Obituary: Former APL Staff Member Among Virginia Tech Shooting Victims
Kevin Granata, who began his professional career at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, was among those killed in the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16. A professor of engineering science and mechanics, he was considered one of the nation's top researchers working on movement dynamics in cerebral palsy. He was 45. Granata joined the Lab in 1986 and worked on low-frequency performance issues for long towed arrays in the former Submarine Technology Department (now the National Security Technology Department). His initial work helped to form the justification for the series of Doppler signal suppression experiments that were conducted by APL in 1990 and 1991. He was very interested in biomechanics and left the Lab in 1989 to obtain a PhD in biomechanics from Ohio State. "He was a bright young guy who came here from school, had a lot of energy and was very capable," Joseph S. Lombardo, his APL supervisor and now director of the Lab's Center of Excellence in Public Health and Informatics, told The Baltimore Sun. "Kevin had a very good scientific background and was able to do a substantial level of analysis." Granata, who had received his bachelor's degree in engineering physics and electrical engineering from Ohio State and master's in physics from Purdue, went on to an esteemed career in teaching and research, first at the University of Virginia and then at Virginia Tech. He lectured nationally and internationally and had numerous publications and research grants. A runner and cyclist, he enjoyed participating in biathlons and triathlons. He also loved reading and coaching his sons' lacrosse teams. Survivors include his wife, Linda; two sons, Alex and Eric; a daughter, Ellen; and his parents, Mildred and Joseph Granata. Memorials can be made to the Kevin P. Granata Memorial Trust, 1872 Pratt Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24068. -- Original Source: Johns Hopkins Gazette - April 23, 2007
Why must we pay the price For others sins and vice? As I lay dying here, I cry. I wonder, Why, why, why? ~Joseph M. Skipsey, April 23rd, 2007 Of Shooters and Schools Can video games make kids more violent? A new study employing state-of-the-art brain-scanning technology says that the answer may be yes. Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention. Does this mean that your teenager will feel an uncontrollable urge to go on a shooting rampage after playing "Call of Duty?" -Excerpt Taken from the MSNBC On the Level article, "Does game violence make teens aggressive?" It's the same tired old stories, over and over. These are but entertainment, without meaning. So, they make you more violent? No, I believe the article is suggesting that playing violent video games simply makes you more more "emotionally aroused." You can't blame games, the ESRB was put there for a reason. If you're unaware that video games are under a strict ratings system, you don't deserve to speak on such an issue. Movies don't have anything on the incredible vista of the ESRB. You can't find a medium of entertainment with a more defined set of guidelines than the ESRB, and the ratings are there for a reason, and deserve enforcement. Pardon me, but just because you can scan and find emotional arousal, does that mean positive emotion? Negative emotion? Neutral emotion? What exactly does this arousal mean? Until it can be discerned, all these statements are inaccurate. You need to prove then, that emotion is the link. Or, is it? After all, these killers are described as being cold and emotionless, right? What makes people do the violent acts in the first place? So far, most of these cases have shown mental illness, rage/anger issues, hate, race, and of course, suffering. Where are the cases of sane, rational, normal individuals playing these games and deciding to go kill people? None. All the school shootings? Most were angry youth, youth with guns, youth who were outsiders, the weak, the defenceless, the bullied. Not a single average Joe picking up a gun after a refreshing game of "Kill People" and blowing away innocents. What we fail to see is an actual connection between motive and games. I see motive in one way, and games in another, because they are NOT the SAME! There are very well-defined lines between motive and what someone does in their spare time. You see, when it comes down to it, you need motive to commit, and without a motive, there is no crime. Motives like, oh say: Abuse by parents, abuse by peers, bullying, loneliness, delusions, hatred, religious beliefs, monetary issues, and many more. What needs to be examined is the link between society and killers like this. What makes these people? Look, and you shall find, and it will surprise me not, but shock you beyond your comfortable world of minor tragedy. The breakdown in society comes not from video games, but from the way we treat some people in it. No one can imagine what horrors some have gone through. I have lived through what I can only describe as sheer torture, for a lack of wanting to dredge up the painful memories. I have come through, and come through well, and I am now working on becoming someone to change the ways these things go about. "Boys will be boys." A bitter, and cruel memory of a tear cried long ago. I came through my own trial that was childhood, and emerged matured beyond my chronological age. I have stared a coming death in the eyes, and welcomed it with relief. Never does one grow so quickly than when faced with their own life, about to be snuffed out. But I did not die, thanks to one boy who saw others throw me into a dumpster like so much trash, unable to move my arms from the beating they gave me first, bare seconds before a garbage truck came by to collect the garbage, to compact it... and me. One boy, who defied apathy, and saved my life. Live through the worst pain you could ever feel, for six years, alone, different, and scared, then claim that "Boys will be Boys." For some, the burden warped them, destroyed them, and turned them into beasts, murderous and violent. Killers. But, thanks to several factors, including loving, caring parents, kind teachers, books, and counselling, I stayed