a look at the Korean press. From The Korea Times (which has masked its URL, so no link is possible: "I couldn't believe that someone like me was really involved in this brutal murder," a netizen (ID hahaha) said. Other people showed the same response as they said they have begun to feel more responsibility for the case when they found out that a Korean was involved. Others said that the case looked similar to some cases happening in the Korean military where young soldiers try to desert from their barracks out of love or relationship issues. I'm not saying that they're right or wrong. But these are questions people are asking. Are Koreans "racist" for asking these questions, which a lot of us are thinking about as well? There are also questions raised over studying abroad at a very young age _ quite the fashion in Korea at the moment. As domestic media in the U.S. referred to Cho as a "loner," people are now questioning whether sending their kids abroad for study would be good. There were constant reports of children feeling lonely and causing problems with drinking, doing drugs or having sex problems, but the massacre has triggered the debate on whether such studying is really needed. Cho flew to America when he was a little kid, and is said to have not made himself accustomed to the different culture. ``I think his being alone made him a loner, and made him do something horrible. And would you still say that won't happen to your child?'' a blogger grandchyren asked. From The Korea Herald, as I grimly predicted, and as is all too often the case when extreme shame from one's relatives or persons within one's realm of concerns brings shame to your or your organization, both his parents attempted to take their own lives, the father apparently "successfully": Los Angeles-based Radio Korea reported Wednesday morning that Cho's parents attempted suicide, according to neighbors. Cho's father reportedly slashed his wrist after having learned of his son's alleged killings at around 1 p.m. Tuesday, Seoul time. Cho's mother attempted to commit suicide by taking toxic drug, Radio Korea said. She was quickly transported to a nearby hospital, but is listed in critical condition according to the report. No, culture isn't a factor at all here, and it should most certainly not be talked about, right? No one was surprised a couple years ago when a scandal ensued in a high school over a student who had been physically abused, which, upon reaching nationwide proportions, the principal took a leap off into the Han River. No one in Korea was really shocked by this, although the incident is unfortunate. I'm not talking about ancient, fetishized elements of a Hollywood movie about samurai over a swelling soundtrack - I'm talking about real people. And I guess me having expressed the concern that his parents would immediately attempt suicide in a similar way was just me being "insensitive," rather than observing that such a thing is not only not unusual in a situation like this in a Korean context, it's not at all surprising, however unfortunate. And in my head, when the leading cause of death for Korean teens and twenties in South Korea is suicide, most often caused by culturally specific forms of stress, isolation, and social factors that are not factors in different cultures, and I see a Korean kid - and again, I am of the old-school Asian American assumption that culture doesn't stop with a green card, but I guess I'm old-fashioned and "racist" in the post-Cho Seung-hui era - who struck me as possibly influenced by similar concerns...why is it suddenly inappropriate to raise the notion of culture? Just because it makes us uncomfortable now that it's real, raw, and in the nation's face, as opposed to the more hidden back rooms of our ethnic communities? This is not saying that there were no factors related to Cho being American. Surely, obviously, naturally - there were. He wasn't an exchange student who got off a place last September. He lived and socialized and breathed and experienced life in America. And yet, even without getting into the fact that Korean culture doesn't stop at the airport terminal when a kid is 8, and that he's generally considered by even Korean-Americans as a "1.5er," let's not forget that he was Asian American; in other words, he was not white, and most likely did not see himself (and I'm going out on a limb here, as many of the people who adamantly insist that Cho was and could have been "American") as "just another kid." A similar attitude of non-reality surrounds the fact that no one asks the question of what aspects, if any, of whiteness or white identity itself informs the fact that in most such incidents, the perpetrators are white, middle class males? A few people poked at the question after Columbine, but most people chose to toss that hot potato. I'm not saying being white cause you to kill people. I am saying that it should be OK for us to ask certain questions about what peculiar concerns there just might be in terms of socializing, identifying, and being labeled as "white" and male in American society, especially in the midst of America's "culture wars," major shifts in norms and role expectations with regard to not just race, but class, gender, sexual orientation, and perceived amounts of privilege? These are some questions that people in Whiteness Studies ask, which is a new and necessary branch of inquiry partially related to Ethnic Studies. It recognizes that "people of color" do not just exist a blank backdrop of nothingness, but that "whites" are "raced" just as much as "Blacks" or "Asian Americans" or "Latinos" or any other recognized (and socially constructed) racial group in the United States. Yet still, some people think Whiteness Studies must necessarily be a group of people trying to assert "white rights" or be secret Klan members. Yet, when a dated-but-smart film such as John Singleton's Higher Learning deals with the journey of a white kid who feels alienated, ostracized, and actively victimized as a white man, who then goes to a high perch with a high-powered rifle to start a killing spree, it's lauded and applauded. Until some white kid(s) actually commits such an act in question, at which point asking certain questions is out-of bounds again. Generally, as a doctoral student and young scholar in Ethnic Studies, I've noticed the tendency to confuse talking about race with being racist. This is frustrating to no end. And in the case of Cho, it really wasn't about race, but more about nationality and culture, and asking the question of the extent to which Cho's obvious inner pain and