Va. Tech victims remembered by candlelight
Students and community members gather at MemChu to reflect, pray April 19, 2007 By Rahul Kanakia Several hundred Stanford community members gathered yesterday evening at a Memorial Church service for the 32 Virginia Tech students and faculty who were slain Monday by a gunman. Deans of Religious Life Rev. Scotty McLennan and Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann presided over the service. "We come together as religious and non-religious people. As faculty, staff, students, alumni and friends, we are all part of one community here at Stanford University," McLennan said. "Many of us have been overcome with feelings of shock, sorrow, fear, incomprehension, anger and hopelessness since Monday, all mixed up together. We come here to offer all of that up in prayer and contemplation and thoughtful reflection." As Karlin-Neumann read the names of the dead, McLennan rang a bell. The tone hung in the air after each name, fading almost to silence before Karlin-Neumann read the next name. Some attendees looked upwards, some stared at the floor, while others fixed their eyes on the front of the church. Alyssa Battistoni '08 said she lost a good friend from high school, Daniel O'Neil, who was an environmental engineering graduate student at the Blacksburg, Va. university. "I don't know," she said. "I wasn't really there, to tell you the truth. I was just thinking about how much it all sucks. He just got married, my friend Dan." After the service, Takeo Rivera '08 drew parallels between the victims' lives at Virginia Tech and student life at Stanford. "Their lives were cut tragically short," he said. "And that all sounds cliche and such. But the fact that it happened on a college campus makes it all so real. For instance, one of the victims was an RA, and I'm an RA. It was one of those things where you kind of reflect on your own mortality." Calley Means '08, a Washington, D.C. resident who was at the service because many of his friends at Virginia Tech lost friends in the attack, said he was surprised that the events resonated so strongly 3,000 miles away. "There were so many people wearing Virginia Tech sweatshirts and crying," he said. "People who had gone to lecture in Norris Hall. People who had taken classes with those professors. It just shows the ripple effects of those 32 people. This event really showed me the magnitude of what had happened." McLennan told The Daily that the Office of Religious Life has been flooded with phone calls and emails requesting an organized gathering. "The scope of [the massacre] is unprecedented," he said. "This kind of thing usually does not happen in a college and university. And there is identification with the other students, faculty and staff and their friends. This touches pretty close to home; it could have been us." After Karlin-Neumann read a selection of prayers, attendees were given the opportunity to light candles in remembrance of the victims. Half of the mourners lined up and down the center of the church as the other half looked on. For more than 15 minutes the silence of the procession was broken only by a few people who delivered short messages after lighting their candles. One man, a graduate of both Virginia Tech and Stanford, read a statement taken from Virginia Tech Prof. Nikki Giovanni's speech at Tuesday's memorial service in Blacksburg. "We are sad today and we will be sad for quite awhile," he quoted from the speech. "We are not moving on. We are embracing our mourning. We are Virginia Tech. We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly. We are brave enough to bend to cry, and sad enough to know that we must laugh again." -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - April 19, 2007
Permissions granted by James Hohmann Editor-in-Chief The Stanford Daily <jhohmann@stanford.edu>
May 22, 2007 By Darren Franich Suicide is so much less embarrassing than homicide. Can you imagine the shitstorm maelstrom that would engulf our pretty campus if someone shot five people? Shot them so their blood splattered across the tables of Stern dining hall. Or their blood covered the pull-out desks in the chem building. Or their blood filled the fountains until the water sprayed dark bitter red. Five Stanford students dead. Hell, it doesn't have to be five. Make it three. Make it one. Think of the black cloud that would descend on our lives. Our own little Virginia Tech. The blood, damn it, the fucking blood! Pouring out of open wounds. Choked out of lungs that will never breathe again. On our campus. On our hands. Flowing out of pale bodies until the heart just stops pumping, tired, empty. Fortunately, people don't kill other people at Stanford. They just kill themselves. No one ever talks about the suicides, but everyone talks about how no one ever talks about the suicides. "Can you believe," we shake our heads, "four suicides at Stanford in one year, and nobody notices, nobody cares." Someone says, "I heard there were five." "That's what I'm talking about." Stanford is killing people. We shouldn't hold that against Stanford. There is so much joy here. There are thousands of students who live happy lives of quiet desperation, for whom suicide is never more than a passing fancy, the dream of an eternal vacation from one's own brain. But for a school that prides itself on its happiest-place-on-earth reputation, one suicide is a misfortune. Five is just awkward. To a high school senior, Stanford is the anti-Cornell: happy people living happy lives under the happy, happy sun. And now there is a suicide epidemic. Intelligent young people — who have worked hard their whole lives to get here, who have so much to look forward to — are eliminating themselves from the humanity continuum. Asphyxiation. It's not a good way to go. These people would have been great. Leaders of the world. And now they are memories tinged in eternal sadness. Take them off of Facebook. Cross them off your Christmas list. Destiny has clipped whatever wings they might have grown. Some people have expressed distaste for the University's handling of the suicides. A couple weeks ago, Hennessy wrote a letter to the editor. (In case you missed it, Boardman emailed you a link a few days later.) Half of the letter was about Virginia Tech. That event was a tragedy beyond all reckoning. But it has nothing to do with Stanford. Campus security is not the issue we should be debating. I saw eight police cars in twenty minutes last Saturday, and witnessed one brave officer fearlessly charging a dangerous minor for drinking quietly in public. A libertarian might argue that the overregulation on this campus is the problem. I will just point out that no one is killing us except ourselves. They're trying they're best, though, like bumbling parents desperately devoted to children they will never understand. They designed a cute Campus Climate Questionnaire with a stress tree and a stress quilt. They had a mental health fun day in White Plaza, with free massages. Everywhere you look there's a pamphlet for the Bridge. It's all utterly useless, but they're trying. It's the thought that counts, even if they appear to think we're in second grade. Our school's not to blame. It's us. It's who we are. It's the curse of our overworked generation. If you're here, then odds are you've spent the better half of your life attaining perfection. Extracurriculars, AP tests, trophies, student government, student newspapers, singing, dancing, studying, sleeping only when your body could hold out no longer against the dark unconsciousness. I always assumed that sort of life was over with high school; that once you got to college things slowed down. For most people, college is even more intense than high school: more work, more coffee. Our parents used science to make us the perfect worker bee study bots — but you can't just turn that off. If anything, you become even more type-A with age. We want it all. We binge on work, we binge on play, we binge. But it's never enough. We get to Stanford, which is supposed to be the fulfillment of all our dreams, and it isn't enough. We need a good med school, a good law school, a great job, the love and respect of our peers and our betters. My shrink described to me how kids like us — perfectionists, go-getters, workaholics — live our lives walking up an eternal slope without ever turning back. We never see how high we've come, we only see how much higher we still have to go. And we get depressed because there is no plateau; the mountain just gets steeper. It doesn't help that the whole world is going to shit. Or rather, that we are more aware than any previous generation of how shitty the world has always been. It calls to mind something AJ said a couple of weeks ago on "The Sopranos." How can you not be depressed? How can any sane person approach the world with anything less than horror and distaste and loathing? When AJ attempted suicide on the most recent episode, I found myself begging the Lord to spare him — as if he carried the fate of us all on his shoulders, as if whatever happened to him was going to happen to us eventually. The pessimism is everywhere. The '90s are seven years gone. Any dream of paradise on earth is gone with them. The planes flew into the towers. And that didn't even matter. Can you imagine? 