SU community reacts to Virginia Tech massacre
By: Melissa Daniels Posted: 4/17/07 The doors to Hendricks Chapel remained open on Monday, with a candle lit at the end of an aisle. Chaplains were available throughout the day, willing to talk to anyone who wished to enter. The Virginia Tech shooting on Monday caused widespread raw emotion throughout the country, and Syracuse University was not exempt. "Everybody's hearts are going out to Virginia Tech today," said Dean of Hendricks Chapel Thomas Wolfe. "This is a monumental disaster, a tragedy that has befallen them." An unidentified gunman opened fire in a Virginia Tech dorm in the morning, beginning the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history. By the end of the day, the death toll reached 33, including the death of the gunman himself. Sources had varying reports throughout the day about whether the gunman committed suicide or if he was killed by police. A two-hour gap between shootings raised the possibility of more than one shooter. Wolfe is also co-chair of the Critical Incident Management Team. The group touched base this morning after hearing about the shootings. The team, which focuses on human response in tragic events, encouraged contacting the counseling center and reflecting in Hendricks for students who may have been affected emotionally by the shooting. "When something like this happens," he said, "the whole university community feels it." Chancellor Nancy Cantor sent a letter to the president of Virginia Tech, extending Syracuse University's sympathies. Wolfe described the letter as "a very genuine gesture." "The higher education world is a very connected world," he said. Interim Chief of Public Safety Tony Callisto said SU is prepared for unexpected violent incidents like Monday's events at Virginia Tech as best as it can be. "Every incident results in learning for the next time," he said. Public Safety officers are trained in active shooting scenarios in case they would ever need to go after an armed suspect, Callisto said. They are also all trained as peace officers, meaning they are armed. Active shooting scenario training was created a year after the 1999 school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., which resulted in 15 fatalities. "Officers are very proactive," Callisto said. "There are eight to 10 officers that patrol Syracuse University grounds 24 hours a day." SU has close ties with the Syracuse Police Department, he said. "Response is relatively immediate," said Callisto about reaction in a crisis situation. Public Safety also has in-service training with the Office of Residence Life in the case of an assailant entering a dorm. On-duty resident advisers and residential security aides (RSAs) are instructed to call Public Safety if they see anything suspicious. RSAs have hand-held radios that are connected to Public Safety and Syracuse police lines. "Prevention is the best tool," Callisto said. "If you see something that's unusual, call us. If you see something that doesn't look right, call us. If something looks suspicious in any way, call us." Student response to the event is widespread. The constant television news coverage and Internet postings let the word spread about the event as updates came in. Anna Hadingham, president of the Student Peace Action Network at SU, expressed her concern about the recent violence. "It worries me that a student would have a reason or feel a need to unleash that," she said. "We are looking and exposing ourselves to chaos and carnage." -- Original Source:The Daily Orange - April 17, 2007
By: EDDIE LEE Posted: 8/6/07 I recently received an e-mail from a graduate student at Virginia Tech. She asked me if I would be willing to release any articles that The California Aggie had written on the school's tragedy in April to be part of a larger database that is working to preserve and present stories from around the country. When I read the e-mail, it quickly reminded me of that terrible day on Apr. 16, when a lone student went on a shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus leaving 33 people dead, 25 injured and scores more scarred for life. College campuses across the country, including UC Davis, began reviewing and reevaluating their emergency response services in the case a similar attack should happen. Schools were no longer safe and seemingly anyone was capable of committing such a horrific act. Eventually, though, these thoughts became memories. Students here at UC Davis were able to continue to attend class, eat at the Coho and play intramural sports without worry. Of course, that's how it should be, and not just here, but everywhere. We should never have to live in a world of constant fear and trepidation, and should instead strive to live our lives as normally as possible. However, it is clear that normalcy is a status that many students in Blacksburg, Va. understandably continue to seek. Virginia Tech is not so different from UC Davis. It is a public institution with an undergraduate population of nearly 22,000. Blacksburg, like Davis, is also dominated largely by the local university. The population of the town is nearly 40,000 citizens, 60 percent of which is college students. Compare that to Davis, with a population around 60,000, about 50 percent of which is comprised of students. If you think that it can't happen here in quiet Davis, you are sorely mistaken. That being said, however, this is not a column trying to scare the population here on campus or the city at large that an attack is imminent. Instead, it is to serve as a reminder of how fortunate we are that we have been able to avoid a tragedy of such magnitude, and how easily we can undervalue every day that we walk on campus. In addition, we should not forget our brethren in Virginia. While many of us may not know any students over in Blacksburg personally, we can nonetheless imagine the pain and shock they continue to go through and the ongoing healing process. Last week the first football practice of the season for the Virginia Tech football team took place. The Hokies are the pride of Blacksburg and will once again be a top-25 team. But much more importantly, on that first game of the season when the team runs out of the tunnel and onto the field, the cheering students and fans can remember what it is to be normal again - for at least four quarters of football. Here at UC Davis, we as students should never take normal for granted. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 6, 2007
UNLV proposes arming faculty, staff to increase campus security
By: Teresa Pham Posted: 5/14/07 In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, some universities are looking into tightening security measures on campus. In Nevada, one man is proposing a reserve police officer program that would allow employees at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas to carry guns. Regent Stavros Anthony, also a Las Vegas police captain, said the program would allow normal employees at the university, such as faculty members, to be trained as reserve police officers. "The way it works is that an employee would apply with the police department to become a reserve police officer," he said. "They would have to go through the same selection process as their police officers." That selection process, he added, is very thorough and covers all the basic training that regular police officers go through. "They'd take a written test, a psychological exam, a polygraph and a background check," he said. "Then they would go through the same police academy that the police officers go through, which is about four or five months. Then, once they graduate, they're considered city reserve police officers and have to go through the renewal training just like police officers for as long as they want to keep their certification. It's a pretty stringent program." However, there are some groups that oppose letting schools control firearm possession rules on campus. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released a press release May 3 regarding the risk of guns on college campuses. Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center, stated in the press release that guns should be either carefully monitored or banned on campus. "Our schools should be sanctuaries, not armed camps," Helmke said. "Institutions of higher education already have chosen policies either banning or tightly controlling guns on campus. That is as it should be." Other schools have chosen to reevaluate security measures after Virginia Tech, but have not taken the same measures that UNLV is proposing. Paul Browning, California State University spokesperson, said the CSU schools have security measures in place in order to respond in the event of a situation such as the Virginia Tech tragedy. "CSU is granted authority to maintain police officers on all 23 campuses, and they receive full police-academy training," he said. "Everyone has looked at their procedures. They have developed really extensive plans in order to handle all kinds of situations." However, he said CSU schools probably wouldn't be implementing a program to adopt regular university employees as reserve police officers. "Well, I can't really see a CSU adopting a plan where regular employees would act as undercover officers in any way," he said. "Each campus has a really high-quality, well-trained police force. We believe that they are very capable of handling any type of situation that comes up." At UC Davis, Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef said in an Apr. 23 statement that the campus is revitalizing its emergency-response network and investigating the possibility of improving cell phone reception in the event of an emergency. After several calls, no one from the UC Davis Police Department was available by press time to comment on adopting a police-faculty program. Anthony said his program, which he proposed at UNLV, is a fairly new program and will come before the University of California Board of Regents for consideration soon. "My idea is pretty new as far as allowing employees to become police officers, but the reserve officer program has been successful all over the country," he said. "I'm presenting it to the board of regents in June for complete discussion. The board will vote, and if the majority wants this, then the police department will put the process together." Despite critics who question whether Anthony's program is necessary, he said his program is important because of the rise in shooter violence. "We're seeing an increase in shooter situations," he said. "They've occurred at shopping malls and obviously with the Virginia Tech tragedy, and we're starting to see more of these active shooter situations. They're not going to go away. They're going to continue, and we're going to have more in the future. We have to be in a position to defend ourselves, which we're having a hard time doing today." -- Original Source:The California Aggie - May 14, 2007