turmoil just may have been culturally specific and valenced. But again, if the shooter had been an "Arab terrorist" I think the cultural argument would help us humanize him - who was he? How did he get caught up in this? What were some personal frustrations as a poor, Palestinian (for example) boy with few future prospects that might have made him an easy recruit? Is this line of questioning "racist?" Then I guess, so is it all, including the Harvard School of Public Health, where a conference convened around a very similar issue in 2004: Faculty, students, and fellows interested in disparities in health care due to ethnic and racial differences convened at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) Friday (May 7) for a symposium seeking to translate research into practice. Topics discussed at the all-day event, the Second Annual Symposium on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Research in the U.S., included Latino and Asian mental health, the increasing presence of minority researchers in the field, societal determinants of health, quality of care, and politics and policy as related to ethnic and racial health disparities. The "racism" continues: Among the wide variety of topics discussed was new research on the mental health status of Latinos and Asians in America. Margarita Alegria, director of the Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research at the Cambridge Health Alliance and a visiting professor of psychiatry at Harvard, presented preliminary research from the National Latino and Asian American Study, begun in 2002. The study, conducted in five languages, is a broad survey of Latinos and Asian Americans across the country and aims to fill in gaps in the information available on the mental health of those two ethnic groups. The study so far shows that Puerto Ricans have a higher incidence of mental health disorders than other Latino groups, which also include Mexicans, Cubans, and a category for other Latinos. It also shows a strong trend of increasing mental health problems for Mexican-born immigrants the longer they are in the United States. To a lesser extent, other groups showed a similar correlation of increasing mental health problems with time in the United States, until they had lived 70 percent of their lives in the United States at which point the trend levels off. For Asians, Vietnamese show a lower incidence of mental health disorders than other groups, which include Chinese, Filipinos, and other Asians. Alegria said researchers couldn't yet explain that low incidence of mental health problems for Vietnamese. Alegria said the survey shows considerable regional variation, with mental health disorders increasing for individuals who live in parts of the country where their ethnic group is not concentrated. For example, she said, Mexicans, who are concentrated in the Southwest, had higher mental health problems when living in the Midwest. Cubans, who are concentrated in the South, had greater problems when living in the Northeast. "Where you live really makes a big difference in your risk for psychological disorders," Alegria said. One possible explanation for the higher rates of mental disorders among Puerto Ricans, Alegria said, is selective immigration. Alegria said more Puerto Ricans than other groups reported that they had immigrated because of health reasons. In addition, she said, there may be a demoralizing factor at work. Puerto Ricans, unlike members of the other ethnic subgroups, are U.S. citizens. They also report higher levels of English fluency. Alegria said Puerto Ricans may expect to be more socially mobile after arriving in the United States. Alegria said the survey provides an important starting point for further research. Among important questions to be answered are the higher rates of disorders among Puerto Ricans, the lower rates among Vietnamese, the roots of geographic differences in different parts of the country, and the connection between length of time in the United States and rising incidence of mental health disorders. There are a million questions I'd ask the kid if me and Cho Seung-hui were sitting in a room and he had agreed to talk to me. The first one would have been "Are you feeling frustrated for any particular reason?" Another might be, "Are you feeling any academic pressures, any stress from you parents?" Who knows? These are perhaps overly direct and useless questions, since I'm not a trained mental health care professional - but if I were, I sure would be attentive to issues of his cultural background, especially if my file on him indicated the possibility of that perhaps there might be more going on here than just your standard, John Doe pysch services referral. It's a place to start. But he's dead, and that'll never happen. But to imply it's racist to ask these questions, to even think about the concerns of Korean American youth like Cho, who may well find themselves precariously placed along pressure points between family, friends, and school as defined in cultural, educational, linguistic, and pscyhological terms - this just boggles my mind now. Posted by Michael Hurt on April 19, 2007 -- Archived with permission of author. Original Source: Scribblings of the Metropolitician http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2007/04/on_the_forbidde_1.html
18 Aprilie 2007 Livia Cimpoeru, Eugenia Mihalcea Masacrul produs luni la Universitatea americana Virginia Tech din Blacksburg ar fi putut avea un bilant si mai tragic daca nu ar fi existat oameni ca Liviu Librescu. America retraieste in aceste zile cosmarul masacrelor lipsite de orice ratiune. Pe harta ororilor s-a adaugat luni universitatea tehnica din orasul Blacksburg, unde un tanar student a omorat 32 de persoane, inainte de a-si pune capat zilelor. Printre personajele centrale ale tragediei de la Virginia Tech se numara si un profesor de origine romana care a reusit, cu pretul vietii, sa salveze o parte dintre studenti. In dimineata fatidica, in sala 207 a cladirii Norris Hall, se desfasura un curs de germana. Cateva incaperi mai departe, profesorul Liviu Librescu, un reputat om de stiinta nascut in Romania, le preda studentilor. „Era o atmosfera cat se poate de normala", povesteste Richard Mallalieu, student al profesorului Librescu. Ultima ora a profesorului Librescu Brusc, in jurul orei 9.00, atacatorul intra in sala 207 inarmat cu doua pistoale si-l impusca pe profesorul Christopher Bishop in cap. Apoi incepe sa traga inspre cei circa 25 de studenti aflati in clasa. „Cel putin 30 de focuri", isi aminteste studentul Trey Perkins. Doar trei-patru studenti au