human. It's an odd feeling, to know you have lived through what broke others, what turned them into bitter, meek, but ever defiant individuals, right down to when they killed others and then themselves. It's hard to take when others blame playthings, hobbies, toys, and useless, un-important junk and lay the cause of guilt onto simple objects. Hard to take, to know that someone spent their life in pain, ends it, and yes, they made a bad choice, but it was also a lesson. One which went ignored. Rather than try to fix what is broken, we find ways to avoid examining it. It's hard to believe, that when a young man kills his peers, takes his life, and writes in a note left in his house about just how horrible a life it was, that others simply dismiss it as vanity, preening, a bid for publicity, rather than take in stride that there is a problem in the echelons of societal form. No one understands them. And that's one of the worst parts. I am alive. I am well. I live my life, and rejoice in the pleasures of taking breath, looking at the natural beauty of the world around me, the cool caress of the wind on my face, with the glow of the sun. I live content, confident in a future, bright in possibilities. But I will always remember what it took to make me see the way I do, to have the very thing that makes me different, and the humiliation and indignities I lived through. But the past is the past, and I look to the future, looking to speak, be heard, and change the system that nearly destroyed me, the system that is supported by the strong, the system that propagates stereotypes, and the system that creates the very things it fears most. I lost my childhood when I was but six. I grew up too fast, in a hard system, and have learned some very hard lessons. These lessons have taught me what you're still struggling to comprehend. There is no deep mystery to why the school shooters do this. It is simply misguided vengeance, striking against what they feel is the cause of their misery. Their school, their peers, and themselves. They hate their existence, and others for what they did to make their existence the kind they hated. Therefore, they attack both at the same time, and martyr themselves to their ideas of justice, of vengeance, and of retribution. They do it for themselves, for other victims, for the weak, the defenseless, whatever they want to. Because they are without hope. They are without pity, for they have received none. They have no mercy or regret, as they have learned from those who showed them nought. Their consciences are but husks, destroyed by oppression and injustice. They looked into others eyes as they were hurt, as they were abused, in pain, and all they saw were the malice of their attackers, and the apathy of the crowd, staring into their eyes, and seeing nothing. They have walked where few have dared to tread, but where several are forced to walk. Alone, feeling only the worst things, falling into darkness, with healthy shoves from ignorant and callous peers. This is why. This is what no one will say. This is not your pretty glossy CNN coverage, not your heartening fiction of fantasy, nor your peppy college psychology lecture. This is hard, gritty truth, this is a revelation of knowledge, and a desperate cry to end the pain, the bloodshed, the sorrow. Kind of sad, don't you think, how a 17 year old just told you exactly what countless people have been searching for. The answers to why School Shooters do what they're named for. And do you know what the saddest part will be? When this goes ignored, because this couldn't possibly be it. And I will watch and cry, as more and more people die while we look for the answer that is right in front of our noses, as we assign blame to scapegoats, and as we lower the bodies of innocents, and heroes into the ground. -- Author's Comments I hate the way the world is working these days. All violence and bloodshed, killers and crazies, all over school shootings. The latest Tragedy is now becoming a Travesty, and all we can seem to do is blame peripherals. Monsters aren't born; They're created. -- Original submitted to deviantart.com on April 23, 2007: href="http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53886930/">http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53886930/ Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5
By: Editorial Board Posted: 4/19/07 With the tragedy that occurred on the Virginia Tech campus on Monday we are forced to ask hard questions about the safety of students here at UR. Surely, as statistics show, we live on a very safe campus, even given the large city to which we are adjacent. Students are kept safe by a very respected and well-trained team of Security officers and a very thorough Security system, which includes blue light phones, among other precautions. But given the recent violence, our placement as a University surrounded by a large city and our ever-expanding campus, which includes URMC and the Brooks Landing project in the 19th Ward among other areas, is the current level of security enough to protect the thousands at UR? Further, is the current level of training and certification that our Security officers have enough given the jobs we ask them to assume? Currently, Security officers are severely limited in the actions they can take by their current level of training and certification. They cannot make arrests, investigate crimes, set up traffic stops or access criminal records to check for warrants. They carry no offensive or defensive weapons with them, lethal or non-lethal - that means no guns, nightsticks, mace or stun guns. Rather, they are expected to carry out their duties with just handcuffs and possibly a flashlight. The jobs of Security officers often put them in harm's way. They deal with affiliated and non-affiliated people on the UR campus every day. This includes violent criminals at Strong Memorial Hospital along with other potentially violent people in all of their patrol areas, including Brooks Landing or even the Fraternity Quad on a normal social night. Yet, in the presence of violence, Security officers are expected to detain the person with just the handcuffs they carry and just wait for RPD to arrive. It is simply not safe for anyone affiliated with UR to have the first responders to any scene, violent or not, unprotected and severely limited in the actions they can take. No matter what RPD's response time is to the scene, having to wait for the police to arrive takes valuable minutes while people are potentially in severe danger. We cannot expect this system to keep the students, or the Security officers, safe any longer. -- Original Source:Campus Times - April 19, 2007