UC Davis examines emergency services, notification systems
Chancellor urges students in need to seek assistance By: Talia Kennedy Posted: 4/24/07 In the wake of the Apr. 16 shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, students across the nation are asking, "Could something similar happen at my school?" The implications of the query, posed by many at UC Davis, can be difficult to comprehend. But in an e-mail sent Monday to the entire campus community, Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef said it is a question he is trying to answer. "I know from some of the questions you've asked this past week that it's hard for us all not to feel more vulnerable now," he wrote. "You've asked about our preparedness for such a circumstance, about how you would be kept informed, and about how such a tragedy might be prevented. The campus is doing lots, but that's not to say there isn't more to do." Vanderhoef went on to say the UC Davis Police Department and the UC Davis Fire Department have been trained in rapid response to emergency situations such as the one that unfolded last week at Virginia Tech, when senior English major Cho Seung-Hui, 23, went on two shooting rampages, killing 32 students and faculty members before turning a gun on himself. Vanderhoef said the UCDPD is developing a new community-response program to help inform locals "what to do in the event of a critical incident like Virginia Tech's." The way students, faculty and staff are informed of campus emergencies may also soon be changing. In an interview last week, Lisa Lapin, the assistant vice chancellor for university communications, said UC Davis' current emergency-notification systems are less than ideal. "We have a system that can dial all campus phone numbers, but it takes three hours," she said. "We can also send e-mails to everyone, but it also takes three hours." In today's age of high-speed technology, many may wonder why some of the top universities in the nation can't immediately notify their students of a threat on campus. At Virginia Tech, it took hours for students to receive e-mails informing them of the events that had transpired the morning of Apr. 16, when Seung-Hui killed two students in a residence hall. By the time many had opened their e-mails, 31 more people were dead. In his e-mail to the UC Davis campus community, Vanderhoef said the way UC Davis affiliates learn of emergency situations will improve. "We currently can deliver urgent notices to you via e-mail, campus telephones, an emergency telephone hotline (530-752-1011), the [World Wide] Web (ucdavis.edu), our KDVS 90.3 FM radio station, and cars equipped with bullhorns," he wrote. "We are revitalizing a network of emergency-response coordinators for every campus building, and investigating the possibility of improving cell phone reception in several high-traffic campus buildings. We are also exploring a system for automatically sending text, voice and e-mail messages, and investigating the possibility of installing sirens and of engaging amateur radio operators to assist in emergencies." In addition to emergency-notification improvements, Vanderhoef reminded students that counseling services are available on campus. UC Davis' Counseling and Psychological Services in 219 North Hall provides mental- and emotional-health services; the Student Crisis Response Team, a university organization, meets regularly to assist in deescalating potential crisis situations. Similar services are also available for faculty and staff, Vanderhoef said. The Campus Violence Prevention Program, a subunit of the UCDPD, provides victim advocacy and information to students. Its office is located near Hutchison Field adjacent to the Transportation and Parking Services office. Vanderhoef urged students to seek counseling or other services should they need assistance. "[I]t's important that we take care of one another and of ourselves, especially at times of major tragic events," his e-mail said. "We've had such a trauma this past week and, for some, it may be a while before its full, sad impact is felt. If you'd find it helpful to talk with a counselor, or are concerned about a friend or colleague, don't hesitate to be in touch with CAPS.... They very much want to help." -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 24, 2007
Glendon Y. McCreary: Discussing a tragedy
By: Glendon Y. McCreary Posted: 4/24/07 It can be difficult to cover politics in the aftermath of a nationally felt tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech last week. And as we all remember the victims and reflect on the events that transpired, we are also on high alert to make sure we don't unduly "politicize" anything, because nobody wants to be seen as politically benefiting from someone else's tragedy. As a result, we often temper any discussions we have on the issues related to such incidents. Case in point, despite the fact that his unbelievably easy access to guns was one of the primary reasons the mentally unstable gunman, Cho Seung-hui, had the means to go on this rampage, our politicians all seem to be scrambling to avoid the issue of gun control. Unfortunately, we seem to be becoming so wary of courting sensitive topics in these situations that we end up not having the thorough debates we need to have in order to prevent a recurrence. As sad as it may be, it often takes a tragedy to grab our attention and put a much-needed spotlight on a particular issue. But that attention is fleeting. Remember Hurricane Katrina? As New Orleans was inundated with water and many thousands of impoverished residents languished in third-world conditions at the Superdome, politicians from Bill Clinton to George Bush told us that now was not the time to blame anybody or anything, and worked to assure us that there would "be a time" for that. We were told that eventually, Hurricane Katrina would open up a dialogue about race and poverty in America that had been long overdue. But that dialogue never materialized, because as time passed our attention focused on more mundane matters. As a result, the lofty goals of readdressing these issues have gone largely unfulfilled. Perhaps, had we gotten some answers sooner, we might have made more progress in rectifying mistakes made. Thus, an event even on the scale of Hurricane Katrina can manage to slip from our collective radar into the abyss that is yesterday's news, as the relevant issues are put on the back burner. But it is more complicated than a matter of trivial issues trumping relevant ones. Sometimes it's a legitimate and important story that draws our limited attention spans away from another important issue. Don Imus' firing, overkill or not, over racist and sexist remarks was welcomed by members of the African American community as a chance to have a broader discussion about race relations and tolerance in America. But then Cho Seung-hui went on a rampage, and suddenly nobody is talking about race relations and Imus anymore. All of this highlights the simple fact that we do not necessarily have the luxury of time when discussing how to best respond to an important news event. In the age of youtube.com, blogs and 24-hour cable news, we simply don't have time to wait for a politically calm moment to discuss important and controversial issues facing our society. So when an issue surfaces to the forefront of people's minds, it should be discussed thoroughly while the public is still focused on it. While we should certainly avoid needlessly aggravating those who have been hurt so badly by the events at Virginia Tech, we shouldn't allow the fear of politicizing an issue to subdue discussion of important issues like gun control. If we don't talk about these issues now, while the events at Virginia Tech are still fresh in our minds, they may never get talked about until the next tragedy. If we wait a month for everything to settle down and for the nation to go back to business as usual, then we will have lost our chance. By then we will have moved on to discuss the next fleeting issue. What will these 32 individuals have died for then? The shock we feel over the 32 lost lives at Virginia Tech will eventually pass for most of the country. But as we mourn the victims, let's not squander this brief moment of collective focus. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 24, 2007
Guest Opinion: Leigh A. Needleman and Andrew Freshman
