Students and parents may be dismayed that the Board of Visitors has recently decided to raise the College’s tuition rates for the next academic year, upping the cost for Virginia residents to over $16,000 per year and increasing out-of-state tuition to nearly $35,000. While these figures and headlines appear startling, they are part of a nation-wide trend of rising tuitions and costs. For example, the University of Virginia recently raised its tuition and living rates by similar percentages, and at certain private schools, including George Washington University, overall costs will exceed $50,000 next year.

p. In reality, the College continues to be a good value for all students and their families. The increases in tuition rates have been accompanied by various initiatives that have enhanced diversity, particularly Gateway William and Mary, which has made it easier for first-generation college students and students from low-income families to attend the College. Next year’s freshman class features a record number of first-generation students. Such efforts at diversifying the campus will assure that the College remains competitive and on par with other top-notch public and private universities throughout the United States.

p. The College remains a relative bargain, particularly since the total amount of money that the College spends per student — including professor salaries and academic and athletic facilities — far exceeds what each student annually pays to attend the College. The administration and the BOV must ensure that such a raise in tuition is accompanied by continued efforts to improve current financial aid options. This will ensure that an education from the College is potentially available to anyone, particularly those on whom these tuition increases have placed a significant financial burden.

People say that hindsight is 20/20. While the current editorial board cannot rightfully take credit for hiring Flat Hat sex columnist Kate Prengaman, it can certainly look back to Sept. 12, 2003, when Kate’s first column ran under the header “Behind Closed Doors,” and nod its head in emphatic approval.

p. Kate’s adventure began as a freshman. The Behind Closed Doors column was just one semester old, and its originator had just graduated. Kate applied to fill the vacancy, thrilled with the idea of writing a sex column as a fresh face on campus. Her idea was to craft the column to promote healthy attitudes about sex and relationships.

p. The rest, as they say, is history.

p. Kate got off to a blistering start. In her first printed paragraphs, she introduced herself and laid out her main qualification — while she probably wasn’t the most sexually active person on campus, she had a healthy outlook on sex and wasn’t embarrassed about discussing it.

p. She then used the remainder of her 800 words to expound on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. “Just imagine,” she wrote, “you, your girl or boyfriend, some romantic candles, sexy music and Clarence Thomas — monitoring your every move for morality. If you find that proposition attractive, your sex life might be a little too scary, even for me.” Right off the bat, the College knew that its sex columnist wasn’t exactly garden variety.

p. Now, after four great years, The Flat Hat must prepare for the unenviable task of replacing Kate, whose hand-obscured countenance has become a veritable campus institution. Kate’s unique, witty and intelligent insight will be sorely missed.

p. We are excited, however, to congratulate freshman Emily Powell, who will replace Kate beginning next fall. Emily was selected from a pool of applicants, and though she has big shoes to fill (dominatrix boots if you ask Confusion Corner columnist Lauren Bell), we are confident she will continue to provide the thoughtful sex and relationship advice that our readers have come to expect from our pages.

The shootings at Virginia Tech last Monday, April 16, could have happened anywhere. Indeed, they have, as a brutal legacy of serial killers and mass murderers pervades our nation’s history. During my weekend stay at the University of Virginia, I read an interesting article in The Hook, a campus magazine. In the article, Hawes Spencer traces the history of school shootings in our country, from Charles Whitman’s massacre at the University of Texas in 1966, to Kent State in 1970, to San Ysidro in 1984, to Luby’s Cafeteria in 1991. It wasn’t until the later ’90s that school shootings mushroomed, taking on ‘epidemic’ proportions (Moses Lake, Wash.; Pearl, Miss.; Paducah, Ky.; Jonesboro, Ark.; Columbine, Colo.), culminating with the apocalyptic Tech tragedy that brought to the surface residual feelings of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina.

p. This column isn’t asking why America has a problem with violence more than any other place in the world (Michael Moore addressed this a while back). Gun or no gun, I’m not sure bloodbaths of such a large scale can be prevented entirely.

p. It isn’t enough to react after the fact (although the College has been quick to console students here and in Blacksburg alike with candlelight vigils, the Facebook phenomenon, the donations, the fundraisers and the awe-inspiring Orange and Maroon Effect). There are smart ways to go about preventing a college shooting.