Alexander Moeller <amoeller@mail.rochester.edu>
Several police officers (both local and state) are visible and present during the convocation. Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndicken/464088526/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-NoDerivs 2.0
Permission Nathan Dicken http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndicken/464088526/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-NoDerivs 2.0
Officials examine ways to make school safer
By Joe Cressman Elmhurst Press Tue Apr 24, 2007, 04:35 PM CDT ELMHURST, IL - The April 16 tragedy at Virginia Tech has Elmhurst College officials looking at ways they can make their own campus more secure. One of those ways is to teach the community how to respond to danger signs among students, said Tony Leggett, director of campus security. "We've done a number of things," he said. "We sent out a letter to give students some of the warning signs, how to report if someone on campus they know (is) emotionally distressed." He also has been in contact with the Elmhurst Police Department. Sometime this summer, police will rehearse practice responses to an on-campus shooter, Leggett said. Charley Henderson, director of public relations, said the Virginia Tech massacre has everyone thinking about how safety measures can be improved. "This campus is essentially safe, but you never say never," he said. Original Source: http://www.chicagosuburbannews.com/elmhurst/news/x1910945457 Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5.
The Old Navy in the Roanoke Mall expresses its support to the Virginia Tech community. Orginial Source http://www.flickr.com/photos/kellybeth7/476245394/in/set-72157600091083431/ Photo courtesy of Kelly Harris
Permission: Kelly Harris kellybeth7@gmail.com
Data publicarii: 21/04/2007 Profesorul israelian de origine romana Liviu Libreanu, ucis in masacrul de luni de la Virginia Tech, a fost inmormintat vineri in Israel. Zeci de persoane au asistat la funeralii in cimitirul din orasul Raanana, din centrul Israelului, pentru un ultim omagiu adus profesorului Librescu, supravietuitor al Holocaustului care a emigrat in Israel in 1978, pentru a se instala ulterior in Statele Unite. Librescu a tinut blocata usa incaperii pentru a le permite studentilor sa sara pe geam, in timpul conflictului singeros de la Universitatea Tehnica din Virginia din data de 16 aprilie. Ulterior, atacatorul a incercat sa intre in clasa si pentru ca nu a reusit a tras o rafala de gloante in usa. "Imi voi consacra viata mostenirii tale. Adio, tata", a spus fiul sau Joe. Trupul neinsufletit al profesorului Librescu a fost transportat cu zborul Elal nr. 2 de la New York la Tel Aviv, insotit de citiva reprezentanti ai unei organizatii religioase si de membri ai familiei. Profesorul Liviu Librescu s-a nascut in 1930 in Romania. Dupa ce a supravietuit Holocaustului, a refuzat sa se inscrie in Partidul Comunist si si-a pierdut slujba ca inginer aerospatial. In 1976, Liviu Librescu a publicat in secret o carte in Norvegia in care a emis o teorie revolutionara pentru tehnologia aerospatiala. In 1978, dupa ce mai multe grupuri din Israel au facut lobby, lui Librescu i s-a permis sa plece din Romania si s-a stabilit in Israel. La Virginia Tech a inceput sa predea din 1985. Librescu era membru al mai multor academii de constructii din Ucraina, Armenia si Statele Unite ale Americii si a fost distins cu multe premii de catre mai multe organizatii internationale. El avea peste 500 de materiale publicate in mai multe reviste de specialitate sau ca lucrari personale. -- Sursa Originala: http://www.ziaruldeiasi.ro/cms/site/z_is/news/omagiu_lui_liviu_librescu_in_israel_142568.html
Florin Nicula (florin.nicula@ziaruldeiasi.ro)
Omar Samaha, brother of April 16 victim Reema Samaha, speaks at a student "lie-in" on the drillfield on April 16, 2008, A Day of Remembrance. Organized by Virginia Tech senior Alison St. Onge, the lie-in was designed as both a memorial to the victims and a protest against easy access to firearms. Family and friends of the victims spoke at the event before dozens of supporters laid down in silent protest and reflection. Photo by Brent Jesiek. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
Many Americans have once again been plunged into terror since a gunman massacred 32 people at Virginia Tech in the deadliest shooting rampage in modern US history, and a string of endless media reports, the gunman's cruel, merciless confessions and blood shed by 32 victims have further increased the fear of Americans. First of all, it is the fear of guns. As some American resolutely defend or safeguard their rights to own or possess guns conferred by the US constitution, other Americans cannot but have to live in a gloomy shadow at gun points. At present, 35 percent of the American families own their guns, with the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) in the United States. For scores of years, political rifts, rivals and even struggles centered on gun control have never ceased with the repeated occurrence of homicides or murder cases. As the National Rifle Association, or NRA, and other related organizations are so powerful that it was hardly possible for US Congress to pass a bill for the rigid control of guns. Secondly, it is the fear of people and, to be specific, the fear of alien immigrants. Right after the massacre at Virginia Tech, someone immediately came out to direct accusations against a student from the Chinese mainland in press and there was also a reference to a Pakistani. And all sorts of such conjectures and suspicions of Asian immigrants inundated all of sudden overnight in US media and society. Police identified the shooter in the campus killings as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a senior from South Korea who