VT Hypersensivity, and the Reluctance to Face an Unplesant Truth

BOSTON, sometime around 23 April:

An adjunct professor was fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said, "Pow."

Okay, right up front, I think this guy has been really, really screwed over by an overzealous, ridiculously and blindly hypersensitive school administration, a group focused more on themselves than truth, and I hope he sues the living shit out of these corporate, close-minded idiots. That being said, I really don't think pointing an icon for a weapon at students and going "pow," just a few days after the event, even in a free-flowing and adult discussion, was a wise move. But not so unwise that you should lose your livelihood.

The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.

How do you even begin to discuss all three of these things in five minutes? That's patently absurd to begin with. You can't even set the stage for a discussion of gun control in five minutes, let alone have a meaningful discussion of the political, cultural, social and economic forces at play in the immensely sensitive minefield that is US gun control? So, even with this tiny bit of information, the university's decision to terminate this instructor becomes so much more thin.

And, responding to violence with violence? Well, yeah, there are a multitude of responses to that, and endless discussion that could go on and on. Of course, the real question here is: how many VT victims were murdered pleading, praying for mercy, hoping they didn't get found? Everyone responds to crisis in their own way, but the last thing in the world that will ever happen to me is to stand--more correctly, kneel--before an executioner and beg for my life. That psycho may well shoot me down, but he's going to do that with my hands around his throat, charging at him wielding a chair or a phone or a ballpoint pen, anything that I can use to defend myself and attempt to save my own life, and even those of others. In a situation like this one, waiting and hoping and praying is not the way out--direct, immediate, and decisive action is the way to fight back and take charge of your fate. There is no information on this, but I sincerely hope that the numbers of those murdered at VT without a fight is not high.

And the celebration of victimhood. I could not agree more. It shouldn't be about support for those who were murdered, more correctly support for those close to and left behind as a result of the murders, shattered and forever changed by the lightning-fast capriciousness and unblinking cruelty of life. Instead, it's about a pathetic national culture, a pathetic, clinging national need to be a part of something, to take part, to be involved. At its very core, it's not about the victims and their loved one(s), but about the individual mourners, strangers all, about them and what they're doing. It's the morons who cried for days when Diana was killed (if she'd been home with her children, it would not have happened). It's the idiots in Oklahoma getting coverage of their candlelight vigil, with the banner of their social organization or high school band prominent in the shot, and in the sad, sorrowful, tearful statement by their official representative. It's about everyone in the country buying every bit of VT merchandise they can get their hands on so they can wear it to work the next day--to make what statement again? It's about the moronic middle school poem written by some truly innocent, well-meaning kid that then gets forwarded to 4500 people in the recreational soccer league. It's about the Blacksburg firefighters who showed up to the VT convocation in full fire turnout, to support a firefighter colleague and VT student--completely uninvolved in the shooting--who was upset about what had happened. It's about truly absolutely meaningless public altars piled with teddy bears and candles and balloons in New York or New Mexico, Tierra del Fuego, or (insert your location here).

During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

Again, the shooting demonstration doesn't seem wise. It can be considered tacky, sure, but given the hypersensitivity surrounding the entire issue, this just wasn't a smart thing to do. I would not have done this.

But, had "another student been armed . . ." That's dangerous territory. No, guns shouldn't be on a college campus, in an academic building, in the classroom, period. I own numerous firearms, have a license to carry a concealed weapon (and do), and I believe very solidly in my Constitutional right to acquire and bear arms, but let's be reasonable here, folks. No, more guns in the hands of college students is not the right idea, not at all. Just like giving airline pilots pistols also has never been and remains not the right idea.