9/11 doesn't even matter. It's a blip in the radar. People were suffering before; people are still suffering. Our world is broken, dying. We killed it. Global warming is God's next flood. Wipe the slate clean. Maybe the cockroaches will do better. Or so we think, sometimes, when the sunshine feels cold, when death feels so close. You know what? There's a way out. And you don't need CAPS or the Bridge or the Office of Religious Life. You have to fail, and you have to want to fail. Skip a class, or miss a meeting. Whatever you think you have to do, do the exact opposite. Try to become everything you're afraid of becoming: fat, stupid, alone. Admit weakness. Find someone who makes you happy and tell them everything that makes you hurt. Especially the stupid shit. Because suicide, in the end, is stupid. Living is the appropriate response to life. We owe it to our honored dead to learn from their mistakes. We owe it to them to live every day like it's the start of forever. And we owe it to them to try to change our life if our life isn't working for us. Darren Franich will be celebrating his 21st and 22nd birthdays on Friday and insists that his devoted underage fan base come and get illegally plastered. Email him at dfranich@stanford.edu. Comments on this article: Cat - 5/22/07 Wow, great piece! Just finished the Campus Climate Questionaire and found it hokey. L - 5/22/07 Cute rhetoric but you aren't taking the whole situation into account. It isn't necessarily Stanford or our parents or our type-A personalities that are, as you say so many times, killing us -- there are innumerable nuances to these situations, including unglamorous non-Stanford-related roots like clinical depression. Also, for some crazy reason I find myself unable to trust the guy who begs god to spare AJ Soprano to genuinely have all of our best interests at heart... J - 5/22/07 Darren, if you truly want to help then go out and fail, fail big, and write a column about it. Help show how to redefine success. Otherwise this really is rhetoric, as empty as the trees and quilts in the campus questionnaire. Eric - 5/22/07 Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling too on every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and the headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned softly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead. Jason Kerwin - 5/22/07 This is exceptional writing. I've learned to expect far less from the Daily. L is right about the clinical depression angle. It's very common here, as on many college campuses. Most researchers think there is a direct link between depression and intelligence/creativity, so the high rates of depression here are no accident. David - 5/22/07 Darren's articles shouldn't have blogs after them because they just sap the energy out of what I always find to be exceptionally powerful and interesting writing. Next time I finish reading one of Darren's articles and I see that dreaded "comments on this article:" line, I'll stop, close my computer, think of the craziest and trite shit that I can to post, open my computer again, and sure enough, I'll find my work already done for me. s - 5/23/07 Just a quick note - The Bridge did not have anything to do with the corny Campus Climate survey. I wanted to kill myself 2 - 5/23/07 And it's not because of myself, I would have if I were able to do such thing. But it's because the way Stanford treats me every day (and especially the incompetence of student housing). So, since we're paying so much for health insurance anyway, they should include eutanasia for students. That way they wouldn't have to deal with usbickering after getting so much abuse from this university. Nicole D - 5/23/07 I think it's really easy to blame our parents or our high schools or our societies for making us into the "perfectionists, go-getters" and "workaholics" you seem to think everyone at Stanford is. It is my hope that students here are smart enough to transcend that bullshit and to realize for themselves that perpetually jumping through hoops will never yield lasting satisfaction. Instead of blindly climbing that slope your therapist so poetically described, we all need to completely reevaluate what we've been programmed by the afforementioned forces to think is important. We all need to ask ourselves whether the values we use to structure our lives are truly ours or not, whether they make us happy or not, whether the standards of achievment we had in high school are the ones we want cling to all our lives. It's a really uncomfortable thing to do, but it only this sort of continuous self-evaluation that can ensure that we're living the life we really want by standards we set for ourselves. This is where I think therapy comes in. I'm a huge therapy enthusiast. If I were president, i would mandate free therapy for everyone. My parents are both psychotherapists. Fuck, all my parents friends are therapists (I'm from Brooklyn, NY, okay)! I, myself, saw a therapist for a little over a year before I left for college when my boyfriend became clinically depressed and suicidal. I don't think therapy is a miracle cure, but it was certainly one of the best thing I've ever done. Not only did she help me deal with the stress of being in a relationship with someone who was depressed, but she also helped me rationally approach so many issues I had never even realized affected me so profoundly. I don't know if there's a stigma about seeking out mental help here at Stanford because, quite frankly, I've never really heard the subject discussed among students. I come from a family in which the offer to talk to a mental health professional about whatever I wanted has always been on the table, and I'm a firm believer that the majority of the American population needs to change its attitude towards mental health. I think it's important for people to approach their mental health in the same way they approach their physical health. You go for routine check-ups to make sure your body is working smoothly and get even small ailments checked out as a precautionary measure. People need to realize that chatting with a mental health professional regularly is not a diagnosis of insanity, but a normal and wonderful way to begin to straigten out the jumble of things that is in most of our heads. People need to understand that any issue, not matter how seemingly insignificant, is a legitimate reason to talk to someone. I say, if you can afford a private therapist, take advantage. If not, try out the Bridge Center or CAPS, Vaden's Counseling and Psychological Services. It's easy to demonize Stanford, or society, or the College Board and blame them for all of our problems. Ultimately, though, we are just as responsible for our own mental health as we are for our own lives. happy birthday and have fun getting shitfaced, nd -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - May 22, 2007
Op-Ed: An open letter to President Hennessy
May 14, 2007 By Lisette Rimer Dear Dr. Hennessy, Thank you for your op-ed piece May 4th on preventing future tragedies such as Virginia Tech. It was forwarded to me byone of your students who suffered the loss of a friend, my son Patrick Wood. Patrick graduated from Stanford in 2005 with distinction in math. He loved the school, had many friends there, and was even treated for depression there. In January before he graduated, he was hospitalized for, as he explained to me, "having thoughts of suicide." He was committed to the Stanford hospital for five days, but proclaimed that he was OK, mostly bored, and didn't belong there. The psychiatrist in charge at the hospital agreed that Pat was OK and should be permitted to return to school as long as he continued therapy. He saw a therapist and a psychiatrist on campus and renewed his medication. His mood was up and down, but he continued an active social life and good communication with us. He was excited about an internship at Siemens in Berlin, Germany, which he began after graduation. He had applied for the internship through the Stanford Center in Berlin. He suspended his therapy for the summer with plans to return in September for the computer science co-term program, but he loved Berlin too much to leave just yet. Another friend from Stanford was arriving to work in the American Embassy there, and so Patrick obtained a leave of absence and continued to work at Siemens through the fall. All the while, he made many friends, spoke and wrote fluent German, went to concerts with colleagues at Siemens, and maintained close contact with the Stanford Center. He could often be heard playing the piano there just as he had done at Haus Mitt. He wrote about a "mini-depression" before he came home to Connecticut for Christmas vacation. We thought a medication refill would be the answer. His twin sister and older brother were home, along with cousins, aunts, and uncles. It was the usual busy but fun time. Pat later told friends it was "relaxing" and that it was good to get away from the city for a while. On December 27th, he went to New York City to see another good friend from Stanford. He returned to Berlin on the 28th. In January he wrote about a "mini-breakdown." We had many emails. I called, but could not contact him by telephone. His last email to me was on January 26th. Humboldt University had requested additional information on his application as a grad student there. He took it as rejection, told me he might be returning to Stanford, and asked me to wish him luck. He answered no more emails after that. He saw friends on the weekend of the 28th