was in the English Department at Virginia Tech and lived on the campus. Then, the ambassador of the Republic of Korea (ROK) to the United States and ROK immigrant groups or societies openly and promptly made their apologies to the American people, and the ROK itself was, too, landed itself in a state of immense restlessness. Apparently, the South Korean immigrants in the U.S. and ROK residents have also felt terrified for the fear of being retaliated against or subjected to retributive punishment. The merging or integration of races in American society has all along a problem. There were repeated voices of "Go home, South Koreans" despite the fact that American media and general public have, in an overall way, retained a "politically correct" composure and quite a few people voiced sympathy for Cho Seung-Hui for the mental illness he had tormented with. In fact, ever since the 9/11 attacks of 2001 in the U.S., the Americans have always been living in terror imposed upon by terrorists. US strategist Zbigniew Brzenzinki censured or criticized the Bush administration for the erroneous policy it had implemented to generate fear in a recent article by capitalizing on a sense of terror among people wrought by 9/11 attacks in the U.S. The war on terror has created a culture of fear in America, he noted, adding that the Bush Administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact in American democracy, on America's psyche and on US standing in the world. "Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against the U.S.," warned Brzenzinski. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke to Americans in a ringing phrase that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," which inspired American to cope with terror they endured correctly and thus brought a new style to the US presidency. To date, Americans seem to have been thrown into still greater terrors, though their country has been turned into the sole global superpower. -- Original Source:People's Daily Online, China http://english.people.com.cn/200705/08/eng20070508_372880.html
To the students and administration of the University of Virginia: On behalf of 30,000 students, administrators, and our Virginia Tech community, I cannot begin to express our gratitude for the outpouring of sympathy, support, and concern that U.Va. has shown us in the past two days. It is an understatement to say the aftermath of our losses has beenemotionally trying for us. The realization of losing 32 valuable livesin our Virginia Tech family is something that we are trying desperatelyto recover from ... But even in the most difficult day of our history, we have found strength. It is your university in particular thathas sustained us, far beyond what you will ever know. We thank you for your students and faculty that gathered to memorialize our victims and to share in our sorrow. We thank you for the initiative and commitment your student government made towards finding 30,000 candles for our grieving campus so that our student leaders could focus on healing and comforting instead. We thank you for the hundreds of Hokies who saw your painted bridge, and were moved to tears. We thank you for the way your students instantly put aside our infamous rivalry, to the point where the greatest measures of compassion from another institution have been from you. Your aid has had such a profound impact upon our students. Please know that what U.Va. is doing is being noticed, is making a difference and is nothing short of extraordinary. Thank you for being a testament to the best of collegiate student leadership and to humanity in general. In what we have been calling the darkest night Virginia Tech has ever seen, U.Va. is one of our brightest lights. The strong alliance that has been formed between our school and yours is part of our foundation in moving forward.From our hearts to yours, thank you for your noble efforts. May you alsofind solace and restoration as we grieve together as students and as anation. In or out of times of need, Virginia Tech will stand beside you as fellow students, Virginians, and most importantly, as friends. With gratitude, Elizabeth Hart Student Government Association Director of Public Relations
On Being A College Professor after the VT Massacre
Thursday, April 19, 2007 I had nightmares about the VT massacre last night. It was on a two day delay. I knew that eventually the horror of what had happened would start to eat away at me. In part, I think my dreams haunted me precisely because I didn't talk, or rather listen, to what students thought about this. I didn't check in to see if they were suffering, in shock, afraid . . . I had to think a lot about why I didn't, especially after the Provost sent us a thoughtful email encouraging us to do so. What it comes down to is that I didn't want to think about it. I didn't want to actually confront the horror of this event. I wasn't prepared for hearing any vitriol, anger or racist statements either (not that students would've made such statements, but I worried). I am scared and frightened by what happened, and in my selfishness, I didn't want to hear anything about it, or how it affected my students. I started to realize how frightened I was by the events yesterday while talking to my colleagues in the Philosophy lounge. I had been studying the faces of the dead at the NYTimes website. But, more importantly, I had been studying the faces of the dead professors. One of them, Jamie Bishop, looked like the sort of colleague I have here. He was young, married, and well-loved by his students. Don't get me wrong, I paused on pictures of young women and men, who could've been my own students, and found myself speechless over the loss. But, seeing the pictures of dead professors haunted me the most. And, it is precisely that which I dreamt: being hunted by a former student, being called to protect my class from an armed assailant. These are not tasks that one signs on for when he/she becomes a college professor. Kerry reminded me of a student we both had a few years ago, who I am convinced was schizophrenic. He was the right age and gender for the onset of schizophrenia. His papers were long, stream of consciousness writings full of references to disturbing