Philosophy Professor Follies
I’m not big on philosophers or that big on “in-depth” philosophy either. I’m not quite sure why. Perhaps it’s because I perfer discussing realistic things rather than the completely abstract. I’ve also been turned off to philosophy as part of the liberal arts education I get at school. I’ve learned that a lot of philosopy is just a bunch of refined b.s.
Many of the philosophy profs at school seem to be people who act like they’re superior to everyone else (even though, they’re on the bottom of the academic food-chain). They act all high and lofty, and elitist, like they’re in a class by themselves and the rest of us are just peons. This attitude of theirs is not confined to the classroom, as it seems to be present at other times as well.
With that preface, I’m now going to move on to the main portion of this post, a letter from a philosophy professor at CWRU that ran in Sunday’s issue of the Cleveland Plain Dealer regarding the May 9th shooting at CWRU’s Peter B. Lewis Building
(Note: I encourage you to look at the pictures of the building, as its really an interesting design).
Another note: some of the articles I’ll be refering to can be found on this page
Criticism that the Peter B. Lewis building’s labyrinthine “riot of creative chaos” exacerbated the danger of the attack on Case Western Reserve University is misguided.
Yes, the building did not have any right angles within it, and it had large areas of open (uncovered) spaces inside. But let’s see where this is going now…
First, it would be a very sad day indeed if university architecture were based on how easily a SWAT team might track down a wacko.
Well, the moral of this story is that the SWAT team needs to be prepared for such buildings in the future. Ironically the SWAT team was out praciticing at a warehouse when the call came in (most of the SWAT teams’ calls are for “normal” buildings–see a PD article). But perhaps such things should be taken into architectural consideration. Furthermore, this guy is beyond being a wacko, he has long needed professional help, as he (among other things) was a member of the tin foil brigades.
Moreover, the design saved lives. During those crucial first minutes, students dived for cover in the many nooks and crannies.
Not completely true. People ducked into offices for cover.
People from all floors were able to look through the atrium and see blood and shell casings.
Not totally true either–they heard the (distinct) sounds of gun-fire.
The building allowed them time and resources for thought beyond traditional designs
Alas, this may have been true, but it also impeded the progress the police made. Because of the wacky architecture, it took about 45 minutes to secure a floor in the building. Also, the open spaces gave the gunman an advantage, as it made the cops “sitting ducks” at times.
It hindered the gunman and police equally in searching and killing,
No, it hindered the cops more. The gunman fired at random. The only reason there was less bloodshed was that the gunman was a crappy shot and one weapon apparently jammed.
but it facilitated constructive communication.
wtf? What’s “constrructive communication”? This is the kind of thing I don’t like about philosophers.
The creative design begot individual creativity as people took rational, effective action
Again, wtf? Rational action–hiding for ones life (an instinctive action if you ask me).
The episode was protracted, but far less panicky and fatal than it might have been in a more traditional building
Wrong. Were this a traditional building, the cops would’ve gotten to the perp much, much faster. It would’ve also been less panicky as people would be more aware of what was going on.
. It is heartbreaking to lose a great mind like Norman Wallace
Yes it is (Wallace was the first year MBA student killed in the assult).
but the low casualty rate vindicates the ideals of the university he loved. CWRU’s vision shone through, even in the face of tragedy.
I don’t know what CWRU’s ideals are, but what does this have to do with anything? The low casulty rate was not from the building, but rather, it was from the fact that the shooter had horrible aim (couldn’t hit a target from 4 ft away), (a) bad gun (a “poor man’s uzi” apparently)–which further worsened his aim. He had one gun jam on him and he wasn’t skilled in reloading the weapons. All of this put together is why the casualty rate was lower. (plus a lot of luck). I don’t think the building was the saving grace in this event–and what is this ‘constructive communication’ stuff you’re blabbing about? This must be why philosophy is so low on the food-chain….
