Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher

Beyond the
Virginia Tech tragedy

The university has always been a very special place. The “best and brightest” can remove themselves from the mundane affairs of the world and focus their intellects on advancing civilization. Conflicts are usually limited to heated debate on the scholarly issues of the day.

This idyllic image of academe was so strong that most people had forgotten the day in the summer of 1966 when Charles Whitman climbed to the top of the 307-foot Tower of the University of Texas and proceeded to kill 15 students and faculty and wound 31 others before he was shot dead by police.

On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho once again violated the peace of the university when he killed 32 persons at Virginia Tech. Now people fear that the world of academia is probably as unsafe as many other places in America.

Thoughtful people have to be concerned about what in the nation’s culture induces young men to go on a shooting rampage. In Columbine, Colo., Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, two high school students, shot to death 12 classmates and a teacher and wounded 31 others on April 20, 1999. Apparently, homicidal malaise can strike at an even younger age than the college years.

A facile explanation is that the shooters are insane. That might well be true, but it is frightening to think that there is a special predilection for those afflicted with dementia to become homicidal. One could effectively argue that anyone who takes the life of another, except under extreme provocation, is insane.

It is no comfort that gun homicides in the United States are not the highest in the world. The death rate from homicides per 1,000,000 people is five times higher in Brazil, but the rate of 41 for every 1 million people in America is still substantial, and is 137 times higher than the rate in Japan, England and Wales.

One explanation for the disparity is that the ready availability of firearms in the United States enables the homicidal to acquire the capacity for mass murder. Another explanation is that an element of the American culture drives some citizens to homicidal madness. Indeed, a number of other explanations have been suggested.

Experts on youth violence have already begun to investigate the circumstances of the Virginia Tech massacre. Perhaps they will discover some information that will be helpful in curbing Boston’s murder rate.

In 1990, there were 152 murders in Boston. Most of the victims were black youth. It is assumed that most of the perpetrators were also from the same group. Most of the murders were never solved. With a dynamic effort from the Nation of Islam, the murder rate dropped to 31 in 1999. There is considerable concern now because homicides have climbed from 31 in 1999 to a 10-year high of 75 in 2005. The trend continued last year with 74 homicides.

Were guns less available in 1999? Were fewer black youth afflicted with homicidal insanity? Or are there other significant societal factors which the experts have not yet accurately identified? A sensible approach for reducing the murder rate in Boston would be to examine accurately the factors that were effective between 1990 and 1999, then replicate them.

Some would assert that a murder rate of around 75 per year is acceptable, considering it was roughly twice that in 1990. But for families struggling to survive in the black community, that is not an acceptable conclusion. Nor is it acceptable for the sanctity of academia to be disrupted by massacres, even if they happen only every 40 years.

America must find a way to transmute the cultural reliance on violence as a solution to personal problems.

Headline2

“Seems like no place is safe nowadays.”