ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) (10/17/84)
<<Goodbye, cruel world!>>
copied without anyone's permission from The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 17 October 1984
Providence, RI: Undergraduates at Brown University voted last week on
a proposal asking the university health service to stock poison
"suicide pills" for use upon request in the even of a nuclear war.
About 700 students signed petitions to put the referendum on the ballot
for Brown's student elections, and student government officials said
more students than in several years voted in the elections.
A Brown administrator said that even if the initiative passed, the
university would not stock the pills. "We do not accept the
alternative of stockpiling suicide pills," said Robert A. Reichley,
vice-president for university relations. "We will not do it no matter
how this turns out."
However, Mr. Reichley said the university did not dismiss the motives
behind the referendum: "There is a real fear of nuclear war. We take
that very seriously."
Sponsors of the initiative said they had succeeded in raising
consciousness among students. "We think that the potential of a
nuclear war for destruction is so great that it will not only destroy
our civilization, but our whole value system," said Jason Salzman, a
junior and the organizer of Students for Suicide Tablets. "Suicide
would have a whole different meaning."
Mr. Reichley said interest in the referendum had sparked discussion
among the students and faculty.
Several discussions and forums were held last week to consider nuclear
issues.
"I don't think anyone really expected them to stock the pills," said
Beth M. Grossman, a senior and president of Brown's undergraduate
council. "That's not really the purpose of it. It's more a symbolic
thing."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Any comments?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think we're in Kansas anymore . . ."kfl@hoxna.UUCP (Kenton Lee) (10/18/84)
xxx The referendum has been in the papers for the last week or two. The idea came from a 1950's Neville Shute Norway book called "On The Beach" (later a movie with Gregory Peck) about the last survivors of a nuclear war. Their alternatives were a slow death from radiation sickness, or a quick death from government distributed suicide pills. Read the book to find out what the people chose (individual choice, of course). The Brown University referendum is probably a modern attempt to do what this book tried to do. They are not trying to say that suicide is the only way out of nuclear war. What they are trying to say is that you have to think about what life would be like after the war. You may be pro-bomb or anti-bomb, but in either case, you must look at what your life would be like after the big one. If you don't like what you see, you'd best try doing something now. In fact now is especially a good time because several pro-bomb and anti-bomb people are up for election next month. -- Kenton Lee, Bell Labs - WB 1D302, x7178 wb3g!kfl or hoxna!kfl
yee@ucbvax.ARPA (Peter E. Yee) (10/19/84)
The University of California, Berkeley considered such a notion, but it was quashed without much discussion. There was an article in The Daily Californian, but I no longer have I copy, so I can't give much details. -Peter Yee ..ucbvax!yee yee@Berkeley.ARPA
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (10/20/84)
["Belladonna? How ingenious!"]
As a publicity gimmick it's about what one might
expect. It would be appalling if Brown actually bought
the pills. The dangers involved in having a stockpile
of that crap lying around on a college campus should be
obvious even to a Brown undergraduate.
Now if there *were* a nuclear war Providence would almost
certainly get nuked. The only question would be how anyone
could tell the difference.
"I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac
knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712chenr@tilt.FUN (The 1200 baud hacker) (10/22/84)
> > As a publicity gimmick it's about what one might > expect. It would be appalling if Brown actually bought > the pills. The dangers involved in having a stockpile > of that crap lying around on a college campus should be > obvious even to a Brown undergraduate. > Hell, who needs to stock stupidcide pills? Just go to your friendly neighborhood chem lab... -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/22/84)
> The dangers involved in having a stockpile > of that crap lying around on a college campus should be > obvious even to a Brown undergraduate. I've seen the above opinion expressed more than once; my wife even made a similar statement after hearing a news item about the Brown vote. The problem is that it is nonsense. Even if Brown bought a stock of cyanide (or whatever) pills [though they have clearly stated that they would not], having them on hand is no more danger than all the stuff now on-hand; look in any chem lab, janitor's locker, gardener's storeroom, or a dozen other places -- there you will find many deadly poisons, probably enough in any one site to wipe out the entire campus population if administered effectively. There would be no more "danger" or security involved in storing such stuff at the student health center than there is now, with the usual assortment of drugs you'll find in any pharmacy. What the students SHOULD have been asking for is that the university issue them the pills, so that they can carry them around with them ALL THE TIME. For such a pill to be worthwhile, you would need to have it with you when the bomb hits, not expect to root around in the charred wreckage of the remains of the Student Health Center for the appropriate bottle! What better way of emphasizing the immediate dangers of nuclear war than to carry your suicide pill at all times? (This is not to say that I agree with their position or not; I am advising about the most effective propaganda tactic here.) Of course, the University never would have done it (just as they won't stock the pills); some idiot or psycho would have either taken one, or fed it to someone else, and the University would be eventually held liable, with many resources wasted in court fights and damages. The practical aspects are unimportant; this is a symbolic thing, of course.
