No matter how hard we may try, some things are simply not preventable. We can take supplements and frequently wash our hands and still get sick. Likewise, mass murders tend to make their way into news headlines all too frequently.
Although we would like to think that there is something that can be done to prevent these incidents, the fact that they still occur is evidence that cruel intentions will find a way around protective barriers. Thus, regardless of one's stance on gun control, using a national headline to reactively further an agenda has many potential problems. The Tucson, Arizona shooting earlier this month involving Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ) is a prime example of how this should not be the time to discuss gun control. Although this may seem counterintuitive - especially to those in favor of stricter laws - most attempts at honest compromise become finger-pointing banter and end up increasing polarization. On the other hand, the exact opposite might occur if everyone is so caught up in the moment that the event might unite enough people to the point where the response oversteps certain boundaries. The latter is not likely to occur with controversial issues like gun rights, but has been witnessed in the recent past, specifically the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, everyone in the United States seemed to identify herself first as an American and then as her gender, race, age, religion, etc. That tragedy created a sense of unity, but produced a by-product feeling of "us against the world." Consequently, the United States went to war with Iraq backed by overwhelming Congressional support and a sky-high presidential approval rating, fighting for our "freedom fries" even after our allies deserted us. It was only later that we began to question the war, but at the moment we were blinded by our patriotism, fear, vengeance or anything that we and our fellow victims were able to agree on. The lesson we should have learned from this is to let cooler heads prevail. This same lesson can be applied to the Tucson shooting.
In the case of controversial issues, using our emotions to guide us will only lead to polarized viewpoints. One group will hastily point fingers at the other, causing the other to point back defensively. This has already been the case with the Tucson shooting, but there are so many more groups because one of the victims was a politician. Many have called out Sarah Palin's use of a map with cross hairs, one of which was over Gifford's district, thus prompting Palin release a video response in which she diverts the blame back on journalists and pundits who are furthering this "blood libel." Those in favor of stricter gun laws are blaming the National Rifle Association for their lackadaisical concern for gun safety and many gun owners have suggested that an armed citizen could have actually prevented the impact of the shooting. Maybe everyone is to blame - or maybe no one is to blame - but it is clear that this finger pointing does little to help us understand why Jared Lee Loughner allegedly shot and killed so many, and does little to help us prevent something similar from happening in the future.
Although placing blame is impractical and does nothing to alleviate the underlying problems, it is comforting and will likely be a mainstay for national issues. We would like to believe that we had no fault in the shooting or that the shooter was so evil or crazy that he was just an extremely rare bad apple. To get beyond coping and into prevention, we have to take a look at some successful models.
National figures will probably overlook what the University has done in response to the Yeardley Love incident, but our community is still living it. I was a critic of Day of Dialogue because I thought that too much administrative involvement would give students a false sense of security and downplay their role in their personal safety. The aftermath, however, has brought about some very solid changes that we should apply to future issues. The first was that the community brought closure to the event by largely bypassing blame and uniting in a vigil in Love's honor. The second was that the administration did not rush into any actions but instead chose to listen to outside voices, which was what Day of Dialogue accomplished. The third was the administration actually seemed to incorporate these concerns into its decisions; student self-reporting of crimes last semester was a balance between safety and privacy.
The Tucson shooting is much more complicated than Love's alleged murder, but the basic model of mourn, listen and respond that is succeeding for the University is being ignored. Leave the job of placing the blame to the district attorney.
Hung Vu's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.vu@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 22 hours agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 2 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