But, defending yourself in the face of an attack where the stakes are life or death? You betcha. What the professor apparently was getting at, and maybe the student, too, was that you've gotta assess, decide, and act. YOU, not those you are hoping will come and save your heinie. Just like we were taught so painfully by 9/11 and Katrina, the government is top-heavy, bureaucratic, formalistic, and relies on deliberate processes to act on anything, large or small. If a psycho is executing everyone he sees in the room next door, and 27 seconds later in the hallway outside your room, your situation is real RIGHT NOW, not 30 or 40 minutes later when SWAT arrives, sets up their cordon, coordinates with campus police, and makes an initial assessment of the situation (hell, apparently they couldn't even get past the chained front doors). By that time, the entire event is over and done, with nothing left to do but make identifications and treat the wounded. If you're in the building and you are the one who has chosen to and done something, you might be alive. If you've waited for help and hoped and prayed, then I would think your chances would be much, much less good.

The folks on 9/11 Flight 93 assessed, decided, and then acted. They lost, sure, but the also stopped the original plan, and gave themselves a chance. They did not die on their knees, and made themselves heroes--not victims--in the process.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.

He said administrators had asked the faculty to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.

So, the school asks instructors to engage their students on the tragedy? Yes, I agree, that's a healthy thing to do. And they don't give guidance on what to say and not to say? They don't quickly huddle and give the instructing staff coordinated talking points, and the things to completely avoid? And then they fire the guy for executing their directive, without any leadership guidance? That's just, once again, shockingly incompetent management blaming the subordinate for their own glaring failure.

And, they order him off campus immediately, to make sure he can't talk to anyone, hold a press conference in front of a campus building, engage any of his department, faculty or college leadership in a discussion of why they've decided to fire him. Sadly predictable.

Winset, 37, argued that the Catholic liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with the prof here. They asked him to discuss it, and he did. And he treated his students like the adults that they are, and the school came down on him for it.

The college issued a statement saying: "Emmanuel College has clear standards of classroom and campus conduct, and does not in any way condone the use of discriminatory or obscene language."

That's their response? "Discrimanatory and obscene," that's their response? Well, given the apparent complete and total lack of any kind of prior thought in their instruction to professors to speak with their students about the tragedy, this is fully consistent, at least. What part of discussing gun control is discrimanatory and obscene? What part of the philosophical debate on fighting violence with violence is discrimanatory and obscene? Apparently no one was excluded from the discussion. And what part of examining the culture of victimhood is disrimanatory and obscene? Sure, you can take offense at someone who is questioning your motives and sincerity when you erect an altar 2500 miles away from a highly public tragedy. You can deny it and say that we/I don't understand. But that's neither discrimanatory nor obscene, not unless you raise your rhetoric--typical--to the ridiculous of level of hyperbole, up there with people equating parking violations and tax cuts to the Holocaust and Hitler, conflating the most minor issues with the most major and most infamous.

Nowhere in any of the reporting have I see has this professor denigrated the victims. He did not say they deserved it (of course, none did). He did not praise the murderer. He did not trivialize the event or its implications. He did not make light of the tragedy. None of that would be appropriate, and I would say that any of this would be grounds for immediate and very serious administrative actions at the school. But that isn't what happened. In fact, he was taking the entire situation just as seriously as one should. And for this his incompetent leadership has reacted by turning on him.

Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive.

And there you go, the thing I was looking for. Treat young people like adults, and they will act like adults. You may not agree with the subject and its discussion, but that means you don't take part, you walk out, or you engage in rational, adult debate with the other side to outline, describe and defend your position. That's what rational, adult discussion is all about (not applicable to Rush, O'Reilly, etc.).

This is just the college's immediate, knee-jerk reaction to their own failures, and to what could be a public opinion that might go against them. For the college, it's fears of loss of alumni donations, endowment drops, less applicants, maybe we'll have to put off the new field house for 18 months. It's about commerce, the business of post-secondary education. And sadly, it's not about the tradition of truly open and free speech in college, about identifying and exploring the usually off-limits discussions, where young and old can actually learn something, instead of having it crammed down their throat by parents, the media, and everyone else that conspires to control minds, media, and the message.

I hope Mr. Winset sues the living hell out of this incompetent college. Send me a note, professor, and I'll write you a $100 check for your legal costs.