dcab@lems.UUCP (Dick Bulterman) (10/22/84)
Being a faculty member at Brown (and having been a graduate student here, too) allow me to give a local opinion of 'the Pill' issue. First, I'll aviod a remark concerning the Austin-Providence comparison (it is enough to note that when you LEAVE Providence, you are within striking distance of Newport, Boston, New York -- even Central Falls! -- but when you leave Austin, you are still in Texas). As for stocking suicide pills, the issue is really one of comparative lunacy. Readers seem to get quite upset about a group of students opting for obvious death (via the pills) on an individual level, but are very casual about debating the relative merrits of group suicide (one need only read the discourse on the effectiveness of the B-52 vs. the B-1 bombers in net.avaition). While avoiding the topic of 'how much weaponry is enough for REAL defense versus HYPED defense -- or offense,' one should come to terms with the reality that the weapons we build, stockpile, and export (as well as the weapons the Russians build, stockpile, and export) are themselves suicide pills of a more frightening dimension, since they remove the subject's freedom of choice on whether she/he chooses to participate in their use. The issue is not the pills themselves -- Brown is a small school, but even here a queue of 5K undergraduates waiting for pills could take longer then 18 minutes to service. (graduate students may demand their own supply, but one might suspect that medical students already HAVE their pills stockpiled, just in case!) The issue is one of bring the obvious home to a level where it can be understood in real, personal terms, rather than in a count of today's total of war-heads. (no personal responses, s.v.p. -- especially from Texans, all of whom are probably bigger than I am!)
jjv3345@ritcv.UUCP (jjv3345) (10/25/84)
As has been stated many times by the people originally involved, this is a purely SYMBOLIC issue. Therefore I wish we could do away with useless discussion about whether to stock the pills or not, or how dangerous the average university chem lab is. My interpretation is that the important keyword here is "stockpile". Perhaps the Brown students are trying to make people aware via analogy of the dangers of stockpiling nuclear weapons. Stockpiling nukes === stockpiling suicide pills If we continue to produce nuclear weapons at the current rate, the probability increases that some unstable element of society will procure such a weapon. Don't get me wrong; unilateral disarmament is ridiculous. Nor can we stop technological research and advancement. But I don't see why we need such a HUGE arsenal. Billions of dollars, perhaps trillions (I can't visualize such an amount, can you?) are spent on making more and MORE nukes, when this money could be better spent, say, by reducing the deficit. Can anyone tell me why?? - Jeff Van Epps - ritcv!jjv3345
kfl@hoxna.UUCP (Kenton Lee) (10/29/84)
xxx
If we want to do away with symbolism in this country, perhaps we
should kick out the present administration, which gives us lots of
symbolism and very little results, and replace it with one that
actually does something. Given the support of congress, I think
Jesse Jackson was the only candidate for president that fits the
bill.
