I'm still developing this idea, so tell me what you think. It seems to me that Cho Seung Hui's success as a killer at Virginia Tech is the direct result of our culture of "tolerance". Reading the WaPo profile reveals a whole host of sociopathic behaviors that everyone around him recognized but failed to act on because of our society's profound adoration of inclusion and tolerance. All the indicators below should have pushed Cho out of the embrace of society, but instead they were tolerated as "different" but equally valid.
"He never spoke a word," Kim said. "Even when the professor asked questions, he never spoke. He constantly looked physically and emotionally down, like he was depressed. I had a strong feeling to talk to him on the first day of class, but I didn't get to talk to him because he sat right beside the door, and as soon as class was over, he left."For Kim, one detail stood out. The classroom was rectangular. The class was split in half, with one half facing the other. "I always sat directly across, looking directly at him," Kim said. "He never looked up." ...
Charlotte Peterson, a former Virginia Tech student, said she shared a British literature class with Cho in 2005. On the first day, when the instructor asked students to write their names on a sheet of paper and hand it up, Cho wrote a question mark.
"Even the teacher laughed at him," Peterson said. "Nobody understood him." ...
"He would keep his headphones on a lot," she said. "I remember one instance where the teacher had addressed a question to him and he really just stared off into space. He didn't even recall acknowledging that she was talking to him. We were like, 'What are you doing?' The teacher said, 'Will you please see me after class?' and he still didn't even acknowledge her. It was an awkward silence, and then she went back to lecturing." ...
One of Cho's suitemates in Harper Hall said the killer began the day looking like he had every other day since moving in. Karan Grewal said Cho's face was blank and expressionless. "He didn't have a look of disgust or anger," Grewal said. "He never did. There was always just one look on his face."
In August, when Grewal, Cho and four others moved in, Cho's suitemates tried to talk to him but never got a word in return.
"My impression was that he's shy," said Grewal, 21, a senior accounting major who lived in a room across the hall. "He never looked anyone in the eye. If you even say hi, he'd keep walking straight past you."
The six students lived two to a room in a three-bedroom, one-bathroom suite. The others never saw Cho with any women or friends. He would turn his head away to avoid conversation.
In any natural -- uncivilized -- setting, a group of animals with a member like this would quickly cast him out or kill him. Instead, because of our "over-civilization", most of the people who encountered Cho and got bad vibes just decided he was a little strange and that they should mind their own business. One professor tried to follow her instincts, but was shot down by the forces of civilization.
[Professor Lucinda] Roy said she warned school officials. "I was determined that people were going to take notice," Roy said. "I felt I'd said to so many people, 'Please, will you look at this young man?' "Roy, now the alumni distinguished professor of English and co-director of the creative writing program, said university officials were responsive and sympathetic to her warnings but indicated that because Cho had made no direct threats, there was little they could do.
"I don't want to be accusatory or blaming other people," Roy said. "I do just want to say, though, it's such a shame if people don't listen very carefully and if the law constricts them so that they can't do what is best for the student."
Not only best for the student, but best for the civilization, too. I'm not sure what the solution is, but in this case all the warning signs were seen and ignored because our society so highly values inclusion and abhors "judgment". If we choose to continue in this manner, then occasional rampages by the psychopaths in our midst are the price we'll have to pay. Maybe that's better than the uncivilized alternative.
Update:
Clayton Cramer explains how our treatment of mentally ill people has changed over the past decades.
Here's more behavior that shouldn't have been tolerated by society.
Cho Seung-Hui was evaluated by mental health professionals after female students complained to police about him and his parents became afraid he was suicidal.Virginia Tech police chief Wendell Flincham confirmed moments ago that Cho Seung-Hui had targeted two female students in November and December of 2005.
He made contact with the first woman through phone calls and in person. Though she complained to police, she later declined to press charges, referring to Cho's attentions as "annoying".
The matter was then handled within the university, outside the scope of police. ...
Teachers and fellow students at Virginia Tech lived in fear of Cho Seung-Hui in the 18 months before he struck, it was revealed this afternoon.