sexuality. The more I was around him, the more frightened I became of him. I would shudder if he came to my office and I never had any idea of what to do with his papers. During his senior thesis presentation, I think we all just sat, aghast at what nonsense had been uttered and scrambled to figure out what to do. I think that one of the hard realities that we, as college professors, have to face in the wake of the VT massacre is our responsibility to get troubled students serious help (even if they frighten us). Many of us like to just avoid this responsibility (me included). After all, we're not therapists! And, I am not claiming we should start acting like therapists either. But, I do think we have a serious obligation to pay attention to our students who seem deeply troubled, and figure out ways to get them help. If we just try to get them out of our class, or ignore them, or rationalize to ourselves that they are just lazy, mean or insubordinate, then we may find ourselves deeply regretting that we didn't do something to stop them from hurting others or themselves. The story of Cho Seung-Hui is not an anomaly. We know that there are lots of disaffected, troubled young people in our schools. And while the news reports are starting to show that his professors, at least, tried to take action, what stands out to me is how most people just ignored his behavior. Everyone knows the loners on their campus. And, most of the time these loners are the butt of jokes. Allowing such a disconnected community to exist is no longer safe, forget the moral concerns. So, the lesson I draw from the VT massacre is that I can no longer afford to ignore the students who are manifesting very troubling behavior; I am responsible to them as well as my community. Posted by Aspazia at Thursday, April 19, 2007 -- Original Source: http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-being-college-professor-after-vt.html Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Aspazia / Mad Melancholic Feminista Blog
Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License
On One Year Anniversary of VT, Many Move On But Remember
By Can Tran April 16, 2008 April 16, 2008, marks the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre as Korean student Cho Seung-hui in a fit of madness and depression went on a shooting rampage as he took the lives of thirty-two students and teachers on the Virginia Tech campus, before turning the gun on himself. This day would forever be engraved as a moment of darkness in the history of twenty-first century American let alone for Virginia Tech. While a year has pasted with many working hard to move away from the dark incident, there are those that are still coping. Many have lost friends and family members in the Virginia Tech shooting. Bryan Cloyd lost his daughter Austin, in the VT shooting. "I won't be able to walk my daughter down the aisle at her wedding. I won't be able to bounce her children on my knee," Bryan Cloyd said. He added: "And I don't think it's helpful to dwell on that, because where that leads is just more sadness. I think what's helpful to do is to dwell on what can be. What can we do with what we have?" In the case of Cho, the one responsible for the shooting; there are no public memorials planned. In related news, eight months after the Virginia Tech shooting, 21-year-old Korean student Daniel Kim had taken his own life. His father, William Kim, said that the school was not taking the warning signs of suicide that serious. In the case of Daniel Kim, he fell into state of depression out of fear that he could be mistaken for Cho Seung-hui. The scars of the Virginia Tech shooting could extend towards South Korea, whose government had issued an apology for Cho's actions. On an interesting note, the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting comes on the same day as the Democratic debate in Pennsylvania between Democratic frontrunners Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. On that note, the hot button topic could be gun ownership rights. In Pennsylvania, there are almost one-million licensed hunters. There are at least 250,000 registered members of the NRA living in the state of Pennsylvania, making it the one state with the largest number of members. However, there is at least one gun-related death a day in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For that reason, Philadelphia is known as "Killadelphia." However, the issue of guns could possibly be overshadowed by "green jobs." The day of the April 22 Democratic primaries is the same day as Earth Day. Licensed under Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License -- Original Source: http://www.groundreport.com/US/On-One-Year-Anniversary-of-VT-Many-Move-On-But-Rem
[This is a copy of my initial reaction to the media coverage of the VTech shooting, posted on my Wordpress blog. Unfortunately both links are now defunct - I wish I had saved a page of the "godblessvtech" blog, because it was to me a poignant illustration of the possibilities of the Internet for creating and reaffirming community. At the same time, however, I was disgusted by CNN's use of digital media - particularly video - to create what I saw as a voyeuristic experience of the event.] "On the Ethics of Bad News" Posted April 16, 2007 http://zozer319.wordpress.com/ I didn't really hear about this until late tonight, partly because all the people working out around me at the gym with TVs had them on stupid MTV the whole time. Anyway, I just wanted to share with you all two remarkable (for very different reasons) things I found online when doing a search for some overview of the shooting. I send them in particular because they are both temporary postings but say an awful lot: First, a striking example of a good use of the Internet, not only to share information but as a sense of non-physical community. I found this blog (probably just set up today, for this purpose only, so not actually a blog per se) on Wordpress - it's just a list of names and people asking for information on whether the individuals listed are okay. http://godblessvtech.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/hello-world/ Scroll down to read the progression of the information gathering and messages left. Also note the amount of information gleaned from Facebook. Second, a striking example of outright voyeurism disguised as comprehensive journalistic coverage. In browsing CNN's coverage of the story, I was disgusted by the amount of video - not of interviews and re-runs of news stories, but the amount of direct footage of the shootings/events themselves; http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/index.html There is no clear line between information and too much information, but that might be close. Thank goodness I wasn't watching CNN today, or I probably would have got pissed off at them a lot sooner than now (not that it's just them... but if they bill themselves as the world's #1 news source I hope it's not too much to ask to hold them to some minimum standard). Anyway, that's all I've got. And get ready to hear about this one for weeks (not from me - from "The Media.") -- Original Source: http://zozer319.wordpress.com/2007/04/
2007.04.17. kids listening to the convocation speakers
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
17 April 2007 The talking heads keep talking about the "VT Massacre", not that it doesn't deserve attention, but this is too much attention. And VT is getting a bad wrap unfairly on one specific point: the notification of students on campus as to what was going on. The media seem obsessed with the 2-hour gap between the first shooting and the campus-wide email. They think the whole campus should have been told immediately. This is a short-sighted and impatient assumption, and is definitely not appropriate in a time like this when cooler heads should prevail. First, when the first shooting occurred, no one knew what the hell was going on! As with any incident like this, the police responded immediately, and their first priority was to figure out what happened. From what the VT police have said, they had reason to believe the shooter had left campus. So, what good would it have been to lock the campus down? And even if they had, how would that have stopped the assailant from coming back, as this may have only added police officers to the list of the dead. My point is VT authorities didn't notify anyone immediately because they didn't know what to tell them! In this age of information and 24-hour TV news, many have been spoiled into thinking they should have answers immediately, and that someone has failed them if they don't. Spoiled is definitely the best word for that outlook. Answers aren't always available right away, and rarely is the complete picture seen even days after an event like this, if ever. So, why are some in the media out to vilify the very people who were trying to protect the public and figure this whole thing out? I can see no reason other than lack of understanding and sensationalism, neither of which is an acceptable answer. --- On a different note about the incidents of yesterday: As a life member of Kappa Kappa Psi Honorary Band Fraternity, as was receiving updates on the status on members of our chapter at VT. All were accounted for by midday and none harmed. But we did get unfortunate news: One of the fallen was a member of the VT Band, a brother-in-arms, if you will. From the Marching Virginians website: The Marching Virginians are deeply sorrowed by the loss of fellow MV and friend, Ryan "Stack" Clark. He was a loved friend, mentor, and role model who will always hold a special place in the hearts of all the MVs as a true example of The Spirit Of Tech. Stack, we thank you for all the memories, and for sharing with us your true love of life. We will love and miss you always. Please continue to keep those up at Virginia Tech and their families in your thoughts and prayers. -the Progressive Conservative posted by Matt Collins at 4/17/2007 08:51:00 AM -- Original Source: http://conservativeprogress.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-vt-massacre.html This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License
On Virginia Tech anniversary, Saugus mom lobbies for changes
By Mike Gaffney GateHouse News Service Posted Apr 16, 2008 @ 01:37 PM SAUGUS — A year after she lost her son Ross in the Virginia Tech shootings, Lynnette Alameddine is fighting for legislation that would require universities to issue campus emergency notifications in 30 minutes or less. Wednesday marked the first anniversary of the massacre at Virginia Tech. One of the 33 victims of the deadliest school shooting in this country's history was Ross Alameddine, 20, a Saugus resident and college sophomore known for his sharp wit and uncanny ability to make people laugh. In a recent interview, Lynnette Alameddine declined to reflect upon Ross's death and its affect on her family for personal reasons. But she found the courage during an emotionally draining week to talk about the causes she is championing so other parents do not have to experience the same heartbreak. Over the last few months Alameddine has been working closely with Security on Campus Inc., a nonprofit organization committed to improving student safety at institutions of higher learning. Security on Campus wants to strengthen the Jeanne Clery Act that requires colleges to warn their campuses about crimes that present ongoing threats in a "timely" manner. The problem with the federal legislation, Alameddine explained, is the act fails to define what "timely" means. As a result, warnings are sometimes issued many hours after a university becomes aware of an emergency, or even the next day. History shows that colleges do not always follow the guidelines of the Clery Act. Alameddine mentioned one particularly troublesome case at Eastern Michigan University when a coed was found raped and murdered in a residence hall, but officials issued a statement that no foul play was suspected in her death. Alameddine and Security on Campus hope Congress revises the Clery Act so universities must initiate a warning process within 30 minutes of an emergency being confirmed. Thus far Alameddine said a bill has been introduced at the House to include the 30-minute time limit in the renewed Higher Education Amendments of 2008, but no such clause exists in the legislation being worked on at the Senate level. "There has been a lot of resistance from