and 29th. He did not return phone calls after Tuesday the 31st. His friend, who worked at the American Embassy and who lived a block away, became worried. He called and went to Pat's apartment several times the following weekend. He called the Stanford Center on Monday morning. They called the police to break into the apartment. By that evening, the police found Pat. He had died of carbon monoxide poisoning on Tuesday, January 31st. Patrick was one of many graduates that June. He was one of many more who were going on to graduate school. The school cannot be responsible for every student on campus or every new graduate. I am under no illusions about who was responsible for his treatment and for what he did. It was Patrick alone who decided to stay in Germany, who decided to suspend treatment, and ultimately who decided that suicide would relieve his depression. I have tried to retrace his steps continuously in my mind ever since we were notified on February 6, 2006. On that day, his friend and others from the Stanford Center identified him. They called a Stanford residential housing director in Palo Alto, and he called us. Both the Stanford School in Berlin and Palo Alto had memorial services for him in February and March of last year. As you can see, the school was very much involved in both the life and in the death of my son. Please do not mistake my comments for blame. Maybe no one could have prevented his loss, but I have learned that it is the very nature of his disease, and of Cho's at Virginia Tech, that should cause us to be hyper-vigilant. Students who are depressed, even brilliant and loving students like Pat, cannot function reliably because the source of their decision-making process is under attack. They are making flawed decisions because the very same mechanism used to make these decisions is malfunctioning. There is an anatomical difference between a healthy brain and a depressed brain. It is a detectable, visible difference, and yet it is only a part of the brain, for many decisions appear "normal." It is those normalities which lulled me into thinking that Pat would get help, that he would take care of himself, that he would certainly see how magnificent he was, that he had just graduated from Stanford with a 3.9 average and a major in math, that his friends loved him, that he had had the best childhood we could provide, that he had the brightest future of anyone. How could he not be happy? The answer is because depression does not operate on the same assumptions. I have had to change my own notions of well-being because they failed Pat. He did not get help in Germany because he could not. The decisions he needed to make were not possible with the oppression and pain he was feeling. Although he was physically able to get to a doctor or call a therapist, just as he had done at Stanford, those functions needed motivation, and it was his motivation which had been destroyed. All the drive, the talent, the brilliance that had won him a full scholarship to Pomfret School, that had gotten him perfect SAT's, that had made him a valedictorian, that had made him a merit scholar, that had gotten him into Stanford, that won him a scholarship there, that had gotten him into the Krupp Internship program in Germany and then into Siemens—all the motivation he needed to achieve academic and social success was no match for this disease. He had sought treatment, and it had not worked, so he turned inward until he isolated his thoughts, his wants, and his pain, until he was feeling nothing but the sense of control which suicide brings. I think your comments about psychological services are a welcome response. Pat's life was saved the first time he had major depression and was hospitalized by one of the counselors on campus, and I am deeply grateful. But I would hope, in the wake of Pat's agonizing loss and the frightening possibility of another Virginia Tech, that we come away with a few additional realizations. I have spent every day trying to do the same thing. Mainly I hope that we understand that suicide victims are not insane. They function as well as they need to function. Almost everything about Pat was normal on the outside, even the relationship problem that preceded his death. A truth I have learned too late is that we have to go to them. Pat needed someone to take him for help. Just because he did it the first time didn't mean he would do it again. As a matter of fact, there was less chance he would get help because he was weakened from the first depressive episode. Because I have learned that depression is a terminal illness, I would hope that we could change the meaning of the term from a saddened state of mind, to the dangerous, insidious threat that it is. Most people who commit suicide have been depressed and have attempted it beforehand. As I think Patrick and the Virginia Tech incident made abundantly clear, we are ill-equipped to detect the severity of the disease and, therefore, the likelihood that these victims will complete a suicide. Anatomical detection would give us empirical data that we need to make a more accurate diagnosis, certainly more accurate than relying on a patient to rate himself on a depression scale as is now commonly the case. How many other diseases have to be self-diagnosed when a patient is least able? And finally, a thought about treatment. A newspaper article last year pointed out that patients who were "cured" had to endure an average of four combinations of medication and therapy before finding one that succeeded. That means a great deal of trial and error at a time when any failure can be misconstrued as a reason for hopelessness and self-harm. The implications for a university are complex. How much do you reach out, especially if the patient does not seek treatment? How do you know the severity of the depression? If we are relying on averagely intelligent people to pick up on the cues, we will never succeed. I know because I am one of those failures. I will hate myself forever for what I did not know about depression, for what I missed, for what I did not do for my son, but I also know that there are a lot of people saying the same thing about Cho. They are all blaming themselves, just as I am, because what passes for non-threatening behavior before suicide becomes pockmarked with danger signs afterward. I should have gone to Berlin. I should have called his friends. I should have done a lot of things and so should they who knew Cho. But we don't because we don't know they are necessary. We don't know they mean life or death, and we will not know until we have reliable detection. Maybe the lesson that arises from Patrick, a favorite son of Stanford, is that students within Stanford programs should be better monitored no matter where they are. Whether they are in Palo Alto or Germany, follow-up and care (and this is most important) should be initiated by the school. Why? Because seriously depressed students are less likely to seek treatment. They consider themselves to be defective instead of legitimately sick because that's what depression does. It convinces them that there is no hope, and therefore no cure, but that is really depression talking. We have to break through that. We have to go to them, physically and mentally. If you go to the website for The American Federation for Suicide Prevention, you will see their advice for preventing suicide. The suicidal person cannot be expected to independently seek treatment. Somebody must take them. If we can come away with any insight from Patrick and Cho, it is that follow-up was woefully lacking. I shudder to mention their names in the same sentence, but similar questions in their aftermaths compel me. Why didn't the school follow up on Pat's treatment in Germany even though he was in a Stanford internship program? The answer: Stanford was relying on Pat, and so was I. That cannot continue. When students become patients, the school must monitor them as long as they are connected to the school and wherever they are connected. Depressed students — even the best, like Pat — are simply not capable. Depressed students don't seek treatment because they are, not surprisingly, depressed. This is how depression kills, and in the process, it robs functioning until there is very little on which to rely. How do we know when that functioning is gone? We don't, and that is why it is up to us to know more. It is simply in our own best interest to detect and treat more actively and accurately. If I have come away with anything from the loss of my beautiful son it is this: Depression will kill anybody, but the burden is on usto know whom. When Pat graduated in 2005, our whole family came to Stanford to wish him well: my husband and I from Connecticut, his older brother Colin and Colin's friend Julie from Washington State, his twin sister Libby from Vermont, and his grandparents Dr and Mrs. David Rimer from Los Angeles. We all came to congratulate him, and we were impressed with the beautiful ceremonies and meaningful events, but as I read your op-ed piece, the memory of meeting you at graduation stood out the most. You seemed like a caring person, even during the brief moments in which we had our photograph taken with you. We commented afterward how welcoming you and your wife had been, even though you were probably exhausted from shaking hands and posing for several hours. And now I write to ask you to bring that caring sensibility to the forefront of this issue. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for college students. It weakens parents' confidence in the safety of their children on campus — parents, who, by the way, are already feeling excluded from the well-beings of their children because of confidentiality. We cannot see grades, get psychiatric records, get tuition bills directly, or intervene on students' behalf. Everything is left up to the student, and, as we have seen with Patrick and Cho, we risk too much isolation. Again, thank you for your interest in this issue, and thank you for promoting the psychological well-being of your students. I appreciate your focusing Stanford's public attention on these avoidable catastrophes. Patrick loved Stanford dearly. He was grateful for the services you did provide, and now, in his stead, we are grateful for your continuing efforts to protect our children. I invite you to visit the memorial blog set up for Patrick by his Stanford friends at: http://patrickwood.blogspot.com/ Sincerely, Lisette Rimer, Pat's mom Pomfret Center, Connnecticut Comment on this article Jon Bell - 5/14/07 Ten day ago, a newly-admitted Freshman to Stanford went on yet another in a long-time-series of verbal abuse tirades against all the people who loved her; wished that they were all dead; that she hated all people, especially the rich--and that after Stanford she wanted a career in public relations. This person is now getting help--if she allows it. The University has been informed and has been fabulous. Ted Rudow III,MA - 5/14/07 There is no reason to doubt the generous impulse behind the work of professional psychologists and social scientists. Most of the experts who guide the psychological society have good intentions. But there may be reasons to doubt the competence of psychological helpers. A willingness to help does not guarantee a helpful result. Sometimes, as Thoreau wryly observed, the result is the opposite: "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." The fact that psychologists are trying to help people often keeps us from asking whether they know how to help. We think it's bad manners to ask a man who is trying to help us if he really knows what he's doing. Of course, it's not just manners that prevent us from questioning psychology. It's also faith--the kind of faith that makes us believe that school teachers are doing what is best for our children. Or the kind of faith that tells you that the man in the clerical collar won't knock you down and steal your wallet. Just the same, we ought to be asking if psychologists really do know how to help. A good deal of research suggests that psychology is ineffective. And there is evidence pointing to the conclusion that psychology is actually harmful. The first indication that psychology might be ineffective came in 1952 when Hans Eysenck of the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, discovered that neurotic people who do not receive therapy are as likely to recover as those who do. Psychotherapy, he found, was not any more effective than the simple passage of time. Additional studies by other researchers showed similar results. Then Dr. Eugene Levitt of the Indiana University School of Medicine found that disturbed children who were not treated recovered at the same rate as disturbed children who were. A further indication of the problem was revealed in the results of the extensive Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. The researchers found that uncounseled juvenile delinquents had a lower rate of further trouble than counseled ones. Other studies have shown that untrained lay people do as well as psychiatrists or clinical psychologists in treating patients. And the Rosenham studies indicated that mental hospital staff could not even tell normal people from genuinely disturbed ones. It is possible to go on with the list. It is quite a long one. But I hope this is sufficient to make the point that when psychologists rush in to help, they are not particularly successful. Ted Rudow III, Scientologist - 5/14/07 Hey Ted, what exactly do you mean by, "psychology is actually harmful." That's a pretty nice blanket statement there. What you're meaning to say is, clinical psychology isn't always effective. The studies you list aren't indictments of psychology as a discipline, but specific methods of treatment. And none of them conclude, "Therefore, nobody should trust any psychologists, because of what we have tried to show." Seriously. Neurosis is not as widespread or specific as depression. Psychotherapy was always hackery and has little to do with modern-day depression treatment methods. Children's developmental processes are also moot in this discussion, be they abnormal or normal or whatnot. There are lots of studies showing a lot of things. You have to look at the whole body of the discipline and then inform yourself, not take the good and pointed studies relating to specific areas and discount the entire field. Why did you even give her space? - 5/14/07 At some point, you just have to let go, lady. Get a grip. Stop projecting your woulda-coulda-shoulda parental replays to compensate for everything you didn't do, just to make yourself feel better and ignore what really did happen, most of which probably wouldn't have changed even with all the nannying you suggest. The Real BadgerNation - 5/14/07 I agree... and President Hannessy's fake smile and politically correct image are a clear sign that he cares. Same way G.W.'s visits to Iraq and shaking of those people's hands, taking pictures and putting up a big baboon smile show that he also cares... about sending America's sons to die. Why is this letter in the Daily? - 5/15/07 I agree with WDYEGHS - it's not very helpful to expect that CAPS could be able to 'follow-up' on GRADUATES (who aren't eligible for their services any more, anyway...*ahem*), not to mention when they are 9 time zones away. Aside from the logistical (think personnel, funding, time and money spent tracking down Stanford students abroad) impossibility of this operation, how would that be funded? A third of Stanford undergrads go to CAPS at some time in their career here - keeping tabs on them to follow up is just not feasible with the way the service is set up at the moment. Also, when would treatment end? If we were to promote a regime of following up on everybody after every psychological event had been resolved (something that closely resembles nannying...which health services can't do to people once they are of age without their consent) then it risks wasting the time of professionals who are already over-stretched and underpaid. Finally, CAPS psychologists are not permitted to practice in Germany because they are licensed in the state of California. This guy's story is really tragic and it makes me really sad to have read this piece, but the answer, if there was one, would not have lay at Stanford no matter what obligations the mother wants to impose on the university. A more sympathetic response... - 5/15/07 I think the three posts above me are not giving this well thought out article enough credit. I don't think she's advocating for a CAPS conselour to commute to Germany to make sure a graduate is doing ok, but some sort of follow up with the family or student to make sure they are getting some sort of help. Yes, a third of the student body may go to CAPS, but a much smaller fraction of the student body would require this follow up - - those who attempted suicide, were committed to the hospital against their will, etc. While this article does suggest that Stanford should have remained involved in Pat's mental rehabilitation, I think the more important thing to take away is the author's useful view into the life of a mentally depressed student, and hopefully raises awareness of what our peers are going through - peers who you see next to you at dinner, walk by in white plaza, sit next to in class. while pat did not take his life while at stanford, many others have, and that fact needs a lot more attention from ALL OF US at stanford. Alyssa O'Brien, PWR Instructor - 5/16/07 As a Stanford instructor who knew Pat as a student years ago in PWR "Comic Rhetoric," I am deeply saddened to hear of his death. My heart goes out to Lisette and to all Pat's friends and family members. I still remember his gentle smile and quick wit. I hope anyone reading this realizes that suicide is a lonely and terrible solution -- there are people who will grieve and miss you with a deep ache. May 17 is the first annual Stanford Wellness day. Make a pact on this day to reach out to others and not give in or give up. Grateful - 5/17/07 Thank you for sharing your painful and most personal experience. Your letter points out the difference between sadness and depression. Don't ever let go of your search for meaning and your determination to help others. Even if some miss the point (as evidenced by a few of the responses), to me and to others your words are precious. No man is an island. Thank you. Lisette Rimer - 5/20/07 Dear Mr. Hohmann, Thank you for being so generous with space in the Daily for Pat's picture and story. You gave prominence to an issue which has apparently troubled Stanford both on and off campus and, judging by the responses to Pat's story, drawn the full range of reaction. I found it interesting that I shared all views at different times in my life. Before Pat died, I agreed completely that schools cannot