Advocating presence of more guns will not prevent another Virginia Tech By: Leigh A. Needleman and Andrew Freshman Posted: 4/24/07 Like so many of the other members of the Davis community, since I first heard about the shootings at Virginia Tech on Monday morning, I have been seeking answers. However, the more that I scour the Web and listen to the news, the more questions I have: Why? What was the motivation? How could this have been prevented? How can this be prevented from happening ever again? How could this be prevented here? On Tuesday, Apr. 17, I read the article "UC Davis responds to Virginia Tech shootings." I wanted to share my fellow Aggies' reaction to the news. To my horror, I read sophomore McKenzie Bryan's quote: "I really believe that if we did not have 'gun-free zones' or really strict gun control, there could have been people on that campus that could have stopped the shooter right after he got started, way before the SWAT teams got there." I had to reread this quote several times. Bryan seems to be advocating that members of university communities carry around guns, prepared for armed assault at any time. This very idea causes me to feel profoundly physically ill. (Leaving aside for a moment the idea of the typical college drinking party with the incendiary addition of guns....) I try to imagine how events might have transpired at Virginia Tech on Monday if members of the community had been armed: One day students are in class when a gunman suddenly enters and begins indiscriminately shooting. Some of the students in the class pull out their guns and fire back. Panic and confusion ensues - who is shooting whom and for what reason? Faculty and staff as well as students are drawn by the noise and join the skirmish. Innocent bystanders are caught in the crossfire. Half an hour later, the SWAT team enters. Several students have their weapons drawn and are shooting. The SWAT team, unable to determine deranged psychopath from righteous Samaritan, makes the logical decision to "take out" all individuals with a gun. How is this a better outcome than the one in Virginia? Being an open-minded person, I have wracked my brain to try to understand the suggestion that more guns on campus would lead to a safer community. The declaration of a "gun-free zone" has little to no bearing on whether people are actually able to carry weapons. I am furthermore unaware of any colleges or universities that have implemented any sort of metal detectors or other devices to actively detect and deprive university community members from carrying guns. It therefore seems irrelevant to raise this point in relation to this situation. I would advocate for the complete opposite of Bryan. Suppose that easily concealed semiautomatic pistols and ammunition could not be easily obtained by the general public? The likelihood of a delusional and depressed student with homicidal tendencies being able to successfully carry out a massacre on the scale of the incident at Virginia Tech without such weapons would be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, Bryan and other un-pragmatic gun extremists such as the National Rifle Association continue to advocate for the easy availability of guns that indirectly create the possibility for similar incidents. What is the benefit to society of the proliferation of these weapons in the community? Our hearts and minds go out to all who have been affected by this senseless, nightmarish and terrible act. The last thing that they (or any of the rest of us) need to read at a time like this is someone advocating the presence of more guns on college campuses. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 24, 2007
UC Davis to hold candlelight vigils to honor victims By: Talia Kennedy Posted: 4/20/07 The gunman who shot and killed 32 students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University on Monday was identified this week as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a senior English student at the university. On Wednesday, NBC News reported receiving videos and a letter from Cho, sent between the time Cho shot and killed two students in an on-campus residence hall Monday morning and when he gunned down 30 more people before turning his weapon on himself. "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience," said Cho in one video, in which he is shown brandishing firearms, a hammer and other weapons. "Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people. "You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off," he said. Published reports have said Cho was receiving mental-health services, but that they were not provided by Virginia Tech. He was also accused of making unwanted phone calls and sending unwanted instant messages to two fellow students in 2005, but both declined to press charges. A professor said he made students in her class uncomfortable with his violently themed writing and by taking photographs of female students from under the desks in the classroom. A counselor once recommended Cho be committed to a mental-health facility on an involuntary basis, but a judge denied the request, saying Cho was not a danger to himself or others. In the aftermath of the shootings, universities across the country have scheduled prayer vigils to honor the fallen Virginia Tech students and faculty members. The Cal Aggie Christian Association held a prayer vigil on campus Wednesday to honor the Virginia Tech victims, and two more services are scheduled for today. The UC Davis student assistants to the chancellor, Hayley Steffen and Alfredo Arredondo, along with ASUCD officials, will host a candlelight vigil today at 7 p.m. at the Memorial Union Patio. Attendees will observe a moment of silence, and time will be designated to reflect on Monday's events. A second candlelight service and prayer vigil will begin today at 7:30 p.m. at the Chabad House, at 321 Russell Blvd. across the street from the northern edge of the UC Davis campus. The event is hosted by Chabad of Davis, an organization that promotes the Jewish faith. Students who would like to discuss their reactions to the Virginia Tech shootings should contact UC Davis' Counseling and Psychological Services at 752-0871 or visit its office in 219 North Hall. Any suspicious activity on campus should be reported to the UC Davis Police Department by calling 9-1-1 from campus phones or 752-1230 from any phone. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 20, 2007
A different perspective on the Virginia Tech shootings By: Brian Hanley Posted: 4/19/07 My time here at UC Davis comes after spending years in Central Asia. This tragedy at Virginia Tech is uniquely America of this era, but it is not unique in terms of death. It is most unique in the utter divorce from any apparent meaningful social grouping for the young perpetrator. The city where I ran an office had seen two civil wars. I have walked by multiple flaming barricades with flames leaping 30 feet in the air, quietly acting the part of someone who belonged there. I have watched events develop of many kinds, and employed staff who grew up playing games as young boys of counting the most dead bodies. Our office was in a fairly secure building, where men with AK-47s sat in a pillbox built in the lobby. I know of an incident where young men attacked an apartment in broad daylight with hand grenades and guns, but in a gallows humor twist worthy of "South Park," they were defeated by the mothers inside who had lived through the wars. Living in a place where beheading, kidnapping and simple murder as well as accidentally being caught in crossfire was as real a possibility as being hit by a car while crossing the street, I have thought about such violence. In another time and place, perhaps this man would have joined a violent political movement, or maybe he would have joined the gangster army of a warlord intent on enriching himself and accruing fabulous power. In another time and place, perhaps he would have been a willing recruit to drive a truck bomb into a crowd, cloaking himself in some convenient ideology, hopeful that in his dying, he would further the cause of sparking wider war. Such is an atavistic hate-filled impulse to destroy. But underneath it is more than this. It is also fueled at a deeper level by a very personal, desperate impulse to make a mark upon the world, to "be somebody." This is something we should remember when we look at CNN and see truck bombs or similar things. There is not so great a distance as we might think. And the character of those who do such things does not much resemble noble purpose. In part, such violence abroad can be political. And sometimes there comes a wider support in a culture which forms a larger armed movement. The fundamental fuel for wider support is ideology; it is not economics, nor is it even oppression. Couple that with cruelty and willingness to discipline an organization in the manner of any successful gangster and there it is. But always, in any culture, there are young men on the fringe such as this one. In another time and place such men can be made the pawns of cleverer men to do horrific things, and die believing in their place in history. I say this because I think that it can help us to understand better something about seemingly different violence others sometimes face. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 19, 2007