p. For starters, school massacres are usually methodically planned out. If the culprit lives on campus, it should be the responsibility of the entire university body — students, faculty, police — to pick up on any hints or gestures of such plotting. If the culprit broods over the idea of murder for months at a time, eventually these festering thoughts will consume him or her entirely, manifesting themselves in his or her actions, expressions and overall habits. Cho Seung-Hui was known (or rather, unknown) as a “loner;” CNN reported that Cho’s creative writing teacher detected a threat beneath the surface of his writings, which could be described as incendiary rants laced with references to sexual abuse. Cho’s condition appears to have taken a pathological one. In the video shown on TV, he is hauntingly remorseless. From his deluded perspective he aligns himself with Jesus Christ, with whom he feels he can relate.

p. No campus is too large to afford a shooting. We can’t afford to let this happen. What I would say is this: listen up. As a community, we need to come together and leave nobody out. Such solidarity as is seen in wake of tragedy strengthens community ties, builds friendships and promotes social order.

p. By nature, students at the College tend to be reclusive, making it harder to tell the shy guy from the psychopath. We should do something about that. I invite everyone on campus to try and know your neighbor better. It’s a little sad to think Cho felt alienated or removed from his university. I mean, these were supposed to be the best days of his life. Granted, I don’t know his mental state, but it scares me to think this could have been prevented if only somebody talked to him once in a while.

p. I invite all of you to make a new friend or come to know a vague acquaintance better before the semester closes. I’m not talking “Facebook friends” either; I’m talking about that real, human-to-human connection. Professors should get involved, too — our classes are small enough for students to have a one-on-one relationship with their teachers.

p. I think the College does a good enough job confronting issues of victimization, but maybe we could do more. If you feel you’ve been victimized in any way, tell someone: seek counseling or do something to get help. There’s no reason not to.

p. __Sherif Abdelkarim, a sophomore at the College, is a staff columnist. His columns appear on Tuesdays.__

__In time of tragedy, law enforcement’s handling of shooting must be questioned__

p. I have to extend the greatest condolences and support from myself and the entire College to the students, faculty and staff at Virginia Tech and their families. What occurred is a great tragedy; I pray that all the injured recover quickly and that the fallen are remembered and loved as they find their way through whatever awaits them.

p. However, in this time of great tragedy, I must question law enforcement’s ineffective, botched response to the initial situation. A brief timeline of events outlines the problem.

p. At 7:15 a.m., a 911 call was placed. Immediately responding to the call, SWAT teams, campus police and local law enforcement swarmed the campus, all reporting to West Ambler Johnston Hall. At approximately 9:15 a.m., a shooting occurred at Norris Hall, where there were 31 killed, including the shooter, and numerous injured. At 9:26 a.m., the administration’s first e-mail was delivered to students, reporting the first shooting at the dormitory.

p. The authorities, upon finding two deceased and multiple injured at the dorm, incorrectly followed first-responder crime scene protocol. The Department of Justice Crime Scene Investigation handbook states that the priority of the first-responder is “the safety and physical well-being of officers and other individuals, in and around the crime scene.” First-responders are to “assume the crime is ongoing until determined to be otherwise.” The first-responders to West Ambler Johnston Hall found two dead, multiple injured and no weapon in the nearby area; they assumed it was a “domestic dispute” and the “gunman had fled campus.”

p. Excuse me?

p. Even if it were assumed to be a domestic dispute, the proper response would be to assume that the crime was still ongoing. Additionally, the number injured (in addition to the number deceased) was a preponderance of evidence that this was not merely a domestic dispute. Contrary to Virginia Tech President Charles Steger’s opinion that “we can only make decisions based on the information [we] had at the time,” law enforcement and university administration could have responded much more effectively to the initial situation.

p. The first-responder analysis should have boiled down to this: you have two murders, multiple injuries, no weapon and no killer. The inner boundary of the crime scene should have been established around the dorm building and the outer boundary should have included the entire campus. Officers responding to the dormitory should have begun their search for possible shooters immediately, while a single team began their investigation.