be traipsing all over the globe to protect students from themselves, that we could not make students live if they didn't want to. As a matter of fact, it is probably that kind of thinking that put me in this situation today. Now that he's gone, I can only say from experience that the nature of the disease demands more from us. There is no better proof than Pat that depression is a terminal disease and that it operates outside the realm of logic. How do we know when a student has crossed that line? We don't, and so it stands to reason that we should take a conservative approach. As my doctor has told me many times since Pat's death, depression is like cancer, only worse in the sense that it attacks the very decision-making ability that students need to seek help. If you can't depend on the students, and the parents are three thousand miles away and getting the "I'm OK" side of the story, who is left? It is only the professionals who know that depression does not "heal" after the first "episode" Even on medication, it takes longer to recover with each setback. Severely depressed patients do not "learn" from past failures. They get worse. They become more vulnerable. They are chronically ill, and even if they sought hospitalization once, as Pat did, they may be less likely to do it again because they will think they are beyond hope. My therapist tells me we can assume one thing about suicide: the person is in so much pain that death is a mandate. It's not like they went to a psychological shopping mall and unexplainably picked that choice. I have learned that it is a severe, agonizing, psychological torture, which constricts them internally but allows enough external composure to carry out their plan. Pick up any book on the subject and then think about it as I have done every day for fifteen months. If the school is sincere in improving its psychological services, follow-up after hospitalization is essential. Nobody else is equipped to do it, and the consequences may be fatal. I am not removing blame from myself or from Pat, and I appreciate those who wrote and understood that. My letter is not about finding fault. It is simply stating a fact: the school must be proactive. The psychiatric services are excellent on campus. As a friend once told Pat, "Stanford is one of the best places to have a breakdown." Extending those services is simply a matter of a phone call, in Pat's case, to the Stanford Center in Berlin. Most importantly, thank you to "A more sympathetic response," "Alyssa O'Brien," and "Grateful." You knew Pat (Was it you, Mrs. O'Brien, who nominated him for a writing prize for his paper on Juvenal? He was touched that you liked it.), and you knew how depression works. It's a thief, and it robs you blind. You cannot see your prospects unless professionals pry your eyes open. Thank you, Stanford, for the wonderful care you did give, and thank you again for continually working to improve those resources. Lisette Rimer, Pat's mom Pomfret Center, CT 06259 -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - May 14, 2007
May 4, 2007 By JOHN HENNESSY On April 16, 2007, our country suffered a terrible tragedy when a troubled student killed 32 members of the Virginia Tech community. Such tragedies are unfathomable. Words, as eloquent and sincere as they may be, fail to convey the shock and sadness we all felt upon hearing that news. At Stanford, I was struck by the deep and sincere evidence of sympathy and concern throughout campus, from the moments of silence at many meetings to the cards signed in dining halls to the moving ceremony at Memorial Church. Today, Stanford's condolences stand among those of more than 300 other colleges and universities on the Virginia Tech website. Ours is a caring community, and that fact was never so clear as it was on April 16 and the days immediately thereafter. Not surprisingly, I have been asked about emergency protocols here at Stanford. I want you to know that in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, a group has been convened by Vice President Randy Livingston to review all of our emergency protocols, as well as our methods of communication. Stanford has had an emergency management program in place for many years. The emergency plan has evolved from one primarily focused on earthquake preparation and response and now includes an "all hazards" approach. We practice annually for all types of emergencies, including intentional acts. In addition, we have various methods available through which to communicate with the entire campus, but we are seeking to improve the speed and efficiency with which we can do so. Our emergency protocols are good, but the realities of today's society demand that they be even better. As important as they are, emergency protocols are unfortunately after-event procedures, and therefore only part of a necessary dialogue. As has been made very clear in the days following the tragedy at Virgina Tech, the challenge of how society addresses mental health issues is serious and complicated. We pray that what happened at Virginia Tech was a horrible aberration that will not be repeated anywhere. We know in retrospect that more must be done to recognize the warning signs of mental distress, including its potential for violence. We know we must learn more about how and when to intervene appropriately. The deaths at Virginia Tech are a tragedy of national proportions, but college campuses are experiencing smaller, quieter, yet profoundly distressing tragedies every day — young people who have chosen to take their own lives. The Stanford community has been no exception in this regard. Since the beginning of the academic year, we have lost several Stanford students. As we think through the maze of mental health challenges, we must also confront the problem of suicide — openly, constructively and with determination. For many, the imponderability of suicide may make us feel powerless to know where to begin in addressing such a painfully personal issue. So perhaps the place to start is in the recognition that we all do indeed have a role to play. A university is a deeply intimate community — what touches one, truly touches all. That means that as a community we have a set of responsibilities to each other. We have the responsibility to understand, to comfort, to reach out and, in some cases, to act. Mental and emotional distress know no bounds of gender, background or color. I am hopeful for a day when the stigma associated with depression and other mental health problems — whether imposed by others or one's self — dissipates and goes the way of other misplaced fears and biases. Helping each other overcome that stigma is an important first step. This stigma, which often results in a reluctance to seek help, implies an additional responsibility: We must share a commitment to be compassionate, to not turn away from seeing and acknowledging a difficult circumstance, and then take the opportunity to reach out to help — or even seek help ourselves. There are many resources available at Stanford, including Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) at Vaden Health Center, the Bridge Peer Counseling Center, the Office for Religious Life, the community centers and residence staff, among others. But these resources can only be brought to bear if they are engaged. Last fall, Provost John Etchemendy appointed a group to examine issues around the psychological well being of our students and assess the services we offer in this area. Other colleges and universities are taking similar measures in the face of an increasing demand for mental health and well being services. Some of you will be asked to participate in focus groups this spring or to take an online survey, and I hope you will choose to participate. It goes without saying that one suicide is too many, and we must look within ourselves to be certain that we are doing everything we can to prevent such tragedies. I have been gratified by the strength and compassion of students, faculty and staff in the last few weeks. I hope and believe we can build on that to create an even healthier, safer and more caring community. John Hennessy is the president of Stanford University. -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - May 4, 2007