supravietuit. Criminalul a iesit pe hol, unde a dat peste un ingrijitor care incerca sa ajute o fata ce zacea intr-o balta de sange. A tras de cinci ori asupra ingrijitorului si s-a intors spre 207, insa supravietuitorii blocasera usa. Atunci s-a indreptat spre sala 204, unde studentii urmareau o expunere de imagini a profesorului Librescu. Auzind focurile de arma din incaperea alaturata, studentii au intrat in panica. Profesorul Librescu s-a repezit la usa, incercand sa o blocheze. Curajul sau a salvat probabil mai multe vieti, caci, in timp ce el tinea usa, o parte dintre studenti au sarit pe ferestre. Vieti salvate cu pretul vietii Alec Calhoun, un alt tanar care participa la cursul de ieri al profesorului Librescu, isi aminteste cum, intr-o ultima secunda, inainte de a sari pe geamul salii de curs pentru a-si salva viata, a privit inapoi catre dascalul care tinea usa blocata cu propriul trup. Cu doar o ora inainte, sotia profesorului il adusese pe Librescu la universitate cu masina si il lasase in siguranta in campus, dupa cum noteaza publicatia israeliana „Ynetnews". Liviu Librescu locuia in SUA impreuna cu sotia sa, Marilena. Profesorul evreu de origine romana va fi ingropat in Israel, dupa cum a declarat pentru „Ynetnews" nora lui Liviu Librescu, Ayala. Aceasta a precizat ca sotia dascalului, Marilena, si fii Arieh si Joe, care traiesc in Israel, fac deja pregatirile pentru inmormantare. Ziarele israeliene au scris despre tragedia din Virginia, avand in prim-plan imaginea eroului evreu Liviu Librescu, care si-a pierdut viata chiar in ziua comemorarii Holocaustului. Si in Romania, profesorul nascut la Ploiesti este perceput ca un erou. UN PRIBEAG IMPLINIT Indragostit de scoala la care preda Profesorul evreu de origine romana Liviu Librescu a absolvit Facultatea de Inginerie Aerospatiala in cadrul Universitatii Politehnica din Bucuresti (UPB), in 1952. Si-a terminat studiile doctorale la aceeasi institutie de invatamant superior, iar apoi a lucrat pe functia de cercetator la Institutul de Mecanica a Fluidelor din cadrul Academiei de Stiinte. „In 1969 si-a sustinut teza de doctorat sub conducerea academicianului Carafoli. A facut calculele de rezistenta si de aeroelasticitate pentru proiectarea avioanelor IAR 93", explica prodecanul Serban Tomescu, fost coleg al romanului ucis in masacrul de la universitatea americana. Serban Tomescu spune ca a incercat inca de luni seara sa afle ce s-a intamplat cu prietenul sau din tinerete. Din pacate, nu i-a raspuns nimeni la telefon in Statele Unite. Ieri, dupa aflarea tristei vesti, ultimele fotografii facute impreuna cu Liviu Librescu si o scrisoare primita de la acesta in anul 2000 il fac sa depene amintiri. Imaginile sunt din acelasi an, 2000, atunci cand Universitatea Politehnica i-a acordat dascalului roman titlul Doctor Honoris Causa. „Mi-a cerut dupa eveniment sa merg cu el la mormantul parintilor sai din Ploiesti, dar pana la urma a spus ca merge singur", povesteste profesorul Tomescu. Tara de suflet si cea de adoptie Liviu Librescu a parasit Romania in 1978, desi Nicolae Ceausescu nu voia sa piarda un cercetator valoros. Supravietuitor al Holocaustului, profesorul de origine romana a reusit pana la urma sa ajunga in tara sa de suflet, Israel, cu ajutorul premierului israelian de la acea vreme, Menachem Begin. Librescu a fost profesor in cadrul Universitatii Tel-Aviv din Israel pana in 1984, cand a emigrat in tara tuturor posibilitatilor, America. Aici si-a implinit visul de a preda la una dintre cele mai prestigioase universitati din lume in domeniul ingineriei, Virginia Tech. Unul dintre fii sai, Joe, rezident in Statele Unite, povesteste pentru publicatia israeliana „Ynetnews" ca parintii sai duceau o viata simpla si fericita in vestul Virginiei, intr-o zona situata intre dealuri si munti. Fara sa caute castiguri materiale imense, profesorul Librescu era indragostit de scoala la care preda si ceea ce ii placea cel mai mult era sa-si invete studentii stiinte mecanice si aeronautica, spune fiul sau. „Profesorul Librescu s-a comportat intr-un mod exemplar in fata dezastrului. A tinut usa sa nu patrunda criminalul in clasa si a fost ucis prin aceasta de rafala de gloante", spune rectorul UPB, Ecaterina Andronescu. Universitatea Politehnica din Capitala si Universitatea Virginia Tech sunt, de ieri, in doliu. (Eugenia Mihalcea) Timisoara „Incerca sa faca o presiune stiintifica" Liviu Librescu a colaborat ani intregi cu profesori de la Facultatea de Mecanica din Timisoara, care sunt socati de veste. „Imediat ce am vazut stirile din Virginia, i-am trimis un e-mail in care il rugam sa-mi transmita noutati despre dumnealui. Nu stiam ca e unul dintre decedati. Nu puteam sa-mi imaginez ca putea sa se intample asa ceva acolo. Era o atmosfera deosebita, oamenii nici nu-si incuiau usile la case, toti se cunosteau intre ei, toti se salutau", spune profesorul Pantele Chelu de la Facultatea de Mecanica din Timisoara. „Era un om deosebit, politicos, incerca sa faca o presiune stintifica, dar intr-un mod extraordinar de politicos", adauga profesorul. „Stia sa puna intotdeauna intr-un mod deosebit problemele din mecanica vibratiilor, dar si probleme de impact al vehiculelor cosmice cu alte corpuri,", spune si Liviu Beledeu, profesor la aceeasi facultate. (Nicoleta Chiru) SOLIDARITATE „Romanii din Virginia, mai uniti dupa masacru" Romanii din Blacksburg, Virginia, au ramas uimiti de ceea ce s-a intamplat. Chiar daca nu l-au cunoscut pe profesorul Liviu Librescu, unii dintre ei au inceput sa intre in contact dupa evenimente, socati de tragedie. Alexandru Papoiu locuieste la 90 de minute de mers cu masina de Blacksburg. El a inceput sa-i caute pe romanii din zona prin internet, dupa ce a aflat ce s-a intamplat. „Sunt consternat! Sunt afectat ca un profesor de origine romana a cazut intr-un asemenea incident. Pe strada am aflat ce se petrece, pentru ca autoritatile sunt foarte precaute la ce informatii dau. Ce sa va mai spun, oamenii sunt siderati", povesteste Alexandru. Marius Popescu, doctorand la universitate, se indrepta spre campus in momentul atacului. „Eu am ajuns cu masina pe langa campus la ora 12.30. De fapt, nici nu am putut sa intru, ca strazile erau blocate. Nu stiam ce se petrece. Abia apoi am aflat. Toata lumea de aici e in soc si nimeni nu intelege cum de s-a putut intampla asa ceva", spune el. „Anul asta scolar a fost foarte ciudat" Acum, universitatea este inchisa, campusul este gol. „Lucrul este atat de surprinzator. Orasul asta e foarte mic si linistit. Majoritatea oamenilor de aici lucreaza la universitate", arata Marius Popescu. Pana la momentul tragediei, unul dintre