university presidents who don't feel they can complete the notifications in that amount of time," Alameddine said. Mere minutes can mean the difference between life and death when a threat of a shooter surfaces on a college campus, Alameddine pointed out. In the case of the Virginia Tech Tragedy, two hours passed between the discovery of the shooter's first two victims in a dormitory and when the university sent out its alert. Alameddine traveled to Washington, D.C., recently to share her concerns with an advisor on Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the vice president of Security on Campus. Her daughter, Yvonne, has become the president on Facebook for the Students for Emergency Warnings in 30 Minutes or Less. A decision on the specific language included in the Higher Education Amendments is expected by the end of the month. With this looming deadline in mind, the Alameddines are encouraging the public to call or e-mail their senators to request they support the mandatory campus warning provision of 30 minutes or less. For more information on this cause, log on to www.securityoncampus.org. "I think this has the potential to prevent tragedies from happening," Alameddine said. "It is shocking that colleges and universities don't notify people about emergencies on campus." Advocating gun control Another concern of Alameddine's is how easy it can be to secure a firearm. Earlier this month she attended a gala in the nation's capital sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that strives to enact and enforce sensible gun laws. The gala featured a special tribute to the survivors and families affected by the Virginia Tech shooting. Also honored was Abby Spangler, a Virginia native and staunch gun control supporter affiliated with the Web site www.protesteasyguns.com. After the Virginia Tech shootings, Spangler took it upon herself to hold a silent protest expressing outrage over the senseless loss of human life. The movement eventually evolved into a phenomenon culminating with the National Lie-In. On April 16, the grassroots group organized 80 lie-ins in 31 states. To honor the memory of the Virginia Tech victims, Alameddine said each protest involved 32 people — signifying the number of students and teachers killed by shooter Cho Seung-Hui — who dressed in black with Virginia Tech colors and laid down for three minutes. "That's how long it takes someone to get a gun in this country," Alameddine said. Several lie-ins were held in the Boston area, including a silent protest organized at Simmons College by Katie McKendrey, a close friend of Ross Alameddine's. From the research she has conducted, Alameddine said it is alarming how effortless it is for people to purchase guns. She hopes to close the existing loophole that allows private dealers at gun shows to sell firearms to customers without conducting a background check. According to statistics collected by www.protesteasyguns.com, approximately 40 percent of sales at the 5,000 gun shows held every year in this country are made by unlicensed sellers who aren't required to perform background checks. At last count 35 states had yet to close this loophole. Alameddine is convinced the time has come to take action and close the loophole so the guns used in crimes no longer find their way into the wrong hands. Although Alameddine acknowledged the need to respect the rights of the National Rifle Association, she said precautions should be taken so firearms are kept away from dangerous individuals and off college campuses. Gun control laws differ considerably from state to state, which Alameddine noted can lead to troubling circumstances where common sense isn't always taken into account. For example, she expressed concern over finding out some universities allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Generic -- Original Source: http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x883016434
By Dick Durbin RRSTAR.COM Posted Apr 17, 2008 @ 10:59 PM This week, our nation marked the anniversary of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech that took 32 lives and wounded 17 other people. Just two months ago, our state was stunned to witness a similar tragic shooting at Northern Illinois University in which 5 students were killed and 17 were wounded. I cannot imagine the magnitude of heartbreak and pain for friends and families of those killed or the trauma borne by those who survived these tragedies. As we mourn the loss of so many promising young lives, it is important also to learn from these tragedies. So what are those lessons? The first is to consider the tortured mind of the shooter. Mental illness is an illness, not a curse. It can and should be treated. Many who receive appropriate counseling and medication lead normal, stable and happy lives. But our laws ignore this reality. We have created legal and financial obstacles to appropriate care. This year, for the first time in a decade, the U.S. Senate has passed a bill to give mental health parity with physical health under the law. The House of Representatives also has passed legislation, and we are negotiating a compromise to fulfill the promise of health parity for millions facing mental health problems. But the challenge of mental health on our college campuses is unique. Many mental illnesses manifest themselves in this period when young people leave the security of home and regular medical care. The responsibility for the students' well-being shifts many times to colleges and universities struggling with limited resources. The situation is growing worse. Studies show that 10 percent of college students have contemplated suicide and 45 percent have felt so depressed that it was difficult to function. Colleges also are encountering students who 10 to 20 years ago would not have been able to attend school because of mental illness, but who can do so today because of advances in treatment of such illness. To meet the increased need, many schools have tried to increase mental-health education and outreach efforts. But the ratio of students to counselors is growing. Currently, there is only one counselor for every 2,000 students on our college campuses. NIU and Virginia Tech taught us that mental-health parity and better