April 27, 2007 By Editorial Board It is a tough line to walk: simultaneously respecting those affected by tragedy and reassuring the community in a time of crisis. This year has seen numerous examples of the administration's sincere efforts to negotiate that line with the handful of student suicides and most recently with its response to Stanford students on the Virginia Tech shootings. But in each of those cases, we wish the administration would have spoken directly to all of us, or in instances in which they did, perhaps spoken sooner. An unknown number of classmates have taken their lives this year with no acknowledgement at all by the administration. Last week, it was more than 24 hours until we received an official response to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Undoubtedly, many factors go into the process for announcing a death in the community or responding to a tragedy at another school. In phone and email conversations, Director of University Communications Alan Acosta and Vice Provost for Student Affairs Greg Boardman said that the issue of family privacy rights should not be overlooked. While Acosta acknowledged that "there are a number of things you have to do right away" when dealing with tragedy, we don't understand entirely how the University's support network of Counseling and Psychological Services, the Bridge Peer Counseling Center or the Office of Religious Life assists students who are merely trying to determine if the rumor of their classmate's death is true or not. This year alone, rumors of numerous suicides plagued the student body, and in those times it was hard to find a student who really knew the truth of what was happening at Stanford. Boardman's email to the student body the day after the Virginia Tech shooting was appreciated. Students needed to hear his support — we just wish it had come a little earlier. Those who live and work here expect Stanford to be there for them. The student body was never notified after some suicides. We do not expect a front-page story in the Stanford Report from the administration, but we do hope for a brief message to acknowledge a friend has passed away. Comments on this article: Stupid editorial - 4/27/07 What exactly is the editorial board asking for? The administration to send out mass e-mails detailing every aspect of a community member's death? The Stanford News Service already acknowledges (in a tasteful way!) Stanford community members who pass away. Maybe it was a slow news day today, but the Stanford Daily needs to realize that a student death is a rare occurrence, but if one does occur, the utmost sensitivity is required and respect for the families should be a top priority. This is obvious to everyone but those intrepid Daily writers? We need to remember that these are very private, delicate matters and families might not wish to broadcast all kinds of details to the world. That is perfectly understandable and, absent any danger to campus safety or any other issue that might require the immediate attention of the campus at large, there is no reason why the widespread dissemination of all details surrounding a particular death ought to be required for Stanford News Service. The following line from the editorial is particularly ridiculous: "This year alone, rumors of numerous suicides plagued the student body, and in those times it was hard to find a student who really knew the truth of what was happening at Stanford." So the paper is basing this whole editorial on rumors? What evidence does the paper have that a particular death was never acknowledged by the administration? Sometimes it seems like the Stanford Daily editorials are written hastily and with little regard for common sense. Re: Stupid editorial - 4/27/07 I totally agree that this is a stupid editorial. The Stanford Daily was recently criticized for a long delay before they reported the death of Mo Morsette. And even when they did report it, it was not the top story of the day. It looks like, after some soul searching, the editorial board has decided that Stanford Administration is to blame, because the administration doesn't acknowledge student deaths quickly enough. After all, if someone doesn't tell the Stanford Daily that there's a death on campus, then how are they supposed to know? It's not like they're a NEWSPAPER with JOURNALISTS who are supposed to so FOOTWORK before they print stories. Daily is grasping at straws - 4/27/07 The Daily's editorials have been going downhill for quite a while now. This one is perhaps one of their worst ever. What exactly is the benefit of criticizing the administration's response to the VT massacre? Brave Editorial - 4/27/07 Stupid Editorial, it's your kind of overly sensitive, well-meaning but ultimately silly thinking that lets Bush get away with banning the media from soldier's funerals. I can understand respecting the family's privacy, but Mo Morsette was also a fellow member of this community - I would expect a complete investigation into what led him to take his own life, not in the interest of airing dirty laundry, but in the interest of helping other people who feel the same emotions that plagued him. This school is an intense psychological environment filled people whose incredible intelligence often dovetails with complete social maladjustment - it does not reflect well on Stanford to sweep things like this under the rug in the interest of "privacy." -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - April 27, 2007
Ethnic identities questioned after Virginia Tech
Korean community reacts to blame and guilt following massacre April 24, 2007 By Aram Hur In the aftermath of last week's Virginia Tech massacre, the national Korean-American community has reportedly suffered a backlash similar to that unleashed against Muslims in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, but Asian Americans on campus largely agree that they are being treated with respect and sympathy and credited the media's portrayal of the attack as objective and fair. A number of Facebook groups, such as "Cho Seung-Hui does NOT represent Asians," are continuously amassing new members, while a YouTube post with the words "I belong in Korea" over Cho's face is receiving hundreds of hits per day. While the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was South Korean, other ethnic groups have expressed empathy for Asians in the wake of last week's attack. Ahmed Ashraf '07, vice president of the Muslim Student Awareness Network, said he had similar fears before the identity of the shooter was disclosed. "I know that when I first heard about the Virginia Tech tragedy, I was very, very nervous about the gunman's background," Ashraf said in an email to the Daily. "If a Muslim student were involved in the massacre, it [would have] hit way too close to home." Media coverage of the shootings has drawn an ambiguous reaction from Asian students and faculty members at the University. "This shows that race and ethnicity is still a key source of collective identity in the United States," said Sociology Prof. Gi-Wook Shin. "Non-white ethnic groups and females can be self-conscious and extra careful precisely because they are still minorities in American politics of identity." Others said they were pleased with the focus on Cho's mental state, rather than his ethnicity. "The media has been pretty good at being neutral," said Kenny Kim '08, co-president of the Korean Students Association. "As a member of the Asian-American community, I was inclined to think of the worst possible outcomes, but the discussion has now turned more to Cho's mental health than to his ethnic background." "This, sadly, is not a new crime in America and is not seen in new terms now that the latest perpetrator is of Korean origin," Shin added. "Experts have compared him to the Columbine shooters, saying that he fits the same profile. This is a judgment about mental state and behavior patterns that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity." In South Korea, reaction to the Blacksburg, Va. tragedy brought up deeper, cultural issues. Shortly after the shooter's ethnicity was revealed, the South Korean government and media went into a frenzy, debating whether Cho's actions warranted an official national apology. Such a phenomenon has raised discussion of collective guilt. Yet Kim emphasized the importance of a clear-cut distinction between guilt and shame. "Koreans are a unique race," he said. "We often blur the lines between the nation and the people. Thus when we found out that the shooter was Korean, every Korean felt a bit of shame that one of 'us' committed a horrible act." "However, this is not to say we feel any guilt for what happened," he added. "The act that Cho committed is an isolated event and has no linkage with him being Korean or Korean American." On campus, students and faculty said they have faith in the community's power to overcome the blame and guilt. "This tragedy was not about Korean or Asian Americans, and I am sure the Stanford community is well aware of that," Shin said. "In a sense, Cho himself was a victim and we have social responsibility to make sure that this kind of tragedy won't happen again." Comments on this article: Joe - 4/24/07 Muslims were not the brunt of the 9/11 backlash. Ignorant Americans labelled all brown-skinned US CITIZENS as Muslim, and acted accordingly. East Indians, who are as far away from the middle east as the US is from Brazil, were killed in retaliation. Cabbies, convenience store owners, even an old man sitting on a park bench "had his turban ripped off his head and his face slapped" by two white females. The Korean community can have some solice knowing that Americans will ignorantly take their anger out on Chinese and Japanese CITIZENS of their country. a - 4/24/07 I really don't fear any backlash against the Asian-American community, because Cho's actions do not fit with the stereotype of the quiet, polite Asian. People are always unwilling to throw away their stereotypes, so in this case, the preexisting stereotype will work against a development of hatred against the community. Whereas, if the shooter were Muslim, it would be a disaster for that community. Gary - 4/24/07 Joe, why would Koreans take solice in the reprisal against other members of the Asian community? Next time, try to bring a point to your post. Zangief - 4/24/07 The difference between the Korean response after Cho and the Muslim response after 9/11 is very telling. Korean leaders *rushed* to decry and distance themselves from Cho. Muslim leaders became terrorist apologists. The sad thing is, even moderate Muslim leaders cannot learn from the Korean experience. Because, if a moderate Muslim leader speaks out against fundamentalist Islam, he will almost certainly be assassinated. Joe - 4/24/07 Gary, I guess my point is that if there is a backlash, it will not just affect Koreans, as 9/11 did not just affect Muslims. Thus, fewer Korean-Americans will be terrorized by the caucasian Americans, just as fewer Muslims were (partly because Muslim men do not wear turbans like Osama, and so it's harder to pick them out, and partly becaue Americans want to live in ignorant bliss, believing that they're patriots when they terrorize recent immigrants, ignoring that unless they are Native Americans, they are relatively recent immigrants as well) Wang - 4/24/07 Joe are you suggesting that caucasian americans are now terrorizing Koreans? Give me a break. Koreans feel collective shame becauses if this crime was committed in Korea, Koreans know that they would hunt down any white person and hang them. Just look at how Koreans acted in 2002 when two young girls accidentaly got run over by a "tank". Koreans attacked every foreigner they could get their hands on. Don't start painting koreans as victims of some kind of terrorism in the USA. Joe - 4/24/07 Wang - no, I'm not saying that the whites are terrorizing Koreans. I said *if* there's a backlash, it won't affect just Koreans. Who knows what will happen. Who knows what Koreans would have done if it happened to them at home. I did say, however, that caucasians in the US *are* terrorizing brown-skinned Americans, and that is unjust. Those are the recent immigrants I refered to. East Indians had nothing to do with 9/11, but just because they kinda sorta almost look like arabs, they're walking around with targets on their backs. All I'm saying is that the author shouldn't have said that Muslim-americans faced the backlash after 9/11. That gives undeserved credit to the American people, whose ignorace and hate is causing suffering not just to Muslims, but to anyone who looks remotely similar to them. question.... - 4/24/07 why is it okay to make blanket statements about a certain group acting violently, but not others? do caucasians (or 'americans', as some posters have curiously chosen to use the term interchangeably) need to start facebook groups telling others, 'not all white people are violent bigots'? yes there are some quite ignorant whites who have done horrible things to innocent people, with racism as the primary motivation. however, i would argue that most (or at least a significant enough majority of) whites do not see this the virginia tech massacre in terms of racial identity, and it has been those who are preemptively trying to avoid a backlash that have framed the issue as such (i do not say this to deny the injustices of the certain amount of backlash that has been felt). just as it is wrong to blame koreans or korean culture because of the actions of one person who shared their national identity, it should not be tolerable to make judgments upon all americans (and/or whites) and their culture because of the comparatively few violent bigots who happen to share their ethnic/national identity. yes, there are deep-seated racist tendencies in american culture, discrimination was once the status quo, and racism is still a huge problem that demands everyone's attention. nevertheless, i would argue that many posters have shown the same sort of prejudices that they fear by painting an entire group according to actions of some individuals. this is unnecessary; it would not be thoughtlessly denying the injustices committed upon the victims to show care when naming the aggressors. yes, the effect of some white people being mislabeled as bigots due to blanket statements is a far lesser injustice than members of minority groups experiencing violence as result of racism. this, however, is not a complaint of "reverse-racism"; what i mean is that by casting all members of a group as victims and those of another as the aggressors, many people are reinforcing the social roles of various ethnic groups that lead to prejudice. i'm not demanding that all people who rightly rail against prejudice adopt PC language...i just mean they often are just cementing the 'us vs. them' mentality that buttresses an ideological atmosphere that leads to such injustices. yes, there are historical precedents that lead people to speak in blanket terms...but by allowing their speech to be informed by the past in such a manner, i would argue that they are merely perpetuating it. citizen - 4/25/07 Wang. The case of the 2 girls involved alcohol and reckless driving and the 2 perpetrators got away scot free by an all american jury. It also followed several rapes and violent crimes that were committed by the military (which again went unpunished). No foreigner was killed as a result of the anger. The military folks got the "evil eye" and that's about it. You're way out of line in bringing up these examples. you are just full of hate and want to get something ugly started. -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - April 24, 2007
Va. shooting prompts Univ. policy review
Police trained, armed with special weapons, for crisis April 20, 2007 By Rahul Kanakia A new Stanford committee will conduct an evaluation of its emergency protocols in the wake of Monday's shootings at Virginia Tech University. The protocol review, which will be led by Vice President for Business Affairs Randy Livingston, was announced in a statement concerning the massacre by President John Hennessy. A University Department of Public Safety community service officer records the SLAC protest with a video camera and carries a camera with a telephoto lens to photograph activists. "The terrible ordeal suffered there reminds us how precious life is and how important it is that we all redouble our efforts to prevent such tragedies in the future," Hennessy said. "At Stanford, we plan to review all of our emergency response protocols. The safety of the Stanford community will always be a top priority for us." Police at Virginia Tech have drawn criticism for their decision not to lock down the campus after the initial shootings in West Ambler Johnson Hall, a dormitory. Chris Cohendet, a deputy at the Department of Public Safety (DPS), said the police train for what he called "an active shooter situation." In such a case, officers would call together nearby agencies and attempt to control the situation. "There's obviously a lot of things that go through your mind," he said. "You want to be sure the community is safe. But you've got to figure things out. For instance, at [Virginia Tech, officers] received what they thought was a domestic dispute call earlier on. And within that time frame the police department [was] getting numerous calls with differing information. It's really hard for a police department to filter all of this information." For these kinds of situations, Stanford's police cruisers carry a variety of weapons in addition to the standard issue handguns. They are also equipped with non-lethal weapons, such as tasers, as well as more powerful alternatives, including shotguns. "Basically, if there's something going on where someone is going through buildings and shooting away, law enforcement has to grab teams together and react," Cohendet said. "We would have to engage the suspect, in this case." Greg Boardman, vice provost for student affairs, said the University would take Monday's incident into account while reviewing its policies for students with mental health issues. The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, had previously been committed to a psychiatric facility by the Blacksburg, Va. university but was released when two female students he had harassed decided not to press charges against him. "In recognition of the increasing prevalence and complexity of student mental health issues both nationally and here at Stanford, we have been in the process of studying the University's policies and procedures as well as our campus climate through the work of the Mental Health and Well Being Task Force," he wrote in an email to The Daily. "Created in October 2006, the task force is composed of students, staff and faculty, and it has been meeting regularly since the fall in order to assess our current policies and determine where we can make improvements." Associate Vice Provost for Student Affairs Roger Printup was unsure what changes would come from these initiatives. "I am sure that not only Stanford but every college and university will be considering what this event means for a large number of issues," he wrote in an email to The Daily. "Campus security and mental health [are] the two most obvious issues. But it is way too early to speculate on what specific actions might be taken before institutions have an opportunity to examine those issues thoughtfully and in depth." Betts Gorsky, who was on campus for Admit Weekend and whose daughter will attend Stanford next year, said that the shootings did not change her view of campus security. "I think that it's very difficult for any school to protect against random acts of violence like that," she said. "Maybe it will make individuals a little more observant and willing to react if they see or hear something from a student that seems out of the ordinary or depressed. But it's always easy to have 20/20 hindsight." -- Original Source: Stanford Daily, April 20, 2007
April 20, 2007 By Jack Salisbury The last two weeks have been rough on the world of sports. Meat-headed Don Imus, thinking he was being clever and funny, showed us that race and racism is still a paramount issue in today's America with his description of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." Then, NBA superstar and supposed role model Tim Duncan was challenged to a fight by veteran referee Joey Crawford. The scene had its comic elements to it, but it was still fairly disgusting with the raw angst and hate between the old Crawford and the robust Duncan. In a time when nuclear weapons programs abound, people are killed over the outcomes of Little League games and enormously wealthy NBA players' demand salary hikes citing the "need to feed their family," you sometimes have to wonder where our neurotic society is going. And then Virginia Tech happened. Virginia Tech. The Hokies have been a mainstay of college athletics for years. Head football coach Frank Beamer built his program based on hard work and excellent special teams play. By the time a kid named Michael Vick stepped onto the Blacksburg campus in the fall of 1998, Beamer's program had reached the status of national power. Since then, Virginia Tech has always been a mainstay of college football, competing in the national championship and appearing at numerous New Year's Day bowl games. Under Seth Greenberg, Tech's basketball program has also risen, beating both Duke and North Carolina this year in ACC play and making the NCAA Tournament as a five seed. It has never been hard to root for the Hokies; they have up-and-coming programs. And after all, who can resist rooting for a Hokie? Part of the allure in rooting for the Hokies was that you often didn't know what a Hokie was. For the record, Hokie is a fictional mascot masquerading itself as a maroon bird. But there's even more reason to root for the Hokies now. We all know about the tragedy that took place this Monday. I can't imagine what it's like to be a student at Virginia Tech right now, to know someone who was shot or injured, to be around the university or to even be an alumnus. The inexplicable tragedy has moved our nation, brought people together, but most of all, it's left us asking: Why? There isn't an answer, though. That's the hardest part. It's times like these when sports are therapeutic, taking people away from the harsh reality of the world we live in. A touchdown, last-second shot or an interception can make people forget, for just a moment, what has happened. What I'm saying is: Sports can be trivial, but for the most part, they're not. A 45-yard touchdown run or a 50-yard field goal? Sure, they're pretty meaningless in the long run, but when you realize who they're affecting and how they're affecting them, they suddenly take on a whole new meaning. After the city of New Orleans experienced the devastating disaster of Hurricane Katrina, it rallied around the hometown Saints. The Saints received coverage around the country for their heart-warming story; and unlike a lot of things dramatized in sports, the Saints' story was truly heartwarming. Drew Brees, Reggie Bush and Marques Colston rejuvenated a city, a region and a country by bringing the Saints to the doorstep of the Super Bowl. They understood the responsibility on their shoulders and acted accordingly, being active in their communities and setting new standards for what it meant to be role models. And in the process, they showed that sports aren't just sports. Sports bring people together. They may not seem to have that same effect in a place like California, but trust me: If you go to Tuscaloosa, Chapel Hill, or even Blacksburg, sports are a huge thing. They're more than just a game. I'll be rooting for the Hokies every chance I get next year. I can only hope that the city of Blacksburg, the state of Virginia and the whole country will rally around Virginia Tech and its athletic program in moving on from this senseless tragedy. It was hard to not root for the Hokies before. Now? It's impossible. Jack Salisbury is a freshman. Contact him at jack24@stanford.edu. -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - April 20, 2007
Sick Sad World: A lesson from Virginia Tech
April 20, 2007 Opinion article By Jackie Bernstein It's time for a game of Funny/Not Funny. First: A joke overheard in the CoHo on Monday referencing the Virginia Tech massacre. Not Funny. No one laughed, and someone said, "Too soon, too soon." Next: An off-hand comment made at the gym on Wednesday, poking fun at the ethnicity of the Korean shooter responsible for the assault, Cho Seung-Hui. Funny? At least, I heard people laugh in response. "Oh, man... that's so wrong. Hahahahaha." How soon is too soon to use a tragedy as fodder for comedy? "Homer loves Flanders," a Simpsons episode in season five, parodies Charles Whitman, the University of Texas tower-sniper: Ned Flanders guns down multiple Homers from atop a bell tower. About 25 years after the massacre, FOX executives found the scene funny enough to air. How long will it take for South Park to run an episode satirizing the events at Virginia Tech? I think that the amount of time it takes for someone to find humor in tragedy is directly related to his connection to the incident. It is unlikely that the man who sold Sueng-Hui his gun will ever find anything humorous about the shooting. The student in the CoHo who made his joke last Monday probably doesn't know anyone at Virginia Tech. I doubt that he feels any kind of personal connection to the event. However, we as Stanford students are actually deeply connected to the Virginia Tech massacre. Seung-Hui exploded at Virginia Tech. Maurice "Mo" Morsette imploded at Stanford. Both students' lives ended in tragedy. Maurice Moisette's suicide is one of at least three reported at Stanford this academic year. Ranked in 2005 by The Princeton Review as the university with the "Happiest Students Overall" in the country, Stanford doesn't seem to be living up to its reputation any longer. The Virginia Tech tragedy will undoubtedly lead the Stanford administration and various support groups on campus to reexamine how issues of mental health are handled on campus. This response seems to deal with only part of a greater problem. No matter how many aggressive programs a school funds, no matter how many 24-hour hotlines they provide or psychologists they hire, nothing can change without a change in the student culture itself. Unfortunately, the type of student elite universities admit is not going to change anytime soon. We are a nation obsessed with getting into college. And the most obsessed end up here. As a result, we are a campus full of top-heavy people. We are world-class debaters, writers and chemists, fully actualizing our intellectual potential. But these skills have come at the loss of developing more basic skills. By the end of winter quarter of my freshman year, 40 percent of my all-frosh dorm had never been kissed. Throwing these types of kids into the collegiate world is bound to result in extreme feelings of alienation, confusion and anger. College is a place where many get their first taste of freedom, but learning how to handle independence isn't part of any AP Physics textbook. I know that this article goes to print during Admit Weekend, and, as such, I was reluctant to write this week about our collective failings as members of the academic world. As a tour guide who couldn't imagine having gone anywhere else (and who enthusiastically tells this to hoards of high school juniors on a regular basis), I want to make sure that I am very clear: I have had a remarkable experience at Stanford, and I know that I made the right choice in coming here. Quite a few of my friends feel the same way. The problems of socially handicapped hyper-achievers are not unique to a few schools. Rather, this situation is endemic across the country. I decided to write this article after I watched a mother and her ProFro daughter walk through the activities fair yesterday. The daughter was texting on her cell phone, and her mom kept on taking papers from the student tables, asking the students working the booths a slew of questions: "How many hours a week do you volunteer? How many other activities do you do? Do you put your activities on your resume? How many activities should my daughter do?" The mother was so involved in her daughter's life that I wondered if she had opened her daughter's acceptance letter for her. My hope is that the mother I overheard reads this week's column. I hope that she realizes that her daughter is probably exhausted from pushing herself through four incredibly difficult years and almost certainly will need guidance on how to be a well-adjusted citizen, not how to build a resume, as she enters adulthood. My hope is that ProFros read this column and realize that coming to college is not going to be easy, wherever they choose to go. Part of growing up is facing failure and difficulty, and there is no shame in asking for help, even if it seems as though everyone else is doing fine. They aren't. Our complete inability to cope with the pressures of today may eventually be funny. But for now, it's definitely too soon to turn the tragedy of our extreme emphasis on academic intelligence and achievement into a quick one-liner glibly delivered at the Manzanita brunch table. Jackie Bernstein can be reached at jaber@stanford.edu. -- Stanford Daily - April 20, 2007