I was horrified to read a Viewpoint entitled "A plea in remembrance" (April 19) only three days following the massacre at Virginia Tech. The author, Nivedita Gunturi (LA '06), suggests that we should consider the murderer, Cho Seung-Hui, a victim.
Gunturi claims, "He was a victim of society." This is one of the most unacceptable sentences I have ever come across in the Daily. Within days of the deadliest shooting in American history, Gunturi felt that she was qualified to excuse Cho Seung-Hui's actions as those that were the ultimate result of years of rejection and dehumanization.
These are merely assumptions; none of us have any real idea of Seung-Hui's personal history, least of all Gunturi. She comes to the unfortunate conclusion that we are all to blame for the unforgivable actions of one man. If Gunturi believes that the 32 murdered students and professors are part of our society, then it must also be her belief that they somehow contributed to the madness that ensued in Blacksburg.
The "blame-the-victim" approach is entirely inappropriate and hurtful, and I pray that no one beyond the Tufts campus laid eyes on Gunturi's article. I was absolutely sickened to read her pleas to make a martyr out of Seung-Hui. She claims that he was one of those people who endured "just enough alienation to push him over the edge."
This is completely unfounded. Is she even aware that one of Seung-Hui's professors pulled him out of class out of concern for him, and attempted to teach him in a one-on-one setting, according to Newsweek? Or does she know that the university sent him to be evaluated at a mental health facility in December 2005 out of fear that he was suicidal (Seung-Hui denied suicidal feelings in his examination)?
Gunturi declares that it is more important to undertake some sort of unimaginable social change than it is to reform gun control legislation. Clearly, she has no issue with a person such as Seung-Hui being sold an automatic weapon. To say, "It is not a matter of gun control" is to ignore a very serious problem in the United States.
It is unsettling that Gunturi decided to call her article "A plea in remembrance." There is very little remembrance in her piece for the actual victims of the slaughter. Rather, she reserves that for the one person who deserves it the least.
We now know that Seung-Hui was a glory hound, and to be fair, the videotapes sent to NBC came after the submission of Ms. Gunturi's Viewpoint. Still, it is unfortunate that it even crossed her mind that Seung-Hui deserves our condolences. Maybe she would also have sympathy for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or for Timothy McVeigh. Perhaps Gunturi has some kind words for Osama bin Laden.
The truth is society is not perfect and it never will be. Who among us has not felt isolated from his or her peers at some point in life? Yet we do not respond with violent rage. This is not how a human being is supposed to act. The individual decision to murder cannot be excused as a result from reality not always being a happy, jolly place. What happened at Virginia Tech was an act of monstrous insanity.
The only person who can be blamed for Cho Seung-Hui's violent outburst is Seung-Hui. Gunturi is horribly mistaken in her attempt to spread the guilt for the worst school shooting in our nation's history on those around the killer. She has brought dishonor to the victims of the massacre, their families, and the entire community of Virginia Tech.
Moreover, she has excused the actions of and attempted to make a martyr of one of the most despicable murderers in recent memory. This is a time to remember the lives of 32 people whose lives were taken away far too soon. The 33rd "victim," which is what Gunturi refers to Seung-Hui as, should be remembered as the one who took the others' lives.
Finally, she argues, "Let us not allow Cho's death to be in vain." But very idea that we can take anything positive from this man's life on Earth is ludicrous. He was a horrible person and the world is a better place without him.
Dan Patack is a senior majoring in economics.
