In his Viewpoint, "Seung-Hui is not a victim" (April 24), author Dan Patack seemed to be implying that the only possible explanation for the Virginia Tech shootings was a singular case of irremediable insanity. Although Mr. Patack has put in appreciable effort to discredit the argument set forth in "A plea in remembrance" (April 19), his writing is driven by anger and indignation rather than by a constructive desire to effect positive change.
Cho's life and the massacre that he caused raise many questions, and it is important that we acknowledge them and attempt to respond to them. In searching for the answers, we may begin to discover what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again.
First of all, it is not my position, nor that of anyone else, to excuse Seung-Hui Cho for his actions or to punish him for them. But we cripple society's efforts to learn from this unfortunate tragedy by writing off Cho as an evil maniac, an aberration that should never have been born. Categorizing Cho as a victim does not imply that he is not to be held responsible for his actions. He is of course responsible for his actions, but merely condemning the man and not the actions does not lead to any productive measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Calling Seung-Hui Cho a victim is not merely a comment on his death, but also on his life. Why was his mental health not addressed more carefully? Why did Cho apparently never receive his court-mandated outpatient counseling? Why was he declared "mentally sound" and allowed to buy a firearm after those around him suspected him of suicidal tendencies? Are these not incidences of victimization?
Patack claims that Seung-Hui Cho has been portrayed as a martyr, but it is quite evident that the true martyrs in this story are those who died, especially Professor Librescu, who gave his life out of compassion and love. Do we not owe it at least to his memory to carry on the values he lived and died for?
Seung-Hui Cho died in the name of rage, hatred and revenge, and the best way to turn him into a martyr is to carry that legacy of negativity forward. Martyrdom is, in essence, dying for a cause, and only if we further that cause will we accept Cho as a martyr. So instead, why should we not make the others who died martyrs? Why should we not push for positive change for the sake of the other 32 and their families? The outpouring of hatred, vengeance and fury does not speak well to the humanity left in us. We should ensure that we take home the right lessons from this horrific incident, and do our utmost not to let it happen again.
Not everyone who is rejected and dehumanized ends up like Cho, but most people who commit this type of monstrous inhumanity do have a history of rejection and being outcast. We know that he was mentally disturbed and that he had a past filled with isolation and loneliness, whether it was of his own doing or imposed upon him. In combination with any possibly pre-existing mental condition, this precipitated the reaction that we saw unfold at Virginia Tech.
Given that we may not be able to cure a mental condition, kindness and compassion might be the only way to reach someone who is mentally ill. Also, more acceptance and tolerance for someone like Cho might have gotten him the necessary medical care sooner, rather than the attempts to push him away or shut him out.
Gun control is another important issue that should not be dismissed. However, gun control is not a complete solution. I agree with Mr. Patack that Cho should not have been allowed to buy an automatic firearm. More stringent regulations are undoubtedly needed; the regulations that do exist already should be followed more carefully.
However I think it is parochial to say that this alone will solve the problem at hand. Someone with Cho's intentions will find a gun, and if not a gun, plastic explosives. An individual with the intent to kill will kill. Perhaps one would make the argument that without access to an automatic weapon, Cho's victims would have numbered less. But I suggest to you that even if only one life was lost, the family and friends of that one victim would not be comforted by that thought.
Mr. Patack also claims that "A plea for remembrance" was not written in a true spirit of remembrance. To this I respond that remembrance does not consist only of mourning and shedding tears, but also of instigating social change in the memory of those who died.
I agree with Mr. Patack in many of his arguments, if not with the manner in which he presented them. But he unfortunately - and wrongly - assumes that this incident was an anomaly, that Seung-Hui Cho was the kind of person that does not crop up very often, and probably will not appear again, except in our worst nightmares.
Unfortunately, people like Seung-Hui Cho are not as uncommon as one would hope. Incidents like the Virginia Tech shootings will undoubtedly take place again. We cannot say where, we cannot say when, and we cannot say how. We do not know how many will give their lives this time. We do not know if there will be another hero like Professor Librescu who will give his life to save others.
But what we do know is that it is our duty and responsibility to do everything in our power to prevent it from happening again. If we do not address our culture and our society more critically, it will only become more horrific. Yes, we must put in place tighter gun control, and yes, we must be more careful in our monitoring of psychiatric care. But we must not make the mistake of thinking that is enough.
Why is it "unimaginable" to push for a deeper societal change? Do we really believe that our society is incorrigible enough to make a paradigm shift in attitude an irrelevant and foolish endeavor? Pessimism is a luxury our society can no longer afford.
In the end, the only way to truly address a problem like this is to attack it at its roots - in the minds of our young people. Any other measure will only fall short.
Nivedita Gunturi (LA '06) is currently a first year medical student at Sri Ramachandra University in Chennai, India.
