What did V-Tech teach Cho Seung-hui about the American culture which he so hated?

James Lewis gets curious about exactly what an English major at Virginia Tech is being taught about life, America and everything so he goes a wading in the fever swamp of nihilistic post modern Marxist moonbattery which is the curriculum of pretty much any modern American university which isn't run by protestant fundamentalists:

I wonder if Cho took the senior seminar by Professor Knapp, on "The self-justifying criminal in literature." Because he certainly learned to be a self-justifying criminal. Or whether he sat in courses with Nikki Giovanni, using her famous self-glorifying book, "The Prosaic Soul of Nikki Giovanni (2003)". Maybe he read Professor Bernice Hausman's "Changing Sex: Transsexualism, technology, and the idea of gender" --- just the thing for a disoriented young male suffering from massive culture shock on the hypersexual American campus. And even more gender-bending from Professor Paul Heilker, who wrote "Textual Androgyny, the Rhetoric of the Essay, and the Politics of Identity in Composition (or The Struggle to Be a Girly-Man in a World of Gladiator Pumpitude)." Or the Lesbian love stories of Professor Matthew Vollmer. Yup, that's just what this student needs. These trophy "art works" are all advertised on the English Department faculty websites.

Or maybe Cho was assigned Professor Lisa Norris' prize-winning book, Toy Guns, featured on her web site. The book reviewers wrote
"All ten stories in this disturbing collection revolve around Americans' passionate devotion to guns, gun-toting, sexually-tinged violence, and the womanly pursuit of power and dignity." [....]

"In each wrenching story, we see an America out of control, in love with war...."
I don't know any Americans who are in love with war, but that is the picture Cho got from his teachers. Having spent the last 14 years as a resident alien in the school system, he could know nothing else.

And then there is the big Marxist website from Professor Brizee, all in fiery red against pitch black, showing old, mass-murder-inspiring Karl flanked by two raised fists. It celebrates revolutionary violence and hate for capitalist America (which is paying for Cho's education). "Critical Social Theory" --- the euphemism for PoMo (Post Modern) Marxism --- is a big part of English teaching at VT. The Marxist page links prominently to the British Socialist Worker's Party, which is currently leading the charge for Islamic fascism through such creatures as George Galloway.

And, talking about Islamist ideas, there is Professor Carter-Tod, who wrote a report about "Treatment of Arab American, Muslums and Seiks (sic) Post 911," for the US Civil Rights Commission. The racial grievance industry is alive and growing at VT.

Post-modernism, with its hatred for reason, is another big theme at the VT English Department. Professor James Collier boasts about his book, Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies, But "the end of knowledge" is the beginning of ignorance.

And of course there is the "diversity" crowd, diversity being a very well-funded program at ole' guilt-tripping VT. There's Professor Carlos Evia, who describes himself as "...soy director de la Comisión de Igualdad y Diversidad en Virginia Tech." Or in English, "I am also chair of the Virginia Tech Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity." There's "research" in "Feminist science fiction" and "The comic strip" from Professor Susan C. Allender-Hagedorn. Scratching racial and gender wounds until they bleed is a big preoccupation at VT. What's a kid from South Korea to think?

The question I have is: Are university faculty doing their jobs? At one time college teachers were understood to have a parental role. Take a look at the hiring and promotion criteria for English at VT, and you see what their current values are. Acting in loco parentis, with the care, protectiveness, and alertness for trouble among young people is the last thing on their minds. They are there to do "research," to act like fake revolutionaries, and to stir up young people to go out and revolt against society. Well, somebody just did.

I'm sorry but VT English doesn't look like a place that gives lost and angry adolescents the essential boundaries for civilized behavior. In fact, in this perversely disorienting PoMo world, the very words "civilized behavior" are ridiculed --- at least until somebody starts to shoot students, and then it's too late. A young culture-shocked adolescent can expect no firm guidance here. But we know that already.

Of course every other student at Virginia Tech was subjected to the same venomous cauldron of politically correct, post modern, morally relativistic sewage as Cho Seung-hui and none of them went on a murder spree.

All of the evidence we have to date suggests that this young man was wired incorrectly from the get-go. The wretched leftist stupidity he was stewed in at V-Tech only supplied the outer coat of paint to the psychosis which drove him on his rampage. It did not motivate him but rather helped him justify his motivation.

However is it at all possible that things would have or could have turned out differently if he had spent the last three or four years of his life in an environment which upheld the culture of the United States rather than tearing it down?

What would have happened if he had been taught to value the society which he had been raised in rather than to hate it? What if he had been taught that the freedom to create wealth and to enjoy its rewards was what marked the most basic difference between societies of freedom and prosperity like the United States and societies of poverty and despair like that which existed in the old Soviet Union and which exists today across most of Africa and the Middle East and large parts of Asia?

Cho Seung-hui cherished the idea that he was morally superior to the greedy and degraded American culture which he was forced to live in. Everything he was taught at V-Tech tended to confirm that view. What if he had been taught the opposite? He would still have exploded like the time-bomb he was, but might his explosion have take the form of simple suicide rather than mass murder followed by suicide?

We will never know, but the question is a legitimate one.

Another legitimate question is this, is the illogical and imcomprehensible rage at Western culture shown by the global warming believing environmentalists, the animal rights wackos, the anti-war goofballs, the practitioners of gender and race based identity politics and all the other devotees of the various pathologies of the left not just a milder and less immediately destructive form of the same rage which Cho Seung-hui exhibited?