p. Arriving law enforcement should have been stationed across campus to ensure order and safety (as well as been posted at each campus entrance to monitor arriving vehicles). This would have presented a defensive front to any potential threats, and officers would have been in a position to close campus entrances. Finally, SWAT teams should have systematically swept the areas immediately surrounding the dormitory. Would following proper protocol by police and the administration have definitively saved lives? No one can say for certain — but I suppose now, we’ll never know.

p. Would this have caused mass disruption and chaos by assuming such a defensive stance on a college campus in a time of crisis? No — disruption of classes should be the last worry in such a crisis and chaos need not be the result. Last August, on the first day of classes, Tech closed its main entrances when a convict killed a hospital guard, escaped and killed a deputy on a trail just off campus. The campus did not go into a mass frenzy and remained relatively well-ordered, while the university’s safety was ensured through an effective, increased police presence.

p. Although I applaud university administration and law enforcement for their handling of the tragedy post-occurrence, I disagree with Steger’s statement that there was “no reason to suspect any other incident was going to occur.” I’m not going to stand up and say that the entire tragedy was preventable. But when you have two murders, multiple casualties, no definite killer and no sign of a weapon, you could have an armed and dangerous suspect on the loose. You should not only consider that another incident can occur, but should assume that it is going to. For everyone’s sake.

p. __Devin DeBacker is a junior at the College.__

**Amnesty policy should be clearer**

p. __To the Editor:__
According to the Beatles, all you need is love, but right now, I think all we need is love and an honest conversation between the College and students regarding the Alcohol Amnesty Policy.
Each side of the debate has its points, but there is a mutual confusion regarding exactly how far the policy goes. What is at stake because of this uncertainty? The very lives of the students on this campus. When those are the stakes, it’s simply too important for any uncertainty.

p. The Alcohol Amnesty Policy was formed after semesters of dedication by students and staff members regarding the health of a student in an emergency even if alcohol was involved. Any hesitation due to discipline matters could possibly be cut out of the equation. We can’t rewrite state laws, but we can be clear as to how much trouble you’ll be in with the school. The general consensus was limited, but in light of recent events, the fine print has emerged.

p. Too many students are again asking, “Can I trust this school?” That question could possibly stand in the way of an emergency phone call. So how far does amnesty go? Are we going to put the lives of students as our primary concern, or how many cases of Natty were in the fridge when someone dialed 911?

p. I feel like these are questions that deserve to be clarified. The students and staff members who worked so hard on this project deserve it. Resident assistants (myself included) who need to inform their residents regarding safety deserve it. The community as a whole deserves it out of common interest. Potentially, the very life of a student could depend on it.
So yes, all we need is love. Love and clairification, please. Dear school, shall we chat?

p. __— Shaun Loria, ’08__

p. **Confederate controversy continues**

p. __To the Editor:__

p. I could not help but be appalled when I read the column “Confederate controversy” in the April 13 issue of The Flat Hat. This column had the audacity to claim that a Confederate History Month would be little different from the five other officially recognized history months, except that the South endorsed slavery, as if slavery was an issue of the past that carried little weight against these so-called positive aspects of Confederate heritage (which were never named). So what if these soldiers and their heritage have admirable attributes? Most racists and prejudice people do have a good side! After all, didn’t Time magazine cite Hitler as the greatest leader in history? Should we give him his own month, too? I’m sure people would love that.

p. It also infuriates me that the column used some statement on the Sons of Confederate Veterans website and one man who is descended from slaves to support its ideas. It’s pretty obvious that no one in their right mind, who wanted to gain support for their organization, would make racist claims on their website. I’m not saying these people are racists, but how can we use a quote from their website to come to a conclusion? An interview would at least be necessary. As for this man whose descendents were slaves, does his opinions mean that there are a whole league of African Americans supporting this Confederate History Month? I don’t think so.

p. What disturbs me most about this column is that anyone could even be in support of racist Confederate soldiers. I, personally, do not want the youth of today considering these soldiers as role models.

p. Creating this history month would be nothing more than an exercise in forgetting, the forgetting of how the Confederate heritage and its mentality alienated and oppressed the African-American race.

p. __— Keirstin Flythe, ’10__