By: Rob Olson Posted: 4/19/07 This is how it happens, a tragedy so great that if we were to truly comprehend it, we would find ourselves incapacitated with grief. Speeches, national debates, 24-hour news channels, investigations, prayers and vigils. Feelings of confusion, anger, sorrow, despair. Politicians and community leaders across the nation issuing statements with identical tones and meanings. The same words appear in every one: tragedy, grief, horrific, shock, violence prevention, counseling services, thoughts and prayers, and so on. We go through the same motions and emotions. We find the old familiar paths in our minds that we've tread before with other instances of mindless slaughter: Columbine, the Amish schoolhouse shootings, people going postal at work. At least 9/11 and other terror attacks were part of some greater war of ideologies, a "clash of civilizations," as historian Samuel P. Huntington has dubbed it. This was about nothing. It had no larger purpose, no thought or reason, none of the usual gains for the perpetrator, like money or power. This was evil in its purest, most basic form. Evil for the sake of evil. Killing for the sake of killing. I write a political column. So what's my political angle? The abhorrent way some in the world community have spun the tragedy, with the Italian Il Manifesto newspaper calling it "as American as apple pie"? A vessel to expand the debate on gun rights versus gun control in America? No, I don't feel up to the task of such columns. They feel like hollow diversions in the face of such an atrocity. I want to take no political angle. Politics is about division and conflict. A tragedy of this magnitude should not be used for political debate; not yet, anyway. I don't know if justice can be done to the topic, or if I have the capability to address the worst school shooting in United States history. But here I write, attempting to describe the indescribable. How naive of me. Sueng-Hui Cho, 23, killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus and then turned one of his guns on his own face. His rampage was probably inspired by an argument with an ex-girlfriend, who may have gotten a new boyfriend. She was the first of his victims. It seems Cho simply lost it, just like the killers at Columbine, and hated the world so much that he sought to do as much damage as possible before ending his own life. Killing so many people without a logical motive required a ruthless mixture of hatred, insanity and, as one friend pointed out to me, selfishness. The terrible truth that no one talks about is that we really have little power to prevent these occurrences. Supposedly a number of people around this psychopath were afraid of what he might do, and referred him to counseling and to authorities. At first glance, people around him acted correctly in response to various warning signs. But only so much could be done, and it wasn't enough. We rely on some sense of sanity from our fellow man that stops us from doing what Cho did. When that is gone, when sheer malevolence and bloodlust find home in someone's heart, what are we to do? How can atrocities like what happened at Virginia Tech be prevented from occurring on our own campus? Usually these catastrophes are headed off, but other times they slip through, and all we can do is pick up the pieces, and mourn those lost to us forever in this world. But when we "pick up the pieces," we have one overriding but unspoken goal in mind: to restore faith in our own humanity. When we hear of what Cho did, we no longer believe in ourselves and in our species as inherently good, and we are compelled to respond. We cannot let Cho have the final word. That's why the politicians make their pronouncements of grief, why we write our columns, congregate for our vigils and join our Facebook groups that reach thousands of members before the first day is even over. The tragedy of Virginia Tech isn't a political debate, but a debate on the soul of humanity. No wonder we feel it so keenly. You lose, Cho. Humanity wins. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 19, 2007
By: Zach Kun Lin Han Posted: 4/19/07 The massacre at Virginia Tech gripped the nation the way Hollywood films always do. Except that it wasn't a film. The slayings were real, brutal and heartless. And while the gunman shot "randomly," it was also with an unmistakable precision. Death is always a surreal event. It marks the natural conclusion of a unique cycle, which, like birth, isgrotesque and beautiful in equal measure. Yet when death is inflicted by force, we can never speak of the unspeakable loss and can never express the torment a victim experienced during that brush with mortality. For some, it might be an endless eternity; for others, a fleetingly swift one. And for those who fell during that battle, through tributes and condolences we remember and commemorate the memories they left. During these times, we mourn and grieve with empathy for the victims. Our roles as part of the community become especially magnified, and our responses become a warning that such behavior of acting upon others is a behavior nobody tolerates. Nonetheless, where does the Virginia Tech massacre leave us? It is important to understand the reasons why the massacre occurred in the first place. Cho Seung-Hui has frequently been described by his peers as a socially isolated individual. Twice, his professors were shocked by the severity of the plays he composed, in which he described certain themes of revenge and bloodlust in graphic detail. And he acted as a result of societal disillusionment. The moral collapse of "what he considered the more privileged students on campus" was cited as the underlying motivation behind his actions. The signs were there, but it wasn't acted upon sufficiently enough, due to both external as well as internal factors. This shouldn't be a blame game about responsibilities, though. From a national perspective, the blame game about gun-possession merits reverberates even louder. It seems fatalistic to conclude that the event was an inevitable conclusion of a gun-toting policy, yet the tragedy was always a possible consequence of weapons possession. Others have questioned the long delay of immediate action being taken to identify the cause of the problem, which would have possibly allowed for more stringent security measures. More recent revelations have revealed that investigators were misled by a bad lead, hence the lag time of two hours between the first killings and the rest. Yet in a sprawling, large campus such as Virginia Tech, it would arguably have been difficult for instant prevention policies to be successfully implemented at such short notice, but action was still necessary. Moreover, Seung-Hui's nationality also meant that fears of future possible racial recriminations against the Korean and Asian community have been expressed. Yet it is foolhardy to shift the blame onto one race simply because of this incident. Emotions do not choose, irrespective of race or nationality. Violence, a frightening product born out of various factors, can overwhelm regardless of one's status, wealth or privilege. It is heartwarming though, to hear about the character and bravery displayed by those who acted selflessly in trying to protect their fellow brethren while in the knowledge that they might fall in the process: "Students said Professor Liviu Librescu had blocked the door to his classroom to prevent the gunman from entering." Professor Librescu fell, but for his courage he was anointed by President Bush as the first hero of the Virginia Tech massacre. And many of the victims were souls who never got to live longer than they deserved, and their actions are reminders that we all have the capacity to do good during the most crucial moments. The fundamental unity of this diverse nation is built on trust. And, while the gory Virginia Tech events have been appalling, it is during these times that we should all gather together as a people, and look toward solving what has become our challenge. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 19, 2007
By: Jenny Pedersen Posted: 4/18/07 Let's be honest: this isn't my original column. I was up late last night scribbling down something about "relationship people" and trying to finish a paper. Like most of us I didn't get enough sleep, I woke up late and barely rolled into lecture. In spite of the usual college stresses, I still managed to start smiling after my morning latte. However, all things changed once I read the morning news. In the state of Virginia, lattes are not enough to make anyone smile. I've been to Virginia; it's where my favorite high school history teacher grew up, and one of my best friends attends a college two hours north of Virginia Tech. The state was green, the people were friendly and I had an amazing fudge sundae at a place called Shoney's. Virginia Tech has been described as a quiet place where not much happens. It is an agricultural school in a small town similar to Davis and the school website shows pictures of students feeding large groups of mallard ducks just like the ones that patrol our own campus. We both have slightly ridiculous mascots - we're the UC Davis Aggies and they're the Virginia State Hokies. We have The California Aggie and they have The Collegiate Times. Much like us, students online discuss the lack of nightlife options in the mountain town of Blacksburg, Va. and jokingly point out that the town doubles in size when school is in session. Instead of an annual Picnic Day, in Virginia they host the International Street Fair each April. I imagine before yesterday Hokie students could easily have complained about bored Blacksburg cops breaking up their parties, citing them for noise violations and other such superfluous things, just like we were probably ecstatic about the start of spring because nobody knows what to do with themselves in a small town when it's cold. They're college students just like us in a community much like ours. They had no idea that this would change for them on any other Monday morning in April. The last time I checked, 32 people were killed; two outside of residence halls and 30 inside classrooms. The students of Virginia Tech experienced a violation of their safety in the worst way. They lost friends and faculty on their campus, in their classrooms, at their college, the place they go to gain skills for their future, to learn the tools that will help them for the rest of their lives. Education is what we hope will make the world a safer place; it is an institution we count on to protect us and our children from the likes of global warming and terrorism. The parents who lost children to the shooting probably thought there was no safer place in the world for their children to be than attending school in a small town in the United States. They weren't serving in Iraq, or living in "crime-ridden" big cities, and still they were not entirely safe. I'm not saying that we should all be paranoid and I have no suggestions for preventing school violence. What I am saying is that as fellow students we have a certain responsibility to the memory of those lost at Virginia State. If only for the rest of this week I want to acknowledge this responsibility and show appreciation for a campus that hasn't known fear or violence. I'm going to smile at strangers, students and staff because they are happy, healthy and here. I'm going to appreciate that the last time I talked to my mother it was to ask her about tax forms and not to tell her that I was injured in open fire. I'm going to appreciate that because I live and breathe, I have the luxury of fighting with my roommates and procrastinating on Facebook. Most importantly I'm appreciating the fact that it still only takes a latte to make me smile. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 18, 2007