A lecturer was so frightened by Cho's violent fantasies that she made up a secret codeword so that she could alert security without him knowing. ...
One teacher even suggested today he was given A grades because he was so "intimidating and staff wanted to keep him happy". ...
Further indications of the Virginia Tech gunman's weird behaviour and deep psychological problems emerged with the publication on the internet of plays written by Cho, 23, for his English literature class.
Murder and paedophilia featured so prominently in the writings that in October 2005 Professor Roy, the English department's head of creative writing, contacted campus police, counselling services, and other university officials. ...
Two of Cho's plays were posted on the internet by former classmate Ian MacFarlane, who said the contents had caused fellow students serious worries at the time.
"When we read Cho's plays, it was like something out of a nightmare," Mr MacFarlane, said in an internet blog.
He added: "The plays had really twisted, macabre violence that used weapons I wouldn't have even thought of ... we students were talking to each other with serious worry about whether he could be a school shooter."
Everyone knew this guy was a lunatic, but no one could do anything about it without violating the norms of our tolerant society. Is this a flaw with our society, or just the price of our freedom?
You think it's uncivilized because you don't believe in the project to perfect mankind by bringing it under the control of a benevolent and all-knowing government. You think that men should be free, even though you know that many of them will do what you would prefer that they didn't do.
Free men are strong. They fight. They think. They work. They raise families. But they aren't perfect. They are sinners. And in every age, someone wants to yoke them and tame them and force them to be perfect. Each time the project fails, but oh, the misery it creates!
Once upon a time, we had freedom of association and freedom of conscience. There was even a time when the federal government didn't dominate every corner of our lives. I say that socialism is a religion, and we are in the grip of its fanatics. No matter what happens---whether we decline or prosper, live or die--the zealots will always announce that this proves the need for more socialism. If anything goes right, then that shows how successful socialism is. And if anything goes wrong, then it's obviously our fault because our submission to the government is not yet complete enough.
This is a flaw in our society. With freedom comes responsibility, and we are forcing responsibility on anyone. Sure live whatever life you want. The government will make up the difference. Be lazy, be angry, be sociopathic, because Uncle Sam has a cure for all that ails you, and usually it comes in the form of money.
It is both a flaw and the price of freedom.. it is also neither. It is also market forces at work. Our freedom is broader than our tolerance for its consequences. This leads some to conclude that we need less freedom to curb the consequences. Then we have less freedom.. only to develop other consequences that we, again, cannot tolerate. We're never satisfied with either our level of freedom or the consequences we have to put up with. That's human.
Everything is a layer of control, whether it be religion, laws, or social pressure and exclusion. All of them have consequences that a free society will not tolerate forever.
Our society changes.. always has, always will. Trying to reduce or control those changes, by any means, will be what destroys our society.. not the changes themselves.
Our society has many flaws, all of which being rough amalgams of each of our own individual flaws, but what makes them all hold together is what's at the root of most of them: conflict. Conflict (both in terms of hardship and disagreement between people) is the primary engine of change. It feeds on itself and sustains itself, and it is among the criteria for a thriving society. Without it, change slows and along with that progress slows.. individuals lose themselves.. and the society as a whole loses direction, the ultimate result of which is its collapse.
We need things that help us define who we are to maintain our individuality and our sense of purpose. These same things, for better or worse, generate the conflict we all need. Groups of people, bound together by common interests, common purposes, or common beliefs are constantly, over time, switching back and forth between majority to minority status.. and the power and influence over society that they possess also ebbs and flows.
We may, depending on what side of the prism we're on, gasp and scream about the horrors of change.. but what often slips under the radar is that we need those changes.. to learn, to grow, to better ourselves.
BB: So do you think this psycho should have been locked up before he committed a crime, or left to wander around freely?
Mark: Yes, if Cho Seung Hui's rampage was a Type 1 error (psychos running loose because of freedom) then the only way to reduce Type 1s is to take measures that result in an increase of Type 2 errors (harmless people locked up to protect society). I'm not sure where the right balance is, but I think it would be farther in the direction that would have locked Cho Seung Hui up.