--
Kenton Lee, Bell Labs - WB 1D302, x7178
{ihnp4 or allegra or cbosg}!hoxna!kflsea@brunix.UUCP (Scott Anderson) (10/30/84)
In reference to the article saying that symbolic protests are useless: How can you say that symbolic protests of the sort brought about here at Brown are useless? The fact of the matter is that national attention was brought to the issue by a tiny percentage of the population (Brown has ~6600 students and only a percentage of that voted for the idea) the only problem with this was the fact that many of the groups reporting the information left out some key facts (such as the fact that it was a symbolic gesture). It was the reporting of the act incorrectly (or not fully) wich resulted in it looking "silly". Scott E. Anderson BROWN U. browngr!sea
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (10/31/84)
No doubt these despondent individuals plan to rush from wherever they
may be when the blinding flash of the nuclear device appears, and queue
up at the facility that stocks the suicide pills.
They could all save themselves lots of trouble by finding a suitable toxic
substance, probably from any handy drug or hardware store, and carrying
it with them. No long walks through the fallout, no waiting impatiently
in line.
Let's face it - this is what the term "cheap theatrics" was coined to
describe.
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simardanita@drux3.UUCP (11/01/84)
A similar proposal was just voted down at CU in Boulder, CO. It just goes to show how conservative college students have become these days. You would think they could see how important making a public statement against nuclear weapons is. I get the feeling that nothing is of importance if it doesn't affect them right here and now, unless it has to do with making money. Ugh. Anita
sef@drutx.UUCP (FarleighSE) (11/01/84)
. Maybe Nixon was right when he said that the anti-war protesters in college (Vietnam War) were only worried about their own skin. Not any loftier ideals. Scott E. Farleigh ..!drutx!sef AT&TIS Denver
docs@hocsf.UUCP (11/02/84)
REFERENCES: <677@pucc-i>, <605@loral.UUCP> I don't think that the students who started this thing were looking for major press coverage and "cheap theatrics." Most college students, like most people in general, totally blot out the horrors of nuclear holocaust. It's a protective mechanism akin to the ostrich sticking its head in the sand. "Maybe if I ignore it long enough, it will go away." Unfortunately, this problem is not one that's just going to go away. Like that stupid ostrich, we're going to get our asses blown away even if we don't see it coming. I think that the students who started this wanted the rest of the student body to realize that they are ignoring a tremendous problem, and all the wishing in the world isn't going to make it go away. They have to think about how this world is going to cope with this danger looming over it, how they, as individuals, can fight against the ever-increasing danger of nuclear war. I must say, though, that I would suggest all of them writing their congresspersons and the president, expressing their fears and views on the subject, as opposed to suicide pills. The suicide pills thing was a very negative display, and a very depressing on at that. All these college students are saying that they have very little hope for this world and are so wearied by the whole thing that they won't even fight to decrease the danger. These college students are voters and they still have a voice, particularly if they all act together on this. I just find the whole incident very sad. Sharon Badian
cuccia@ucbvax.ARPA (Nick Cuccia) (11/04/84)
The student senate of UC-Berkeley recently voted down a similar proposal. Considering that we at Cal have seen six senators losing their senate seats, lawsuits against ASUC (Assoc. Students of UC), and now an effort being made to declare last spring's student elections null and void, I'm surprised that even that was done... (maybe 25% 8-)... Seriously, though, I feel that the idea, though morbid, is a pretty strong symbolic gesture... --"Once the air becomes Uranious, -- We will all go simultaneous..." --T.L. --Nick Cuccia --ucbvax!cuccia
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/05/84)
In article <1243@drux3.UUCP> anita@drux3.UUCP (HornAI) writes: >A similar proposal was just voted down at CU in Boulder, CO. It just goes >to show how conservative college students have become these days. You >would think they could see how important making a public statement against >nuclear weapons is. I get the feeling that nothing is of importance if it >doesn't affect them right here and now, unless it has to do with making money. >Ugh. Anita Can't agree, Anita. Maybe they just have other ways of dealing with the problem than these theatrical gestures. What it "goes to show" is that the sixties-style approach of contriving a scenario for show is not always the most effective way to get things done. Nuclear weapons are not really a problem, but a symptom of a problem: one man (or woman)'s hatred and distrust of another. Somehow, tear-jerker approaches like suicide pills and such don't impress me as means to change people's perceptions of each other. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard