It’s ironic that after the University “celebrates” the 50th anniversary of the first black undergraduates admitted into N.C. State, one school year later we are faced with the reality that racially, things have not changed much in 50 years.

The discovery of a noose on this campus last week, and the subsequent response, has brought the validity of this claim to light. The weak and reckless response by Chancellor James Oblinger shows an unacceptable tolerance for an act that is nothing short of domestic terrorism. To even suggest the noose may have been intended as a prank is a foolish statement from a man obviously ignorant or indifferent to the true nature of the noose.

No, the noose is not unique to America in the world’s history of a means of execution, but in this country it is a distinct symbol. The noose is never intended as a prank; it’s an eight-coil instrument of death and a method as psychological terrorism.

As an American symbol, it represents the character of a white establishment that equates justice with the brutal murder of black people in the name of white purity.

In a language that voices itself loud and clear, it speaks this chilling message: “Know your role, or find yourself on the end of this rope!”

Whoever left this noose in the Sullivan Shops last week had no other intention but to reassert the not-so-long-forgotten notion that black folks need to remember in control, and failure to do so has deadly consequences.

The cynical responses from the student body in response to the Technician article covering this incident and the paper’s editorial about the chancellor’s response are equally appalling.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that the apathetic undertones in these responses, notably, “Seriously guys? Get off of it, a toilet paper noose is not news,” are in line with the business-as-usual response delivered by the administration.

Is it also a coincidence that a number of students with the strongest opinions hide behind pseudonyms in the same manner the chancellor has hidden behind an ivory tower and a watered-down statement, not unlike Klansman in the night masking themselves, while spilling the black man’s blood?

Jose Picart, vice provost for diversity and African American affairs cannot escape responsibility for his unimpressive role in the wake of the noose finding. His possession of the noose last Thursday afternoon at the SAAC meeting calls into question his judgment and that of the Campus Police who are supposedly conducting an investigation.

The handling of this situation to date has been irresponsible at best. The response from the campus community is indicative of the culture and climate that is not unlike that of 1955 when black students were not admitted to this campus, a climate that Oblinger and Picart have inherited, but clearly are not prepared to reverse.

What do you think of the way the University handled the noose incident? E-mail your feelings to [email protected].