lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE

Column Archive

 

 

 

VIRGINIA GAZETTE

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA

After a horrific slaughter

 

 

 

April 25, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President Bush’s sanguineness notwithstanding, college campuses are not sanctuaries of security where nothing but high level intellectual maneuvers transpire. Never have been; never will be.

 

Yet, immediately after Seung-Hui Cho went on his slaughter binge at Virginia Tech, the media were awash in the fine art of grammatical contrary-to-fact punditry: They should have done this. They shouldn’t have done that. Why didn’t 26,000 students know immediately that they were in danger?  Who’s at fault?  

 

Well, folks, I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t work that way on college campuses. You can install state-of-the-art security and communications systems until the next tsunami hits, and you’re still not going to prevent a student gone mentally haywire from wreaking havoc.

 

Part of the problem is the concept of campus itself. The very idea that a walled-off bailiwick of dormitories and classroom buildings constitutes a natural social environment is psychologically bizarre. Add the fact that many of these islands of enclosure are situated in small towns like Blacksburg or Williamsburg, and you’re really asking for trouble.

As Tech computer science professor Roger Ehrich noted, ”What makes this university unusual is that it’s a social island far from the urban atmosphere of most major colleges.” And that’s fine, as long as you think that social and cultural segregation is normal. 

 

Consider too the type of people being thrown together in close-quarter living arrangements and forbidding classrooms. For the most part they are socially immature young adults tossed into a great mixing bowl with other socially immature young adults. Raging hormones abet a constant socialization process. Yet they’re being asked to handle all that and pass French 101 too. Little wonder that Plato advised that higher education not kick in until age 30.

 

According to one recent study, more than half of college students are clinically depressed, and nine percent have considered suicide. Colleges are constantly battling the abuse of alcohol and drugs. 

 

Away from home and lacking the type of cultural and social outlets that a more urban environment might offer, students turn to selective organizations like fraternities and sororities to provide a sense of belonging and the security associated with the in-crowd. Though college administrations extol diversity, the fact is that minorities tend to form their own cliques and interact primarily within their own groups.

 

Yet, while group inclusion fosters a certain degree of mental and emotional security for some, the exclusionary nature of such a system can often lead to devastating results.

 

I have counseled all too many students whose academic performance has hit the skids as a result of being rejected by fraternities or sororities, battling with roommates or simply being on the fringe of a social structure fostered by the tight-knittedness of a small-town campus environment. Some agreed to seek help from our psychological counseling service. Others simply went home, never to return. 

 

A seemingly serene campus can thus be an extremely cruel milieu for students who are unable to adapt to the rigors of social norms as defined by those who have mapped out the turns it takes to make your way through the labyrinth of four years of college.

 

While I am no apologist for Cho, I can, I think, surmise the origins of his motivations. Incessant bullying for and the exclusion that derives from strange speech patterns, minority status, low economic class, sexual orientation, devotion to academics, aversion to sports or simply being “different” in terms of social preferences place immense psychological pressures on loners and outcasts in their late teens or early twenties.

 

Where the breaking point occurs for most of these individuals is hard to predict, though the warning signs were certainly prevalent enough in the case of Cho to cause at least two of his professors to raise a red flag.

 

Having been there myself, and having had my life threatened by disgruntled students on at least two occasions, I can understand the position in which these Tech professors found themselves.

 

Federal and state laws are of little help. They prohibit authorities from forcing a troubled student to seek psychological counseling. Nor can counselors report mental illness to parents if a student is 18 or older without his or her consent. While students can be sent home if they contract communicable diseases, they cannot be removed from campus because of mental illness unless they have committed a threatening act. 

 

If anything positive is to come out of the recent horror at Virginia Tech, it should be a thorough discussion of how we treat mental illness on our campuses. In addition, there should be an immediate relaxation of the laws that so minimize the options for professors and campus administrators dealing with troubled students.

 

While the fact that someone like Cho was able to buy a handgun and a semiautomatic weapon when a judge had earlier declared him mentally incompetent is an issue that begs  clarification, it is, in the final analysis, tangential to the real cause for his homocidal rebellion. 

 

Make no mistake about it. There are other Chos out there. But until we deal with the incentives for their withdrawal, their anger and their delusional decisions, changing gun laws or upgrading security and communications systems will be tantamount to spitting in the wind.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lewleadbeater.com  Copyright 2002  All Rights Reserved    email: LWL@lewleadbeater.com