Last week, I lamented the notion that guilty white liberalism has showered love on the cruelest among us. I noted that Cornell had a memorial service for the Virginia Tech victims, at which the president of Cornell said,
“We are one.” “We are one community, one people, one planet. We are here today to affirm that oneness … We are here to bear witness to the passing of the 33 members of our family at Virginia Tech University who have met an untimely and terrible fate.” “We are here for all of those who are gone, for all 33. We are here for the 32 who have passed from the immediate to another place, not by their own choice. We are also here for the one who has also passed.”
In effect, the memorial service was just as much for the murderer as it was for the murdered.
Unfortunately, this moral confusion is not confined to Cornell. An article in the “Oklahoman” indicates that Oklahoma University has set up a memorial stone for Joel Henry Henrichs, the man who detonated a bomb outside the football stadium during an OU football game in 2005. Because Henrichs only killed himself, the university has taken the public position that his death was a suicide, not an attempt to harm others. That’s the assumption the university is most comfortable with, and it can’t be disproven.
However, given that the student was a Moslem, suicide bombers are in the news nearly every day, and suicide in this manner, without intentionally destroying other victims is extremely rare–perhaps non-existent, it would be equally reasonable to assume the bomb detonated prematurely. I acknowledge that the terrorism theory also can’t be proven, but it’s an awfully good guess that this man intended to kill as many of the university’s football fans, students, alumni, and perhaps players and coaches as possible.
Yet the university has honored him with a memorial stone near the student union building, at taxpayer expense. This was provided by the Student Affairs Division (SAD, for short, how appropriate). I wonder if Bud Wilkinson and Billy Vessels, who actually did something for the university, have been so honored. Perhaps they have. If this was a suicide, it’s still true that the university is honoring someone who violently dishonored himself, and that’s inappropriate, unless they want to encourage other university students to similarly destroy themselves. I’m sure that many OU students graduate and live as good citizens without being honored by the university in a similar way.
On the other hand, if this man intended to destroy as many other people as possible, memorializing him in any way is inexcusable. To be fair, I don’t think any reasonable person can say with certainty what Joel Henry Henrichs intended to do on the day he died. Please note, therefore, how absolutely certain OU president David Boren is about what happened that day. The following is his response to the article in the “Oklahoman” about this memorial.
“I am deeply disappointed by a media report that could lead to the revival of unfounded rumors about an OU student’s apparent suicide more than a year and a half ago. Our society is not well served by encouraging insensitivity or by raising unnecessary levels of fear in the broader community.”
Note the tone. In effect, he is saying, “This was so long ago. We’re certain he meant no harm to others. You’re being insensitive, and you’re causing fear and inciting hate in the community.” May I respectfully suggest that he might want to be a little more concerned about the fear bombs detonated outside his stadium cause. Perhaps he could also try being a little less certain about what a dead man’s motives used to be. I freely acknowledge that I’m not certain, but what he says sound like DENIAL, and he goes on:
“We need to encourage understanding and compassion in our society instead of more anger and intolerance based upon misinformation. What kind of people would we be if we refused to allow a grieving family the right to remember their deceased son or brother? Of course, if there had been any evidence that he was attempting to harm others our decision would have been different, but there was none.”
It is at least possible that this man never went inside the stadium, because he didn’t think he could get his bomb past security. I’m not saying that’s what happened. I wouldn’t dare say it, because then I would be guilty of anger, intolerance and insensitivity. Mr. Boren continues:
“No evidence was ever found to indicate that the deceased ever attempted to enter our stadium or ever intended to do so nor was there a single shred of evidence to link him to terrorist groups. There was never any evidence developed to sustain any theory other than suicide in the very thorough briefings provided to me by law enforcement regarding the situation.
I regret that the news story may have left the impression that the student’s death was anything other than a suicide.”
Perhaps he’s right, and perhaps I should ignore the portion of the article in the “Oklahoman” which says:
“FBI agents said they do not know if the student intentionally set off the bomb on the bench as a suicide or if he also had intended to kill others elsewhere. A Norman police bomb expert has said he believes the bomb went off accidentally and that the student had further plans.”
You just can’t trust police bomb experts. Perhaps they’re filled with anger, insensitivity, intolerance, and an overwhelming desire to misinform us. Perhaps they’re unintentionally wrong, or perhaps they’re right. Here’s one final quote from David Boren:
“The University did not erect a monument in honor of this student. The pavers are placed there by those who purchase them for a charge of $150 per stone, in this case the son’s father, and the proceeds go toward the upkeep of the student union. We are very proud of the fact that members of our university family are sensitive and compassionate to family members impacted by this student’s death.”
I’m just as fond of sensitivity, compassion and fudge sundaes as the next guy, but I am a bit confused by the contradiction between his statement that the university did not provide this monument and the article in the “Oklahoman”, which states that Mr. Henrichs’ father asked to pay for the memorial, but he was never billed for it, and he never knew it actually existed until the newspaper informed him about it. Perhaps someone is lying, or perhaps someone’s memory or knowledge is inaccurate. But the bottom line for me is that I’m not sure any university should have a “get a bomb and get a plaque” program, and I suspect that most of the insensitive citizens of Oklahoma would prefer not to have a memorial stone for a campus bomber at all, no matter who paid for it. People with bombs are not heroes, especially not in Oklahoma. Our brethren at Cornell and Oklahoma University would do us all a favor if they would confine their sensitivity and compassion to students who haven’t killed anyone on school property.