campus counseling services are not only critical in preventing these tragedies, but in dealing with the aftermath. The victims were not just those who were killed or injured in the shootings. Others have mental scars that are less obvious than bullet wounds but often slower to heal. The emotional trauma experienced by many students, faculty and families might require years of therapy and counseling. Finally, when the unthinkable does happen, as it did at Virginia Tech and NIU, we need to respond quickly and effectively to the immediate and long-term needs of the affected college community. Our colleges and law-enforcement agencies have made great strides in preparing for and responding to active-shooter situations, progress reflected in the admirable response to the NIU shootings. But we also need to view these violent tragedies on our campuses for what they are — catastrophes, like natural disasters, that require a sustained and coordinated recovery effort in the months that follow. We have a federal agency to deal with hurricanes, earthquakes and floods. But there is no central federal resource to help guide college communities through the recovery process. In the days and weeks after the shootings in DeKalb, NIU officials found themselves being led in circles through the bureaucracies at the federal departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services, not to mention numerous state agencies. These entities, all of whom were well-meaning, often didn't talk to one another, forcing school officials and victims' families to navigate a red-tape maze to find answers to even their simplest questions. Just as we expect a coordinated emergency response to a flood or tornado, we need to ensure that victims, their families and college communities are able to receive similar assistance in the wake of these personal disasters. Reflecting on the loss of his own son, the well-known minister the Rev. William Sloan Coffin once said, "When parents die, they take with them a portion of the past. But when children die, they take away the future as well." As we mourn those lost at Virginia Tech, NIU and other schools across the country, we must learn from these incidents, work to avoid them and improve our response when they do occur. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Illinois. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Generic -- Original Source: http://www.rrstar.com/opinions/x1498098116
It's scary really, when you're truly thankful for your life and the well being of the ones you love every single day, yet you still slip up and take all of that for granted for just one second. It happens to all of us; sometimes we just get caught up during the hectic grind of life and forget all the wonderful things we are, except for that moment, gratified to have. And in that second, when an occurrence takes you and suddenly you realize this terrible, tragic error-the world stops. The thing that makes this unbearably painful though is that for everyone else, life keeps moving forward, and you now suddenly have so much to say and do about what WAS, it becomes impossible to catch up and cope with what IS. I know my final exam reflection has a suggested word count of 800 words; I am however, not going to make that requirement in hopes that you will understand why... I, like thousands of other Virginia Tech students, have had an experience of the events that occurred on April 16, 2007. My experience was a fortunate one because of the fact that I did not lose a loved one on that day. Of course, I felt a lot of emotions that day, starting with anger. The following day, I attended the ceremony at Lane Stadium, and like many of us Hokies, my thoughts were temporarily distracted by all the media sharks looking to record peoples pain for money. I was selected out of a group to talk to a man because he wanted to put me on T.V. with Katie Couric, I declined. Blacksburg was so strangely unwelcoming and depressing to me after that ceremony because many people had left and the only people who remained were locals obviously shocked with tragedy or media who seemed to not care. I had to get out because everything was so surreal it was slowly eating me from inside every time I tried to grasp the full weight of what had happened. When I returned for classes, I don't know if it was just me but I felt like the entire campus was dead silent for the entire day. My anger was finally replaced with sorrow, I was glad because until then, I had only been able to feel a rage towards what happened at MY school. I had to pay my respects for those 32 souls that would have continued to make this world a brighter place had they been given a chance to do so. I don't do it often, but I cried as I stood there in front of those memorials thinking about how easily that could have happened to somebody I knew and loved. During this entire time I have been feeling guilty, I felt guilty crying in front of those memorials and I am almost afraid that some day I will not be able to contain it. I turned down that interview for the same reason I won't let myself share every single thing that happened to me with all of this...Who am I to cry? Who am I to even talk about it? I didn't lose anybody during this terrible misfortune. Sure, I have lost loved ones without being able to say goodbye, but it didn't happen April 16th, and it didn't happen like that so who am I to try to empathize and compare my sorrows? Who am I to try to imagine what those Moms, Dads, Sisters, Brothers and friends feel like right now? The question asked to me from the reporter was, "Did I know anybody or do I know anyone that knew someone who was lost?" I didn't, I tried talking about the many people I knew who soon had funerals to attend to but no sooner than I let those words leave my mouth did I realize that I was a nobody in all of this. I am just a friend who wants to lend a hand and be there for other friends that need it right now. Although I have always desperately wanted to be on T.V. if even for a second, I said to myself, "Not right now, not like this, this isn't for me to say" then I walked away to show support and blended into a large crowd of orange and maroon, like all of my other fellow Hokies. -Jacob Lee Stowers