UC Davis responds to Virginia Tech shootings
Officials discuss emergency notification systems By: Talia Kennedy Posted: 4/17/07 Editor's note: Monday's shootings at Virginia Tech marked the deadliest act of violence on a college campus in American history. Here, The California Aggie provides information on the shootings and responses from the UC Davis campus community. When an unidentified gunman entered the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University on Monday morning and opened gunfire, killing two students in a residence hall, the news instantly made national headlines - but the 25,000 students enrolled at the Blacksburg, Va. college were not notified of the incident until hours later, when dozens more had been injured or killed, reports said. At about 7:15 a.m. in Virginia, the gunman entered a residence hall on campus, fatally wounding two students. According to reports, the campus community was not notified of the incident because university officials believed it to be an isolated event. "We knew we had two people shot," said Wendell Flinchum, a Virigina Tech police officer, at a press conference Monday afternoon. "We secured the building. We secured the crime scene. We acted on the best information we had at the time." About two hours later, the gunman returned, this time to Norris Hall, an academic building on the opposite side of the campus. It was here where the gunman reportedly lined students up against a wall, shooting them all. By noon California time, 33 were confirmed dead and at least 22 were reported injured. The shooter, whose identity had not been determined by press time, was found dead among his victims, apparently due to a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, according to reports. In the hours after the shootings, universities across the country began showing their support for the Virginia Tech victims, including the University of California. In a statement released Monday, UC President Robert Dynes said, "Shock and horror only begin to describe our reactions at the University of California to the terrible events that have unfolded today at Virginia Tech. Our hearts go out to the families of those whose lives have been lost, and our prayers are with those who have been wounded physically and emotionally by today's campus shootings. "All of our campuses will be reviewing again their safety programs and procedures in light of today's events, and as we learn more about the specific circumstances of the Virginia Tech shootings, we will apply those lessons as well," he said. "We take these issues extremely seriously and will continue working to provide the safest possible environment for our students, faculty and staff." The Virginia Tech killings marked the deadliest act of violence on a college campus in U.S. history. In 1966, Charles Whitman shot 16 people from the 28th floor of a clock tower at the University of Texas before he was shot and killed by campus police. Eight years ago this Friday, two students shot 12 of their peers and one teacher before turning their guns on themselves at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. "Clearly, university campuses are not immune from the threats of violence that exist in our broader society," Dynes wrote in his statement, and that includes UC Davis. On Dec. 14, 2004, Martin Louie Castro Soriano, 26, who was seen loitering near the Regan Hall residence halls in Segundo, was reported as a suspicious person to the UC Davis Police Department. When three officers responded and attempted to calm Soriano with three Taser shots, he opened fire. The officers returned fire, shooting and killing Soriano, who died at the scene. It was later determined that the man had been under the influence of methamphetamine and marijuana at the time of the shooting, but his death was the first officer-involved shooting on the UC Davis campus. On Jan. 18, senior mathematics student Glenn Kirkpatrick was arrested by campus police after 9-1-1 callers reported seeing a man with a rifle in the Mathematical Sciences Building. Though Kirkpatrick's rifle was a rubber replica he used as a Reserve Officers' Training Corps student, the report prompted the lockdown of two campus buildings. Lisa Lapin, UC Davis' assistant vice chancellor for university communications, said UC Davis has a police force well-trained to respond to emergencies of any kind. "Our police are trained in rapid-response to exactly this kind of thing," she said. "Our police department is like any that would serve a city. That helps us respond to any kind of crisis. "However, we are pretty much an open, public campus," she said. Lapin said emergency plans are in place for UC Davis, but the campus' emergency notification systems are not yet efficient. Students at Virginia Tech were not notified by e-mail of the initial shootings on campus until hours after they took place. "We have a system that can dial all campus phone numbers, but it takes three hours," she said. "We can also send e-mails to everyone, but it also takes three hours." Lapin said UC Davis police officers would immediately evacuate students and other campus community members susceptible to a threat. She also said the university is in the process of obtaining a new emergency notification system that would be able to instantly send messages to cell phones, landline phones, Blackberrys and pagers. Lapin also said several UC Davis faculty members are connected to Virginia Tech. Mark McNamee, a former dean of what used to be the Division of Biological Sciences at UC Davis, left the university after 26 years of service to take a position as provost of Virginia Tech in 2001, she said. Michael Parella, an assistant dean in UC Davis' College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, is an alumnus of Virginia Tech. He was scheduled to accept an alumni award at the school this Friday, Lapin said, and Brad Fenwick, a former American Council on Education fellow at UC Davis, is currently the vice president for research at Virginia Tech. "Our hearts go out to [them]," she said. In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, some UC Davis students expressed varying reactions. "It doesn't really affect how I feel here," said sophomore managerial economics major McKenzie Bryan. "[It's] tragic, [but] it's very uncommon. I'm much more likely to die from a shark attack or lightning. "I really believe that if we did not have 'gun-free zones' or really strict gun control, there could have been people on that campus that could have stopped the shooter right after he got started, way before the SWAT teams got there," he said. "[But] no, I don't feel any more unsafe. Nothing's really changed." In a statement released to the entire UC Davis campus community, Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef reminded students to be aware of their environment. "Be sensitive to your surroundings and report any suspicions to the campus police department," he wrote. "Be familiar with campus policies related to emergency response. Bookmark the campus's homepage (ucdavis.edu), and emergency services webpage (ucdavis.edu/help/emergency_services.html), where breaking news related to emergencies on campus will be posted. With your help, we can best ensure the continued safety and wellbeing of all members of our campus community." Students who would like to discuss their reactions to the Virginia Tech shootings should contact UC Davis' Counseling and Psychological Services at 752-0871 or visit its office in 219 North Hall. Any suspicious activity on campus should be reported to the UC Davis Police Department by calling 9-1-1 from campus phones or 752-1230 from any phone. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 17, 2007
Program from April 16th Memorial Dedication, August 19, 2007
Front and back of the program for April 16th Memorial Dedication, August 19, 2007. The text on the program reads: "In the hours following the April 16 tragedy, the student-driven volunteer organization Hokies United placed 32 Hokie Stones on the Drillfield. The semi-circle of stones became a place to gather, to mourn, and to reflect, and the poignant display inspired today's memorial. As a community, we dedicate 32 engraved Hokie Stones in honor and in memory of the members of our Hokie family who lost their lives. Hokie Stone has long symbolized the foundation of Virginia Tech. Now, it also symbolizes our relentless spirit, our courage to move forward, and our determination never to forget."
By: George Henson, ghenson@smu.edu Posted: 4/26/07 No matter how much we try to make sense out of the horrific events of Monday, April 16, we can't. Last Wednesday, under the guise of news reporting, NBC pimped the "manifesto" and video that the Virginia Tech assassin FedEx-ed the network during the two-hour gap between the first and second shootings. "The Today Show" last Thursday morning hyped the same video footage, feigning that journalistic imperative outweighed tabloid sensationalism. For all intents and purposes, the morning infotainment show was co-hosted by a deranged murderer. It was journalistic pornography. Sideshow journalism. Capitalism. I don't know who's worse-them or us. The pornographers or those of us who consume their pornography. To their credit, the students of Virginia Tech ordered all media off their campus by Monday. The question still remains: do we really want to allow a for-profit infotainment corporation to be the voice of our national conscience? Throughout history, poets have given a voice to the tragic events that marked the time in which they lived. In 1865, Whitman's "When Lilacs Last in the Door-yard Bloom'd" gave voice to the assassination of President Lincoln. In 1922, the American modernist poet T.S. Eliot published "The Waste Land," gave voice to the chaos following World War I, the irrationality of modern society, the age-old theme of the universe in chaos. That's how many have felt during the last week. The first three lines of the first canto, "The Burial of the Dead," read, "April is the cruelest month, breeding / Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing / Memory and desire, stirring / Dull roots with spring rain." Those lines are especially poignant now - in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. If you've never read the poem, it's worth a read. Don't worry if you find the language difficult or the references obscure, let the imagery speak to you. You'll be surprised how much clarity - context - the poem will lend to the horrific murders. April, it turns out, has truly been a cruel month in our nation's history: On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumpter, South Carolina, igniting a civil war that tore apart the fabric of our country and killed over 600,000 Americans. Four years and two days later, on April 14, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theatre. In fact, when Eliot wrote that "April is the cruelest month," he was referencing, at least tangentially, the assassination of President Lincoln. Eliot understood the paradox of death in April, a month that normally symbolizes hope and the renewal of life. On April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tenn., Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. On April 19, 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed, killing 168 men, women and children. Two years earlier, to the day, the FBI siege of the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco resulted in the deaths of an estimated 79 people. Timothy McVeigh, who was executed for the Oklahoma City bombing, said that the Waco siege was a motive for the bombing. On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold slaughtered 12 students and one teacher and wounded 24 others at Columbine High School in a Denver suburb. Virginia Tech's assassin mentioned Columbine in his manifesto. President Bush, mourner-in-chief and master of platitudes, attended a memorial service on Tuesday at Virginia Tech - but not before reaffirming his belief in the "right to bear arms." I can't be the only person who sees the perverseness in his rush to defend the assassin's right to buy the guns that killed 32 innocent people. Amid the personal mourning, Bush and other Second-Amendment supporters want us to chalk up last week's mass killings to the inevitable price of democracy. What an absurd distortion of truth! What point have we reached when we allow a president to minimize the preventable deaths of 32 people by blithely reducing the events to "[t]hey were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time"? Spare us your absurdist reductionism. No, Mr. President, they were exactly where they were supposed to be - in class. Surely someone else sees the hypocrisy in the manufactured shock that a 23-year-old with a history of mental illness is allowed to buy two guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition that he uses to massacre 32 innocent people. Surely someone else sees the insanity in allowing someone - mentally ill or sane - to buy a 9mm Glock with the same ease and casualness with which a 10-year-old buys a Slurpee. It may be years before anyone is able to find meaning in the chaos of April 16. That meaning won't come from politicians or pundits. It will come from the next Eliot. Perhaps that will be you. Until then, all we can do is console ourselves, as Eliot wrote, with "the murmur of maternal lamentation." -- Original Source:SMU Daily Campus - April 24, 2007
"Norris, Mark William" <mnorris@mail.smu.edu>
Threat scrawled on desk chair found in Hyer Hall
By: Mark Norris, Editor In Chief, mnorris@smu.edu Posted: 4/25/07 A message scrawled on the back of a desk chair by an unknown person has prompted an investigation by SMU Police. The note says "I'm going to shoot up SMU on 8-06-07." The message was discovered Monday but was not reported to SMU Police until Tuesday morning. Authorities promptly responded, said Interim Police Chief Richard Shafer. "We have no leads and don't know who did it or why," Shafer said. The threat was discovered in Room 111 of Hyer Hall some time Monday. The professor of the class that meets there at that time reported the message to SMU Police. The message was written in pencil and still "looks fairly fresh," according to police. Shafer said the date of the threat is odd since classes are not in session at the time. The Summer II session is completed by then and the 2007-2008 school year has not begun yet. Police are looking at what classes meet in the room to determine if any names of interest appear on the class rosters. Shafer said the person who wrote the message probably has a warped sense of humor. "We don't think it's a viable or credible threat, but you never know," he said. The police investigation into the matter is still ongoing. This is the first threat made at the SMU community after the shootings at Virginia Tech. "Three weeks ago they probably wouldn't have thought about it," Shafer said. He said the police department is glad that the professor and students took the time to report the threat. He encouraged members of the SMU community to report anything they believe is suspicious. "Give us a call and someone will look into it," Shafer said. This story is exclusive to 'The Daily Campus.' Mention of this story by other media organizations must credit the paper. -- Original Source:SMU Daily Campus - April 25, 2007
By: Ben Briscoe, Contributing Writer, bbriscoe@smu.edu Posted: 4/25/07 First-year Weston Ashley went out to benches in front of his residence hall, Mary Hay, at 2 a.m. on the night of Oct. 12, 2006 to get his last nicotine fix before heading to bed, like he had done so many times before. But this night was different. As he sat alone in the cold air listening to The Killers on his iPod, a man Ashley had never seen before walked up to the four empty benches and sat down right beside him. "At first I didn't think anything of it," Ashley said. "He just asked me if he could buy a cigarette from me, and I said no and gave him one instead." The two then chatted for about 10 minutes about the lack of diversity at SMU before Ashley caught a glimpse out of the corner of his eye of something alarming. "I remember turning to him and sticking out of his big puffy jacket was a butcher knife," Ashley said. "I just pretty much froze. In my head I was like, 'Oh my God, I am gonna die.'" But Ashley's nerves calmed, and his instincts kicked in. He quickly told the man goodnight and then walked briskly, "hell almost running," to his room and called the police. About 20 minutes later police caught up with the man. He was holding another student by knifepoint outside of the Owen Fine Arts building. While the man was quickly taken to the Dallas County Jail, the memory still lingers in Ashley's mind. "Every once and a while I will think about it, and my heart will skip a couple of beats," he said. "You feel you're so safe because we live in this Highland Park bubble where everything is so nice and pretty and clean, but the truth is that we're not safer here than anywhere else. It's a hard thing to realize." That's exactly how Virginia Tech Wildlife Science major Danielle Kulas said she felt after the shootings last Monday. "I just remember thinking at first that April Fools Day had already gone by. I couldn't believe this was happening here," she said. "The part that really baffled me was when I found out the first shooting was in the dorm right next to mine." The reason Kulas said she had a hard time believing that the shootings were happening was because her dorms had seemed so safe until then. According to VT's police crime logs, fewer serious crimes (such as murder, sex offenses, robbery, assault, theft and arson) occurred in the Tech's residential facilities in 2005, the last year with data available, than SMU's residential facilities have had in the last three months. In the whole of 2005, there were seven forcible sex offenses, 11 burglaries and seven cases of arson for a total of 25 incidents at VT's dorms. Since Jan. 1, SMU's residential halls have been the site of five assaults, 20 thefts, one arson and three criminal trespasses for a total of 29. For Jeanie Goodson, mother of incoming first-year Caroline, it's those numbers and last Monday's event at Virginia Tech that are causing her to worry about her child living by herself in the fall. "I would not say I am petrified about sending my girl off to college, but after Virginia Tech, her safety next year has been on my mind a lot," Goodson said. "But you can't keep your child in a Zip-lock bag; the best thing I can do is to tell her to be careful and hope for the best." That's exactly the policy that Residence Life and Student Housing Director Doug Hallenbeck likes to stress. "It's a unique and difficult balance between safety and security and being more of a jail state," Hallenbeck said. "People don't want to live where RAs are going in daily to do room checks, so we have to balance that sense of home with a sense of security." To do that, the university utilizes two main methods: a card-swipe access restriction to residents only and a staff of residential advisers and professionals who keep an eye out for any abnormalities. For Ashley, these systems are good, but they aren't enough. "I think that really helps. But no matter how much we try to prevent crime, people are people and they will find a way," he said. "Just keep an eye out for anything strange. It's the best way to stay safe. I mean it saved my life and someday it might save yours." Since the Virginia Tech shooting, the university has taken new measures to improve the safety of the campus. On Friday, a campus-wide e-mail asked students to update their Emergency Contact information and add their cell phone numbers. In the event of an emergency, a voicemail will be left on cell phones, in addition to a bulk e-mail and Web site updates. General information about SMUs emergency procedures is available at http://www.smu.edu/newsinfo/preparedness/. -- Original Source:SMU Daily Campus - April 25, 2007
Korean feelings on Virginia Tech massacre
By: Hae Min Sung, Contributing Writer Posted: 4/24/07 There was a Virginia Tech Massacre. Everyone was horrified. The killer committed suicide in the end, but he had already killed 32 people. Whenever I turned on the television, I saw the killer's face, and I watched the video clips the killer sent to NBC. I am a Korean. And at some point, I wish that I could speak some Japanese or Chinese so that I wouldn 't have to admit it. That doesn't mean that I don't want to be a Korean or I hate my nationality. But for now, I really don't want to face. When I heard the killer was a Korean, I didn't want to believe it. Korea is a peaceful nation, and we don't do that kind of terrible thing, I thought. I didn't do it, but I am so ashamed as a Korean. He just ruined my country's name. There was a cherish ceremony in Los Angeles' Korea town right after the massacre was broadcasted. Some people say it's an overreaction that Korean people blame themselves, so much so that many Americans scoff at Koreans. Unlike America, Korea is a nation of collectivism. Nation, society and groups come first, then individuals. That is why people are ashamed themselves as parents, as students and as Koreans. It is not only the killer's problem, but also Koreans'. I don't know what to say to those victims' families and to Americans. I cannot say anything but "I'm sorry." Whenever people talk about the massacre, I really want to leave. Wherever I go, I feel like people see me in anger because I am Korean, even though I know that they really don't know whether I am or not. At some point, I am scared that people might hate me because I am a Korean. At another point, I am scared that people might hit me or say something because I am a Korean. I don't think that American people are that irrational to hit somebody only because they have the same nationality that killer has. But I am afraid because as a Korean, I am ashamed of myself. The killer said that the society made him like that and he didn't have any choice. He thought everyone hated him and treated him wrong, and he wouldn't run away from people and society anymore. I don't want to say something bad to a person who has the same nationality as I do. But the killer was a psycho, and his way to face "the enemy" was definitely wrong. Why are other people the enemy, and why does he think society is treating him wrong? What's he running from, and why does he have no choice but to kill people? What's wrong with this guy??!! I am so confused. I am so angry at him and feel so sorry for the victims, victims' family and everyone, but at the same time, I felt so bad for him as a Korean. If he were not a Korean, I think, I might not feel this confusion; instead I'd just blame the murderer and feel bad for people involved in the massacre. I wish that he were not a Korean. But he is; I cannot change that. I cannot change anything. I cannot do anything for the victims, their family and for people. I just can say I am so sorry. -- Original Source:SMU Daily Campus - April 24, 2007
The media are once again turning into the public's whipping boys By: The Daily Campus Ed Board Posted: 4/20/07 The nation is still focused on Blacksburg, Va. as all Americans honor the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings. But as the initial shock wears off, news organizations need to be weary of hyping a story that doesn't need the standard cable news sensationalism. This story has been sent across the globe since it occurred at the beginning of the week. People in Australia, London, India, South Korea and more are all discussing the matter. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun offered condolences to victims for a third time and, among the South Korean public, a sense of despair prevailed. "I and our people cannot contain our feelings of huge shock and grief," said President Roh Moo-hyun. "I pray for the souls of those killed and offer words of comfort from my heart for those injured, the bereaved families and the U.S. people." Hundreds left messages on the country's top Web site, Naver. "I'm too shameful that I'm a South Korean," wrote an Internet user identified only by the ID iknijmik. "As a South Korean, I feel apologetic to the Virginia Tech victims." Ed Board understands that the Koreans are apologizing for Seung-Hiu because they do not want any race-related retaliation to occur. Asian-American groups have released similar statements for the same reason. But this is an angle of the story not worth the time devoted to it. There have been no retributions and there is no need for the Korean peninsula to apologize for a killer. Seung-Hiu wasn't acting on behalf of his country, he was only carrying out his personal desires. Not to mention the flap about NBC's airing of the controversial video made by the killer. As (amateur) members of the media, we appreciate that the network has to walk a careful line between letting people know the whole truth and not offending its viewership. We know that many don't want to pay the killer attention. But we also know that the families who want to see the man who killed their children have a right to do so. We know that after an event like this, people have a driving desire to understand why. Even though there's never going to be a definitive answer, the media have an obligation to report on as much of what happened as possible. -- Original Source:SMU Daily Press - April 20, 2007
4/16: A product of psychology or gun control?
By:Adam Rizzieri Posted: 4/20/07 It is no mystery that the tragedy of April 16 at Virginia Tech stands out as the deadliest student-perpetrated school shooting in the history of the United States. It goes without saying that an immediate sense of shock spread across the nation as we learned of the tragedy unfolding from networks like CNN and Fox News. Among the 32 innocent lives that perished on a day that will be forever engraved into the memory of our nation was a Holocaust survivor, a few well-established professors and several bright minds who had a beautiful future stolen from them. With this tragedy, the debates about gun control and explicit video games and music are likely to re-emerge, just as they did after the events at Columbine and other instances where schools have fallen victim to this societal plague. Are guns too easy to obtain, and do violent music and video games truly desensitize people to the point where it's easy to take a human life? These are questions that have emerged in the past; however, in this case I feel that they are not what need to be asked. The shooter at Virginia Tech, Cho Seung-Hiu, was a 23-year-old who had a history of violence and irrational behavior. Before his murderous rampage, it should be noted that he was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital, was the subject of two police reports in 2005 for stalking, and was known among the Virginia Tech faculty as "intimidating." In fact, the chairman of the English Department, Dr. Lucinda Roy, took his dark poetry to campus police after his professor, Nikki Giovanni, expressed her intentions to quit if he wasn't removed from her class. Cho wasn't your typical student, and though I'm not a psychiatrist, I think it's safe to say that he didn't kill his peers because of music from Marilyn Manson or "shoot 'em up" video games. This kid was a product of psychology and his interpretation of personal grievances. It is very likely, and almost obvious, that he suffered from some type of antisocial personality disorder. If any of you have seen the video he mailed to NBC in between his first and second round of attacks, his rambling of anger toward rich kids and hedonism serves as a tool for analysis on his psychological state. Phrases like "you decided to spill my blood" and "you forced me into a corner" show that Cho likely felt powerless and believed murder was the solution to his grievances. After a collegiate history of dark poetry and disturbing writings, he likely began to fixate on murder as a solution to regaining control of his problems. Despite the possibility that he felt powerless or whatever else his grievances might have been, this guy is not the victim he thought he was. Metaphorically speaking, Cho was a "cry baby" that threw the worst temper tantrum imaginable. The accessibility to guns and violence that exists in some video games is not what took the lives of the 32 innocent people. It's not guns that kill people; rather, it's people who kill people with guns (and knives, ropes and bats). Cho had no felony convictions, and thus was allowed to legally purchase a 9 mm Glock five weeks before these terrible killings. The reason I say gun control is not an issue in this case is simple. A person who is determined to shoot someone will find a way to obtain a weapon legally or illegally. The law doesn't stop law-breakers from breaking the law; it simply affects those who abide it. That is, a criminal will continue to break the law while a law-abiding citizen will adhere to the constraint of law. Therefore, any change in gun control is irrelevant to criminals both present and future. So when left with this situation, what questions should be asked? Was this the result of a failure in parenting? Perhaps people ignored an obviously disturbed individual who could have been treated by a psychiatric professional. There is no justification for the taking of innocent lives, but perhaps as a community of scholars we should ask ourselves, do we ignore the weird, quiet kid in class? -- Original Source:SMU Daily Campus - April 20, 2007
By: Emily Sears, Contributing Writer, esears@smu.edu Posted: 4/19/07 Pat McDonald is an atheist. The junior anthropology major was raised Catholic but reconsidered his religion his freshman year at SMU when he became familiar with Zen Buddhism and atheism. "It surprised me because I never had considered atheism before. Atheism is a scary idea to me, because it seemed so dark and dreary," he said. McDonald represents only a small percentage of Americans today. A recent Newsweek poll shows that 91 percent of Americans believe in God, and of the nine percent who don't, only three percent consider themselves atheists. SMU, unsurprisingly, has about 20 religious or spiritual organizations on campus ranging from Christian to Hindu to Pagan. The university, associated with the Methodist church, turns to prayer in the face of tragedy. Students, faculty and staff united at Hughes-Trigg Student Center recently to pray for the victims of the Virginia Tech mass killings. Crosses were placed in the main quad in memory of the massacred victims. Dr. Jill DeTemple, an SMU professor of religious studies, says the number of Americans who believe in God does not surprise her. In fact, she thinks the percentage would increase if the poll had asked about belief in a higher power rather than God, which would then include many Buddhists and Hindus. "Technically Buddhism is an atheistic religion," she said. DeTemple says it's becoming popular again to be religious. In the '50s it was expected, in the '70s it was unpopular, and now, she says, it's once again the norm. "I do think religion has a more public place than it did a few years ago," she said. DeTemple said openly religious political leaders became popular with Jimmy Carter. "Since then we've expected public leaders to be religious." Emily Worland, a Roman Catholic and SMU sophomore economics major, says her religion has an impact on her political views. "Through Catholicism I believe that everyone is equal, so I follow liberal principles," she said. A political candidate's religion matters to the voting public, according to the poll. It showed that 68 percent of Americans believe a person can be an atheist and a moral person, but only 29 percent would vote for a candidate who publicly claimed he or she was an atheist. "I think morality is more of a social norm than a religious following," Worland said. But President George W. Bush's religious beliefs - he is a devout Christian - can't save him from disapproval. According to the Newsweek poll, only 28 percent of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country. Sixty-six percent are unsatisfied and six percent don't know. Christian Daw, an SMU English major, thinks many people believe in God because of the culture Americans live in. "I feel a lot of people equate God and love and goodness, and they think that if they believe in goodness and what is right, then they believe in God." He said his parents have this mentality, but their beliefs don't impact their daily lives. But Daw, a senior, is a practicing Christian, and his beliefs do influence his daily life. "I think in order to lead the most fulfilling life, God needs to be a part of your everyday decisions," he said. It seems many people turn to science to prove or disprove the existence of God. In "God: The Failed Hypothesis," author and physicist Victor J. Stenger used the existence of God as a hypothesis, putting the idea through a series of scientific studies. He eventually determined that God does not exist and the belief has actually made humankind worse off. "The certainty and exclusiveness of the major monotheisms make tolerances of differences very difficult to achieve, and these differences are the major source of conflict," he wrote. Lee Strobel, a graduate of Yale Law School and former legal affairs editor of the Chicago Tribune, also set out on an investigation to disprove God and the belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. His findings, chronicled in his book "The Case for Christ," changed him from an atheist to a pastor. He used eyewitness, documentary, scientific, psychological and even fingerprint evidence in his research. "The atheism I had embraced for so long buckled under the weight of historical truth," Strobel wrote. McDonald, the atheist, says he is waiting for proof of God, and he's open to the possibility of God's existence. He also understands why people are religious - it gives life meaning and in his view prevents social chaos. "This world can seem very boring, and it feels good to believe in God. It helps make every problem into a challenge, every ordeal into a test," he said. -- Original Source:SMU Daily Campus - April 19, 2007