atuurile Universitatii din Virginia era tocmai linistea ce domnea aici. Oficialii institutiei foloseau asta ca sa atraga candidati. „Numai ca anul asta scolar a fost foarte ciudat. Au fost mai multe atacuri prin tara. Nu sunt eu foarte familiar cu metodele de consiliere in universitatile americane, dar stiu ca ei se preocupa cu asta, au un centru pentru cei cu probleme si care au nevoie de sfaturi", arata Marius Popescu. Romanca Denisa O. se afla in campus in momentul atacului, intr-un corp opus celor in care s-a tras. A apucat sa vada cum vin ambulantele si politia. Spune ca va participa la marsul ce va avea loc in amintirea celor care si-au pierdut viata. „Eu nu cunosc pe nimeni din comunitatea romaneasca de aici. Dar faptul ca un profesor roman si-a pierdut viata este cu atat mai socant", spune ea. (Andrei Udisteanu) Marturii Cosmar trait cu ochii deschisi Sub efectul socului si al durerii de a-si fi vazut colegii omorati cu sange rece sub ochii lor, unii supravietuitori au mai avut puterea sa relateze presei cosmarul prin care au trecut. (Livia Cimpoeru) „Toti s-au aruncat la podea cand a inceput sa traga. Atacatorul era foarte serios si avea o mina calma." (Richard Mallalieu) „A avansat un metru si a inceput sa traga. Avea un aer foarte hotarat si a reusit sa-i impuste aproape pe toti. Eu am scapat pre-facandu-ma ca sunt moarta. Am vazut gloantele cum intra in trupuri. Era sange peste tot. Unii lesinasera, probabil din cauza socului sau de durere. Am fost una dintre cei doar patru care au scapat." (Erin Sheehan) „In prima instanta, nu ne-am dat seama ce se intampla, se auzeau ca zgomotele de la lucrarile de constructii. Apoi am auzit o succesiune de focuri, probabil vreo 50 in total. La un moment dat am auzit tipetele celor care fugeau si ni s-a facut frica, intrebandu-ne ce se intampla. Am asteptat infricosati, cu gandul ca o sa ajunga si la noi." (Tiffany Ottey) Filmul evenimentelor Studentii, coordonati prin e-mail ora 7.15, ora locala: politia este chemata la West Ambler Johnston Hall, un camin din campusul de la Virginia Tech. Un barbat si o femeie fusesera impuscati mortal ora 7.30: doi raniti sunt transportati la Spitalul regional Montgomery ora 8.00: ora de incepere a cursurilor. Crezand ca atacatorul a parasit campusul, politia decide sa trateze evenimentul ca pe un incident izolat ora 9.26: administratia anunta studentii prin e-mail ca in incinta institutiei s-au tras focuri de arma si ii avertizeaza sa fie prudenti ora 9.30: studenti prezenti in cladirea Noris Hall suna la politie, anuntand ca s-a tras din nou. Un necunoscut intra din clasa in clasa, ucigand 30 de persoane, dupa care se sinucide ora 10.16: administratia trimite un e-mail prin care anunta ca toate cursurile au fost suspendate si cere studentilor din campus sa se incuie in camere ora 12.15: rectorul universitatii, Charles Steger, anunta intr-o conferinta de presa ca bilantul depaseste 20 de morti. Ulterior, numarul creste la 33 de morti, inclusiv atacatorul. Ancheta Autorul macelului, un student coreean Politia Universitatii Virginia Tech a anuntat, ieri, ca barbatul care a comis masacrul era un student sud-coreean, in varsta de 23 de ani, pe nume Cho Seung-Hui. Acesta avea statut de rezident permanent pe teritoriul american si era student in ultimul an la Facultatea de Limba si Literatura Engleza. Declaratia politiei a venit la scurt timp dupa ce rectorul universitatii, Charles Steger, a afirmat ca atacatorul era un student de orgine asiatica si locuia in campusul universitar. Potrivit CNN, Cho era un singuratic si, din acest motiv, autoritatile au gasit cu greu informatii despre el. Politia a anuntat ca rezultatele de la laborator au aratat ca una dintre cele doua arme gasite la Norris Hall a fost utilizata in ambele atacuri. Potrivit presei, este vorba despre un singur asasin, care dorea sa se razbune din pricina unui esec amoros. El a intrat inarmat in camera fostei sale iubite din caminul West Ambler Johnston Hall, care era in compania noului sau prieten - Ryan Clark, impuscandu-i mortal pe cei doi. (Andreea Romanovschi) Record trist Cel mai sangeros masacru din SUA Masacrul de la Virginia Tech este de departe cel mai sangeros din istoria SUA, plasandu-se pe un infam loc doi la scara mondiala. In 1996, un dezechilibrat mintal a deschis foc asupra trecatorilor din statiunea turistica Port Arthur, pe insula australiana Tasmania, ucigand 35 de oameni. Alte 34 de persoane au fost ranite. Cu 10 ani mai devreme, un alt dezechilibrat mintal a impuscat si a injunghiat mortal 29 de oameni, in capitala columbiana Bogota. In 1991, americanul George Hen-nard a intrat cu camioneta intr-un restaurant din Killeen (Texas), deschizand foc asupra mesenilor cu doua pistoale. A omorat 23 de oameni, dupa care s-a sinucis. Reactii Stupoare si revolta Presedintele american George W. Bush a ordonat, ieri, arborarea drapelelor in berna pana duminica seara. In calitate de reprezentanti ai intregii natiuni americane, seful Casei Albe si sotia sa, Laura, au participat, ieri, la Blacksburg, la comemorarea victimelor carnagiului. Studentii de la Virginia Tech sunt revoltati si nu pot sa inteleaga cum a putut fi comis un masacru de asemenea proportii. Unii dintre ei spun ca administratia institutiei scolare ia masuri tardive. Multi s-au plans ca nu au fost avertizati in timp util cu privire la primul incident petrecut in campus, primul e-mail fiind trimis abia la doua ore dupa atac. Un sud-coreean furios Biletul ucigasului: „Voi m-ati impins sa fac asta" Politia Universitatii Virginia Tech a anuntat ieri ca barbatul care a comis masacrul era un tanar sud-coreean, in varsta de 23 de ani, pe nume Cho Seung-Hui. Acesta avea statut de rezident permanent in SUA si era student in ultimul an la Facultatea de Limba si Literatura Engleza. Cho emigrase in SUA impreuna cu familia pe cand avea 8 ani. Studentul a lasat in camera sa de camin o lunga scrisoare in care isi exprima mania fata de „copiii de bani gata" si fata de desfraul din societatea americana. „Voi m-ati impins sa fac asta", mai scrie el. Politia a stabilit ca Cho Seung-Hui a comis primele doua crime din camin, s-a reintors in camera sa, unde a redactat scrisoarea, a reincarcat armele, dupa care s-a indreptat spre salile de curs. In rucsacul sau a fost gasita chitanta de la achizitionarea, pe 13 aprilie, a unui pistol Glock de 9 mm, alaturi de doua cutite si cutii de cartuse. Celalalt pistol gasit la locul macelului, de calibru 22, a fost cumparat de Cho tot cu cateva zile in urma. (Andreea Romanovschi) -- Sursa Originala:http://www.expres.ro/article.php?artid=301055
S-a sacrificat pentru studentii americani!
