Views on Virginia Tech
I take great issue with Alexandra LeBraun's letter to the editor regarding the Virginia Tech shooting and the "Progressive Paulitics" column. It is rather sad and indeed disturbing that she misses the point so blatantly - that there is always something that we can do.
While responsibility doesn't boil down to any single person or organization in Cho's case, it certainly lies somewhere in the midst of a system that knew he was acting strangely, was mentally unstable, and had purchased firearms. I don't claim to know if it's a gun control issue, a mental health services issue, a privacy law issue or an inter-agency communication issue, or if it was simply not enough attention being paid to him by those around him. But there was a series of events (or non-events) in play that somehow combined to let the massacre play out like it did.
LeBraun's letter is symptomatic of some of the largest problems of our society, I believe. By simply saying we couldn't do anything, we didn't know, we pass over the situation without constructive reaction and analysis, and go about our merry way. As E.J. Dionne pointed out in a recent Washington Post column, after we had someone try to blow up a plane with their shoes, we made people take their shoes off. When someone tried to blow one up with liquid, we banned those on flights. And as more and more is known and understood about radical Islam and political and economic marginalization, we are finally seeking ways as to how to avoid terrorism (maybe stopping the bombing we be a good first step). The questions of "Why are they motivated to do this?" and "How did our system let this happen?" are the two most important to ask.
The absolutely worst thing we could do is take LeBraun's attitude and put it into play as a viable option in responding to this crisis. There is no greater disrespect we can pay to the victims and their families than to take the attitude that there was "no excuse for Cho's actions and the responsibility and blame lie with him and him alone." That sentence - not any of Perry's - is the abhorrent part.
David Schneider
Senior, SIS
Professor Fay
This September, some SIS professors were informed that they had been named in a letter, which charged that they had an anti-Israel bias and were anti-Semitic. They were not allowed to see the letter, but they were read portions that mentioned them, portions which included quotes from students.
In total, the letter named 12 or 13 professors and claimed they are biased. Of the professors named, all of them were tenured except for one, Mary Ann Fay, a sociology professor in the College of Arts and Sciences. This year, she was informed that her contract was not being renewed, despite endorsements from Rank and Tenure Committee in the Sociology Department and the Chair of the Sociology Department.
Is the fact that she is not being rehired, despite endorsements from her department, because of the letter? We don't know, and neither does she, because she was never allowed to see the letter. She heard that she was on it, and asked for details from the dean of CAS, who confirmed that she was named in the letter. None of the professors named in the letter know who wrote the letter. They also don't know what demands were made in the letter. They don't know if the letter was included in their personnel file, or, in the case of Professor Fay, if it was active in the decision to not renew her contract.
And that's the point. Where is the transparency? Didn't this school just learn the danger of secrecy? Didn't this school community decide that students and professors should be able to know how decisions are being made, so that they can hold their administration accountable?
At an AU "town hall meeting" on Thursday, Interim President Neil Kerwin said he knew about the letter in question but he would never let a letter from the outside community affect decisions about academics.
Which begs the question: If outside letters have no influence on academics on this campus, then why was the letter circulated from the president to the deans, and why was the letter treated with such gravity that SIS professors were informed by the dean that they were on the letter?
We need to see this letter in its entirety in order to determine if professor Fay was fired for political reasons.
Rachel Wood
Senior, SIS
For more Letters to the Editor, see The Eagle's Web site at
www.theeagleonline.com.