17 Aprilie 2007 Cristina Botezatu Liviu Librescu, profesor de aeronautica la Universitatea Tehnica din Virginia, a murit dupa ce l-a infruntat pe atacatorul care a produs cel mai mare masacru din istoria scolilor americane. Tragedia, produsa ieri, s-a soldat cu cel putin 33 de morti si 29 raniti. Conform ultimelor date oferite de politie, numarul victimelor se ridica la 33, inclusiv autorul atacului care s-a sinucis inainte de a fi prins de politie. Din primele date, atacatorul era un student chinez, de 24 de ani, care venise in SUA cu o bursa, in august 2006, din Shanghai. Unul dintre motivele vehiculate este prietena sa, pe care o banuia ca il insala. Cei doi s-au certat, o alta persoana intervenind pentru a stinge conflictul. Atacatorul i-a impuscat pe amandoi si a parasit caminul. La scurt timp a avut loc atacul in cladirea Noriss Hall, unde se tin cursurile Universitatii Tehnice. Politia nu a stabilit inca daca cele doua incidente au avut acelasi autor. "Avea ca 1,80 metri, infatisare asiatica, era imbracat ciudat, aproape ca un cercetas", a povestit pentru CNN Erin Sheehan studenta in primul an la inginerie mecanica. Politia federala Americana (FBI) a anuntat ca nu exista indicii care sa sugereze ca atacul ar fi un act terorist, dar ancheta nu exclude pentru moment nicio pista. Conform Star Tribune, unul din lectorii din sala de cursuri in care s-a dechis focul era roman: Liviu Librescu, profesor de aeronautica si specialist in mecanica fluidelor, numit Doctor Honoris Causa de catre Institutul Politehnic din Bucuresti in anul 2000. Romanul a murit incercand sa blocheze usa pe care a intrat agresorul, conform unor surse apropiate familiei. (Stefan Oprea) Un individ inarmat a facut cel putin 33 de morti intr-un campus universitar din Virginia, apoi a fost impuscat si el. Printre studentii si profesorii universitatii se numara si romani Un macel de proportii fara precedent s-a produs ieri la Universitatea Tehnica Virginia, din Blacksburg (estul Statelor Unite), cel putin 33 de tineri pierzandu-si viata impuscati, potrivit primelor indicii, de un agresor care a fost doborat in cele din urma de politie, a anuntat canalul de televiziune Fox News, citand surse federale. Spitalele din zona universitatii au declarat un total de cel putin 21 de raniti, din care o persoana in stare critica. „Astazi, universitatea a fost lovita de catre o tragedie pe care noi o consideram a fi de proportii monumentale", a declarat rectorul universitatii, Charles Steiger. „Avem cel putin 20 de morti", s-a rezumat sa spuna Wendell Flinchum, seful politiei campusului, adaugand ca o mare parte a victimelor au fost ucise intr-o singura sala de curs si ca ucigasul se numara printre morti, desi inca nu se cunoaste identitatea acestuia. "Deocamdata nu stim daca tragatorul era unul dintre studenti sau nu", a declarat Flinchum. Macel in doua episoade Cele dintai focuri de arma au fost semnalate la primele ore ale diminetii, cand un student a fost ucis si alti cativa raniti in caminul universitar West Ambler Johnston Hall, care gazduieste 895 de studenti. In urma focurilor de arma, in camin s-a declansat un haos general, au relatat reporterii ziarului universitatii. „O gramada de studenti alergau de colo-colo, ingroziti, in vreme ce politia incerca sa convinga pe toata lumea sa se culce la pamant, pentru a tine situatia sub control", au relatat reporterii citati de CNN. Doua ore mai tarziu, macelul a fost reluat la Norris Hall, una din cladirile complexului care adaposteste catedrele de inginerie mecanica. Mai multi dintre martorii intervievati de posturile de televiziune americane au declarat ca au auzit „zeci de focuri" trase in incinta campusului si ca au vazut personal manifestari de panica in cladirile adiacente. Unii dintre studentii raniti spun ca au scapat cu viata numai sarind pe geam de la etaj, dar ca nu au vazut cum arata atacatorul. Panica in masa Matt Waldron, unul dintre studentii aflati in cladire, descrie scena de panica izbucnita dupa ce cursantii au vazut afara politisti adapostindu-se dupa copaci. „Ne-au spus sa iesim afara si sa traversam campul din fata cladirii, cat de repede posibil. (....) Au urmat scene de cosmar. Era infricosator. Doua colege si-au pierdut controlul din cauza panicii si au sarit de la fereastra salii aflate la etaj. Una din ele si-a rupt glezna, iar cealalta a ramas intinsa la pamant", a povestit Waldron. Universitatea Virginia Tech, situata la 400 de kilometri sud-vest de Washington, gazduieste nu mai putin de 25.000 de studenti. Acestia au fost sfatuiti ieri sa ramana in cladiri si sa nu se apropie de ferestre pana la identificarea eventualilor alti agresori. In zilele de 2 si 13 aprilie, campusul a fost evacuat din cauza a doua alerte cu bomba, ambele dovedite false, administratorii promitand o recompensa de 5.000 de dolari pentru deconspirarea farsorilor. Masacre in scolile americane Atacul de ieri este cel mai grav de acest gen produs intr-o institutie educationala din SUA. 1. August 1966: Charles Joseph Whitman, un fost puscas marin de 25 de ani, a ucis 13 persoane la Universitatea Texas, inainte de a fi impuscat de politisti. 2. Martie 1998: Doi baieti, de 11 si 13 ani, impusca mortal patru fetite si un profesor in Arkansas. 3. Aprilie 1999: Doi adolescenti ucid 12 elevi si un profesor de la Scoala din Columbine, Colorado, inainte de a se sinucide. 4. Martie 2005: Un elev al unei scoli din Minnesota isi impusca mortal noua colegi si se sinucide. 5. Octombrie 2006: Un individ de 32 de ani ucide 5 fete la o scoala amish din Pennsylvania si isi pune capat zilelor. MARTURII Un film de groaza trait pe viu Inainte de terminarea oficiala a tragediei, mai multi studenti de la Virginia Tech si-au facut publice impresiile pe miniforumul BBC alocat „macelului din Virginia". Intre ei, primul pe lista, romanul Mihai Alexe: „Sunt student la Virginia Tech si, din fericire, m-am hotarat sa nu ma duc in campus in dimineata aceasta. Am fost instiintati foarte rapid de primul incident, fiind sfatuiti sa stam in camere si sa fim extrem de atenti. Una dintre prietenele mele era la un curs in Norris Hall, unde s-a produs cel de-al doilea incident. Mi-a trimis un e-mail si un mesaj spunandu-mi ca s-a intalnit din intamplare cu faptasul si ca era sa fie impuscata din greseala. A reusit in cele din urma sa se refugieze cu alti studenti intr-una dintre sali si, din cate stiu pana acum, este in siguranta". Mihai Alexe „Scena de aici este suprarealista. Te uiti la TV si pe internet si stii ca toate astea se intampla la tine in campus. Dar, mai ales ca student, nu-ti dai seama de asta, nu pe de-a-ntregul. Am avut un prieten in salile in care s-a tras, iar scenele pe care le descria el erau de cosmar. Semanau cu scenele din filmele de groaza, ceva la care te uiti, dar nu te-ai astepta vreodata sa ti se intample chiar tie". Brandon „Suntem inca in soc total, departe de a ne fi revenit. Faptul ca 20 de oameni au fost impuscati in campusul meu mi se pare de neconceput si incredibil. Parca e ceva dintr-un film, numai ca real. Este o tragedie ingrozitoare, una care va avea un impact asupra acestei universitati in anii ce vor veni". Timothy Owen „E oribil, realmente oribil. In clipa de fata stau chiar in fata campusului. Atat de multi dintre prietenii mei sunt inauntru, fara sa stie ca e oribil. Inca nu-mi vine sa cred ca peste 20 dintre noi au murit...". Richard Allnutt Cititi si "Profesorul-erou, inventator si reputat om de stiinta" -- Sursa Originala: http://www.evz.ro/article.php?artid=300908
Virginia dean Benson '73 recalls tragedy
Alumnus defends administrators' actions but says he understands complaints By Cornelia Hall Princetonian Staff Writer Richard Benson '73, dean of the Virginia Tech College of Engineering, has spent the last three days struggling to maintain composure while confronting his own grief over the deaths of his colleagues and students. In his first media interview since Monday's shooting, Benson relived his emotions in the aftermath of the incident, praising the nation's sympathy and the cohesiveness of Virginia Tech's campus while reflecting on ways to move forward. Benson was at a conference in Puerto Rico when the tragic violence unfolded Monday morning. The gunman, Virginia Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui, shot two people in a dormitory before moving, around two hours later, to Norris Hall, a central building in the School of Engineering and home to Benson's office. Cho shot and killed 30 people in Norris Hall before taking his own life. Benson, who majored in mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton, was attending an Engineering Deans Institute meeting over the weekend. He first heard about the shooting when he checked his email during a coffee break and read that there was a gunman loose on campus. It was only when he switched on the television at his hotel that he saw that the shooting had moved to Norris. It was then that the reality of the situation hit home for Benson. "That's my building ... I walk through those doors every day," he said of Norris Hall. "It was just terrible to see that and not to be there." Upon hearing the news, Benson first tried to call his staff members in Norris Hall. "I was unable to get anybody, anybody," he said. He immediately booked a flight home and waited through flight delays and a layover to arrive in Blacksburg after midnight. "I would've gotten in a car and driven home," he said. His distance from his campus when the violence unfolded made the tragedy even more devastating, Benson said. "Being away heightened my emotional reaction," he said, adding that he repeatedly thought about how it was "very likely that people that I cared for had died." Though Benson's assistant, Linda Perkins, and his chief of staff, Ed Nelson, survived, he said he knew of people down the hall from his office and on a lower floor who had been killed. Of the five deceased faculty members, three taught at the Engineering School. Lessons from the massacre Benson said he did not blame the Virginia Tech administration for its widely reported delay in notifying the campus community of the first shooting. While some students and parents have accused the Virginia Tech administration of not doing enough to prevent the escalation of violence by alerting the student body of the danger, Benson said he disagrees. "I understand grief, and I understand why somebody would be really angry," Benson added, emphasizing that he did not fault the students or their families in any way for criticizing the administration. "There's a human desire to blame somebody, [but] I worry that we're going to start blaming people who worked like crazy, who are grief-stricken, who didn't sleep that night." Benson also stressed the extreme improbability that the shooter would strike a second time. "A two-site crime is extraordinarily rare," he said. "People were trying really hard to find the person who did it ... I do believe that the authorities were responding very quickly, very ably." Yet the reverberations from the violence are likely to continue indefinitely. "You can always do better," Benson said of the University's response to the incident. "We've learned something in the last two days." Administrators from other institutions have been contacting him to offer condolences and to ask the question, "How can we prevent this?" The incident has prompted concerns about campus safety across the nation. Though Benson acknowledged the importance of developing preventive measures for academic communities everywhere, he said he knows that the next step for Virginia Tech is to deal with the emotional repercussions. "The point is [that] we know that we need to provide a lot of counseling, and we're going to do that," he said. Department heads will convene today to address the issue of counseling services not only for students but for faculty, Benson said, adding that he hoped this would help them better support students emotionally. "I want our faculty [to be] as insightful as they can possibly be," he said. "And frankly, they also need counseling." The most affected faculty members are likely those who were in Norris Hall when the violence unfolded. Benson described the experiences of several of his colleagues while Cho was in the building. One professor, Liviu Librescu, barricaded the door of a classroom to allow his students to escape through the windows, Benson said in a widely distributed email. Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, was shot through the door. "Heroes! Never forget their names!" Benson wrote. A campus transformed Norris Hall is forever changed, as the Virginia Tech community will always associate it with the horror that occurred there. Benson acknowledged that it is a place marked with emotion. "Many of us aren't ready to walk into that building, not yet," he said. "There is an enormous job in Norris Hall to come to grips with the magnitude of the killing that went on there." Until the end of the semester, only investigators will be allowed in the building. Monday's events will also have academic ramifications, Benson said. While some classes will be relocated to other campus buildings, "some courses will just end." One graduate course taught by civil and environmental engineering professor G.V. Loganathan will simply be eliminated, Benson said, since Cho shot the professor and the majority of students in the class. Despite the shock, horror and grief overwhelming the Virginia Tech campus, Benson said he cannot help but be moved by the outpouring of emotion he has witnessed. "There's something very beautiful unfolding at Virginia Tech," he said, attributing the campus' unity to the spirit of compassion pervading the student body. "I have been hearing over and over and over again, on the radio and on TV, how struck people are by that spirit, and I think it's absolutely true," he said. "All of these people wanted to let their pride come through." Faculty members, too, provided sympathy, offering their offices to those displaced from Norris Hall. His voice breaking, Benson expressed his pride and respect for the students. "Despite the horror, you take away something really uplifting," he said. "Boy, they are just banding together." -- Original Source: Daily Princetonian - April 18, 2007
Korean students afraid of backlash on campus
By Ilya Blanter Princetonian Senior Writer After the gunman in Monday's Virginia Tech massacre was identified as being of Korean origin by several news networks, members of Princeton's Korean community voiced apprehension over potential national reactions to the news. But students and alumni had mixed opinions about on-campus repercussions. "My parents ... are fairly concerned about other people trying to revenge their family's death or relative's death on Korean families," Jae Hammet '09, whose parents live in Virginia, said. Hammet added that he is not worried about his classmates associating him with the Virginia Tech killer, however. "I think that Princeton students will understand that one person is not representative of the Korean community," he said, "and I think that most people here see that student as an outlier and not as a [typical] Korean person." The 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui — who shot himself after taking the lives of 32 people — immigrated to the United States in 1992 from a Seoul suburb, along with his parents and older sister. News outlets have reported that he dealt with personal mental issues, including depression, a penchant for isolating himself from peers and a fascination with gore that manifested itself in two bizarrely violent screenplays he wrote, which have since been posted online. In contrast to Cho's struggles, his sister Sun-Kyung Cho '04 graduated from the University with a degree in economics. She now works for the State Department. Princeton has a strong relationship with South Korea, with a consistently large contingent of students from the country matriculating at the University each year: The Princeton Facebook lists 20 students from Seoul alone. University trustee Y.S. Chi '83 is of Korean descent, and Un-Chan Chung GS '78 — a former president of Seoul National University — is widely thought to be considering a run for the country's presidency. Despite these connections, John Lee '06, president of the Korean American Student Association (KASA) in 2005-06, said that he fears Monday's tragedy will taint some Princetonians' attitudes toward their Korean classmates. "I would have liked to think that the Princeton community would be mature/intelligent enough to be an exception to this kind of racial antagonism," he said in an email, "but from what I have heard from my friends back in Princeton, it does not seem to be true." Hyeon Keun Kim '10 echoed Lee's concerns, saying he has found "that in Princeton, Korean people are a little isolated ... I think some people might react harshly to Koreans [following the shooting]." So far, though, he personally has not experienced any negative repercussions, he said. Many Korean students said they think the national media has inappropriately emphasized the shooter's Korean identity. For example, the Associated Press story identifying Cho as the killer noted his South Korean nationality in the article's first few words. Cho, though a resident alien, had lived in the United States since the age of eight. "He's almost American," Jay Jiyong Kwak '09 said. "I'm a little annoyed that the press has emphasized his Korean-ness," Youngho Ryu '07 said. Many in the Korean community added that news coverage of the tragedy should not emphasize the race of the shooter. "I hope it doesn't become a racial issue because the truth of the matter is, 33 people died," said Grace Kim '07, who just stepped down as KASA president but specified that she no longer speaks for the organization. "The focus shouldn't be so much on the racial aspect but how to step back from the situation and how to prevent it from happening again and help people recuperate." Students also said their parents have been the ones expressing anxiety, while they themselves remain relatively unfazed. "It's a little embarrassing, but a lot of Korean-American college students are fleeing the campuses because their parents are concerned about them," Kim said. "My parents called me to see if I was okay, but I just kind of laughed at them because I don't think I'm a target for racial attacks," Kim said, noting that her parents' generation has had more direct experience with racial discrimination than she has. To address possible concerns among students, KASA has planned a forum for its members and anyone in the Princeton community tomorrow afternoon, Julia Yoon '09, the organization's current president, said. "We're deeply saddened and really shocked by this event," she added, "not just as Koreans, but as fellow college students." — Princetonian senior writers Kate Carroll and Michael Juel-Larsen contributed reporting to this story. -- Original Source: Daily Princetonian - April 18, 2007
Sister of Virginia gunman belongs to Class of 2004
By Michael Juel-Larsen Princetonian Senior Writer Though Monday's shootings at Virginia Tech had already cast a shadow over campus, the news yesterday morning that the gunman's older sister is a recent Princeton alumna brought the tragedy even closer to home. Sun-Kyung Cho '04 was an economics major who interned at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok during the summer before her senior year and wrote briefly for The Daily Princetonian. She now works as a "State Department contractor," The Washington Post reported yesterday, and was listed on Princeton's alumni directory as living in Centreville, Va., with her parents. The shooter was identified early yesterday morning as 23-year-old Virginia Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui. Later in the morning, the Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" blog reported that Cho had a sister who graduated from the University. Sun-Kyung Cho's and Cho Seung-Hui's home addresses in Centreville, Va., are identical. Reached on her cell phone yesterday afternoon, Sun-Kyung declined to be interviewed for this article. At Princeton, Cho wrote her senior thesis on "ethnic enclave[s] and wage earning" among Korean immigrants in California. Her thesis adviser, economics professor Orley Ashenfelter, could not be reached for comment yesterday. In the past two days, intense national media scrutiny has been focused on the Cho family as the public struggles to understand the shootings. University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt '96 said the Office of Communications had received inquiries from at least seven media organizations yesterday about whether the shooter's sister had gone to Princeton, including ABC, CNN, the Newark Star-Ledger and The Washington Post. Cliatt said she could not disclose any information on Sun-Kyung Cho besides the fact that she had been a student, what she studied and when she graduated. Cliatt added that she also received a call from an alumna who was unrelated to the shooter and whose last name was also Cho. "She was concerned that she was receiving a lot of calls" from reporters regarding the shootings, Cliatt said. Marc Fisher '80, a columnist with The Washington Post who was at the Chos' Centreville townhouse yesterday along with dozens of other journalists, described the situation as a "puzzle with virtually blank pieces." Close media scrutiny of the family's life was motivated, he said, by a "very human need to know and understand." "Partly out of courtesy and partly out of the urge that people have to just find meaning, there's a rush to delve into the shooter's life," he said, "and usually we come up fairly empty in that pursuit, and the competitive juices get flowing, so you end up with a lot of scenes that are almost comical, such as having 50 reporters standing outside an empty townhouse." The Chos had been escorted from their home before Fisher got to Centreville and have not spoken to the press. Fisher said the media's close attention to the Cho family would likely continue for at least another week. "I think we're just at the very beginning of that process of trying to figure out who he was and the family story and how they got here and how he got to such an extreme point," he said. -- Original Source: Daily Princetonian - April 18, 2007
By Brandon McGinley Princetonian Columnist As the epigraph for "The Brothers Karamazov," Fyodor Dostoevsky presented John 12:24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." At first glance, the verse is difficult to decipher due to the vexing translation. The novel that follows, however, allows for a better understanding of this significant statement, which is particularly powerful in this time of national mourning. Faced with such senseless suffering, it is natural to recoil from any faith in divine harmony, for no amount of retribution, whether in this life or the next, can return the smiling faces of the lost to their friends and family. It is precisely at this moment, though, when that faith is being fired in the crucible of anger, grief and doubt, when it proves to be most comforting and, perhaps, most true. One of the most profound truths presented by Dostoevsky in his last novel is often simply accepted in contemporary society, without exploring its ramifications: We are all connected. It is a statement short on words but long on meaning. In "The Brothers Karamazov," the reader is blessed with the omniscience to understand that the entire cast of characters is hurtling toward tragedy, while each individual within the plot, particularly the three brothers, do not conceive the ultimate consequences of their actions or inactions. Though we strive, and rightfully so, for that connectedness in our lives — through friendships, community service, religious services, etc. — it is too often convenient to think of oneself as insulated from the rest of the community. At times of moral crisis, it is so much easier to disregard, either through true ignorance or active self-delusion, the propagation of ramifications throughout this tightly woven human network. When one decides to have sex without protection, proceed with an abortion procedure or take the life (or allow the taking of the life) of another human being, the consequences are never simply personal. When we either temporarily overlook that connectedness or are so selfish that we ignore the implications for countless others of our own flawed decision-making, we commit a transgression against the entire human network and, if you wish, against the God who lovingly created each of us equally in his image. And so, in this manner, we can see the killer in Blacksburg, Va., often described as an outsider or loner, as someone who, feeling disconnected from the community by cultural issues or other mental strife, could claim no stake in the community and felt no moral obligation to it. It is interesting, but ultimately unrewarding to examine in hindsight the psychology of the killer. What is most important to those affected by this tragedy is a fuller understanding of the meaning of their monumental loss. For if all of humanity is connected through this interwoven web, certainly the impact of death can be felt far beyond the individual. This brings us to the Biblical verse which opened this column and to the powerful conclusion of "The Brothers Karamazov." A clearer translation of it is as follows: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." But what is the "fruit" that results from the tragic loss of innocent life? In "The Brothers Karamazov," the answer is memories — fond remembrances of times spent together, of goodness, of love. Near the end of the plot, the young boy Ilyushechka, after several days of visits from his school friends, dies from a painful disease. After the funeral, the young monk Alyosha gathers the children together in the center of their somber Russian village. He says to them, "You must know that there is nothing higher and stronger and more wholesome and good for life in the future than some good memory, especially a memory of childhood, of home." But how can we compare the death of a young character in a nineteenth century Russian novel to the loss of 32 innocent lives on the campus of Virginia Tech? To use the old adage, no man is an island. Each lost individual leaves behind hundreds if not thousands of others who have been touched by his or her life, and now untimely death. And those thousands of souls have been blessed with millions of memories of goodness and love. Across this nation and this globe, the tragedy has affected millions more who have no personal attachment to Virginia Tech, but who cannot help but reexamine their own values and priorities in the face of such destruction and who cannot help but be encouraged about the state of the human condition after viewing the solidarity of the Virginia Tech community. This is not to glorify death, but to grasp meaning from the flames of despair, for no man dies in vain. As the book ends, the boys come together to say, "We will remember, we will remember!" At the Cassell Coliseum on the campus of Virginia Tech, the students raised their voiced to the rafters and exclaimed, through the grief, the mourning and the sadness that "We are Virginia Tech!" Brandon McGinley is a freshman from Pittsburgh, Pa. He may be reached at bmcginle@princeton.edu. -- Original Source: Daily Princetonian - April 19, 2007