There's a student at my school with serious mental health problems. While I cannot diagnose, he resembles someone with untreated schizophrenia, and is clearly untethered from reality. His specific paranoid delusions include the view that many specific people at the school are terrorists who are controlling his mind and planning to blow up the school. He has repeatedly expressed these views to specific professors. He views women in general as terrorists and is really, really angry at feminists.
This person has been repeatedly reported to campus security, and to the committee on campus that's meant to deal with behavior problems, including serious ones like this. Some of the students affected by him have filed reports and complaints too. But nothing's been done. The counselors evaluated him and have concluded that he's not a threat, and so the committee won't do anything about it. I'm willing to admit that he might not have any immediate concrete plans to engage in any specific violent act, but I don't see how any sane person can conclude that this situation is safe. My vague sense is that the counselors involved have such a strong bias in favor of the poor dear students with mental health problems that their judgment is impaired beyond reason. At least one person did also report the guy to the local cops rather than just to the campus security, but nothing came of that either--presumably they won't be able to do anything until he actually does something.
I'm afraid this guy going to murder someone. I think it's absurd that he's still allowed on campus. I also think it's extremely unfair to other students, especially female students, that they have to be in a classroom with this frightening and misogynistic person--that if he (correctly) freaks them out, they're effectively being told that they are the ones who will need to drop the class.
On the other hand, I don't even know if a more aggressive attempt to get him off campus would even be a good idea, since it might just make him angry and be the thing that finally triggers him to violence. It's not like we have guards stationed at every possible entry point into campus; someone banned from campus could very easily get in.
Does anyone have any experience with anything like this? Can anyone suggest some other possible approaches to dealing with it that I'm overlooking here?
Title IX violation for singling out women. Report it to your local Title IX coordinator.
Written notice to department chair, academic dean, dean of students, head of campus police, director of campus counseling center, head of HR, Title IX coordinator -- everyone gets cc'd on the same message. Document specific encounters you have had with this student first -- statements made, dates, locations. Document second-hand accounts after. Conclude by saying you are providing this information to local law enforcement because you believe the student is a danger to himself and others. If you feel personally endangered, state this explicitly. Then send it out.
The reason why I focused on Title IX is that unless they see the claim as frivolous, they have to err on the side of investigating and then probably having a hearing. If this student is found responsible for whatever he is accused (some sort of harassment, I guess), then there has to be a resolution. Also, Title IX has strict deadlines for time until hearing after intake, and then time until resolution, etc.. Note that they are under no obligation to let you know (as a mandatory reporter) how the case is progressing. In fact, that's probably a violation of confidentiality.
qualiyah, I am so sorry that you're dealing with this. It's terrifying. Along with documenting and alerting the various groups as other posters have mentioned, I hope you find ways to feel safer. That can include taking care of when and where you are on campus, protecting personal information, and getting professional help for yourself.
I've encountered variations of this twice in my career--both times I was very scared, both times the university did little to protect me or other instructors, both times the student managed to drift away without hurting anyone. So we were lucky. But I really took to heart the advice to limit my exposure to that person (for example, office hours moved from my office to the coffee area on campus, so I wouldn't be alone, etc.)
He is not a campus employee, so exactly what obligations under the Title IX act does he have to avoid saying things in class that offend women? He has been investigated by campus security, campus mental health professionals, and the local fuzz, and none find any cause to remove him from class or campus, let alone charge him with any crime or send him into an involuntary mental health commitment. Exactly what are you asking to be done with him, and on what basis should your judgement supercede those of the trained mental health and law enforcement professionals who have investigated him thoroughly? Now I assume that had he actually threatened violence against anyone and/or displayed a weapon, he'd be gone, of course...
I'm sorry you're dealing with this.
I had a lesser version of this student one semester. He didn't seem violent, but he would come to class obviously altered in some way — drugs, probably. He always sat in the back so I didn't pick up on anything beyond the fact that he was spacey and uncommunicative. But a sgroup of female students came to me to say that he was creeping them out, making incomprehensible but worrying rambling remarks all through class ("I'd like to ... why don't you and me ... hey babe, come on over here ... watch out for those people ... they're controlling your thoughts ... want me to protect you?") and generally acting like someone who was out to lunch. I tried to talk to him and he was clearly not in his right mind. He also was becoming increasingly unwashed and disheveled, and really needed some kind of care, not some kind of advanced language class.
So I reported him to our office of student problems, or whatever it's called, and I'm not sure what they did, but he never appeared in class again, to the great relief of the students and of me.
If they managed to corral that guy, I'm not sure why they can't corral yours. Cowardice, I would guess. I'm surprised yours is passing his classes. Unless he is so threatening to the instructors that they don't want to get on his bad side.
Document, document, document, escalate, escalate, escalate. Wishing you speedy success.
Friends of mine have a doctoral student like this. He was fine at first, but then went off his medication and spiralled down from there. He now talks about being the world's premier scholar of Person P and writes very long, meandering screeds against anything and everything, but especially women, which he submits to my (female) friends. They've had some success just ignoring them, but it's pretty scary and they're also at wit's end. I believe he's no longer enrolled, and they don't see him, but they do get screeds about mind-control via email every few weeks.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 18, 2023, 11:04:33 PM
Now I assume that had he actually threatened violence against anyone and/or displayed a weapon, he'd be gone, of course...
I forgot to mention that he also talked to someone about wanting to shoot up a strip club. That was also reported, to no effect. So there have actually been threats of violence. I suppose the people making decisions on this case must have interpreted these comments as non-serious--and realistically, people do sometimes say things like that without meaning them seriously in any way--but given the broader context I think it should be taken seriously.
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. The trouble is that people have been
trying the "document document document" approach with no results. I might try the Title IX coordinator.
Echoing spork's advice - written notice to everyone in your chain of command from the dean of students (or whatever your place calls this administrator) down to your direct supervisor. It is now possible to argue your liability for this guy's actions because he made not only disparaging and threatening remarks about specific groups but has targeted a specific place. If you are wrong, so be it. Better to be mistaken than dead.
Quote from: qualiyah on March 19, 2023, 12:44:43 PM
[. . .]
The trouble is that people have been trying the "document document document" approach with no results.
[. . .]
This is why you report to local law enforcement outside of the university
and inform the university that you are doing so.
Mention that poor SOB professor at Arizona State who was recently shot to death by a disgruntled PhD student. That was another student who had repeatedly been reported to the authorities and nothing was done.
Were this me, fVck the rules. I'd either be carrying a pocket pistol or at least move the course to online with immediate effect. And if the dean doesn't like it, they can teach the damn course. This job ain't worth dying for.
I guess I have to repeat the basic point I made yesterday--- any threats he may have made have been investigated, and presumably found without merit.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 19, 2023, 09:23:59 PM
I guess I have to repeat the basic point I made yesterday--- any threats he may have made have been investigated, and presumably found without merit.
I do think this is a reasonable point. I mean, sure, the professionals can be wrong and there can be times where I would trust your judgment over theirs, like if you had been the personal target of threats you saw as credible. But, basically the claim here is, "I think this student has a psychological condition and is dangerous. He has been evaluated by experts, and they don't share this view, but I don't trust them because I think they are just being nice to him." Most people who act in disturbing ways aren't actually dangerous. That's true even if he does paranoid schizophrenia. A second hand report of a threat doesn't change that. I'm pretty sure I've never said I wanted to shoot up anything, but I think the vast majority of us have said things at various times that taken out of context could be construed as threats of violence.
You can demand that there be procedures in place to investigate and scrutinize possible threats, but you can't demand that the result of those evaluations is going to be a determination that there is a real threat.
None of that means you just live have to live with this student behaving in ways that you describe and you might have more success if you drop the focus on the threat the student poses. Title IX is one possibility, but there are a lot of other avenues to pursue. There are all kinds of rules about student conduct that have nothing to do with whether the student is dangerous. If he's going off on rants that disrupt classes, making personal attacks on other students in discussions, or behaving in ways in faculty meetings that aren't appropriate, that's all stuff that you can direct to the dean of students' office and can be grounds for suspension and expulsion.
Quote from: spork on March 19, 2023, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: qualiyah on March 19, 2023, 12:44:43 PM
[. . .]
The trouble is that people have been trying the "document document document" approach with no results.
[. . .]
This is why you report to local law enforcement outside of the university and inform the university that you are doing so.
+1 to this and the other suggestions on this thread.
I'm sorry that you have to put up with this. Do look up what constitutes a hostile or dangerous work environment in your state. Document, report, report, and include a sentence to the effect that the student's behavior creates a hostile environment for you and the students in your class. See the definition below. Contact the local police department so that they are aware of the situation, and result in a paper trail outside your institution.
QuoteConduct is severe enough that the environment becomes intimidating, offensive or abusive
If I read the OP correctly, the local cops have already been involved, and, again, they, as well as campus security and campus mental health staff, all conclude that there's no there there. It sounds, therefore, like either 1) the OP is being paranoid, 2) the OP dislikes the student and wants him gone. But neither one of these would at all be grounds to defenestrate him.
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 20, 2023, 04:59:54 AM
Quote from: spork on March 19, 2023, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: qualiyah on March 19, 2023, 12:44:43 PM
[. . .]
The trouble is that people have been trying the "document document document" approach with no results.
[. . .]
This is why you report to local law enforcement outside of the university and inform the university that you are doing so.
Contact the local police department so that they are aware of the situation, and result in a paper trail outside your institution.
QuoteConduct is severe enough that the environment becomes intimidating, offensive or abusive
It isn't clear to me that is a viable option. It doesn't really sound to me that Qualiyah has been the recipient of any direct threats. It actually isn't really clear that anyone has been directly threatened. You can't just file a police report that someone's behavior alarms you. You have to be alleging either that someone did something illegal or you have specific reasons to believe they might do something illegal.
As for concrete actions-I would be inclined to try to break through the bureaucracy. Could you and other colleagues-possibly the department chair-set up a meeting with the dean of students'. Could you ask for someone from the counseling office to come to that meeting too? The goal wouldn't be to persuade anyone that the student is dangerous-but to impress on everyone that the student is behaving in ways that don't allow you and the students to teach and learn.
Quote from: spork on March 19, 2023, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: qualiyah on March 19, 2023, 12:44:43 PM
[. . .]
The trouble is that people have been trying the "document document document" approach with no results.
[. . .]
This is why you report to local law enforcement outside of the university and inform the university that you are doing so.
Yes. Knowing that the situation is already serious enough that you're reporting it to the police ought to help get their attention.
We had to deal with a
dangerous lunatic highly disturbing patron at the library a few years ago. He had an actual history of appalling violence, was now out of prison, and evidently wasn't keeping on his medication consistently. He was scaring other patrons away. And was getting into near-altercations with another patron who had his own history of problematic behavior. Fortunately we're a small institution and know the local police. And we have the authority to issue ban notices.
I did hold off for a bit to try to avoid taking precipitate action, but once I realized we had to take action it was pretty swift and decisive. We had the man served with a ban notice. He insisted on coming back in violation of the ban order. As soon as he did, we called the police and had him escorted out. He hasn't been back. It was heart-rending to have to face his mother, though. She ultimately accepted that we had done what we had to do.
We've got far too many
dangerous lunatics highly disturbing people running around loose in a society where they have little problem accessing firearms. We need far more robust procedures and enforcement in place to keep them off the streets. It's one thing to try to support people with mental and emotional issues and try to help them avoid being stigmatized, but when somebody's conduct is threatening to others and keeps them from going about their business in peace and without fear we ought not to tolerate it.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 20, 2023, 08:18:37 AM
If I read the OP correctly, the local cops have already been involved, and, again, they, as well as campus security and campus mental health staff, all conclude that there's no there there. It sounds, therefore, like either 1) the OP is being paranoid, 2) the OP dislikes the student and wants him gone. But neither one of these would at all be grounds to defenestrate him.
Well, obviously the rest of us here can't know for certain the rights and wrongs of the case. But I find the OP's concerns all too plausible, and am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. As noted in the post above, I've seen dangerous characters like this first hand (I've also had to get a court order against an abusive ex. Yes, sometimes guys have to do that too). They are a very real problem, and disturbingly widespread in today's society, for whatever reasons (I'm inclined to suspect widespread family breakdown and drug use). And, again, they can easily get hold of firearms if they want them. We read about them on almost a daily basis in the news.
Wishing you well in dealing with this issue, qualiyah. Try to remind yourself that
most of these dangerous characters don't actually end up hurting anybody before they get moved out of harm's way. The systems in place to keep them from hurting others usually work, even though they don't always work as fast as we'd like. And the authorities do in fairness have a difficult job in trying to juggle protection of the interests of the mentally ill in general with protection of others from genuine potential threats.
I'm with kaysixteen on this. (minus the last comment speculating on OP's motivations)
There are millions of people in this world who have paranoid schizophrenia (assuming that is what the student has), and the sort of delusions you describe sound quite run of the mill. A quick Google search suggests that ppl with paranoid schizophrenia are ~5x more likely than the general population to be violent. AFAICT, that is no more a risk factor than being young and male.
I'm sure the student is a nuisance, and I don't blame you for trying to find a way to not have them in your class. But having them expelled/put in jail/etc. after more-experienced authorities already investigated and deemed them ok, is maybe over the line.
I'm sorry you have to deal with this. Even though mentally ill persons are not as violent as they are often perceived to be, this kind of vitriol would make me feel unsafe.
The best tack with this is going to be focusing on student learning and classroom disruptions. You've clearly lost the case that this person is dangerous - to be fair, he may not be, even though I'm certain he feels dangerous. But, it seems pretty clear that he is also disrupting class and making it generally difficult for other students to learn. I would not want to come to a class where I had to hear these things, and I think that should be your focus. I think you should lobby that the student needs to have counseling and/or discussions about how to act appropriately in class. These discussions can focus on strategies for controlling observable and disruptive behaviors, rather than what he may or may not be thinking. You shouldn't do this - counseling should.
Also, you may consider asking them to leave the classroom if they become disruptive. I do it to people on cell phones or online shopping, etc. I know you may not feel safe doing that, but pulling them aside, noting that they are disrupting class, and asking them to return when they fell they can productively contribute is a pedagogical strategy.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 20, 2023, 08:18:37 AM
If I read the OP correctly, the local cops have already been involved, and, again, they, as well as campus security and campus mental health staff, all conclude that there's no there there. It sounds, therefore, like either 1) the OP is being paranoid, 2) the OP dislikes the student and wants him gone. But neither one of these would at all be grounds to defenestrate him.
I don't think that's fair. Just because the student isn't actually dangerous, doesn't mean that his behavior (which may or may not be the result of mental illness) isn't scary to others and disruptive. If he's spinning out conspiracy theories in class, talking about what seem to be frightening delusions, verbally attacking other students in discussion, or displaying open hostility, that interferes with teaching and learning. It isn't our job as instructors to try to manage that kind of thing, and it definitely isn't the job of our students to try to figure out how to navigate that.
All this is true. But I still have to cycle back to the fact that experienced professionals in both mental health and law enforcement areas have already examined the situation, and found no cause for action. It is especially telling that the local cops have found this as well, since they do not work for the uni and have no potential conflct of interest motivations that might cause them to softpedal or even whitewash this young man's actions. Amateurs, such as most professors, should not be considered superior in judgment in this sort of situation, to such professionals. This would be more or less the exact opposite of what happened when apl recently summoned the cops to his library to deal with the mentally ill violent ex-con-- the cops did see the merit to apl's request, and acted accordingly.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 20, 2023, 07:27:05 PM
But I still have to cycle back to the fact that experienced professionals in both mental health and law enforcement areas have already examined the situation, and found no cause for action. It is especially telling that the local cops have found this as well, since they do not work for the uni and have no potential conflct of interest motivations that might cause them to softpedal or even whitewash this young man's actions.
We went through the steps of this investigation with a faculty member who had gone off the deep end. And who had not only a conviction that people were targeting him, but a very extensive gun collection. (In the end they gave him a huge amount of money to go away, and he faded from view.)
What university officials and police do is determine whether the person has committed an action that would allow for them to be expelled, detained, or what have you. They do not base their conclusions on whether the person is likely to pose a genuine threat. They base them
solely on whether it is legal to take action against the person. The fact that these mental health professionals and law enforcement representatives say "No cause for action" does not in any way mean that there is no threat. It just means they can't do anything about it until actual violence or other illegal behavior occurs. Therefore their failure to take action is not reassuring in any way. They're not judging whether he's a threat. I see every reason to believe that he could indeed be a threat, and I would be just as worried as the OP.
Quote from: Hegemony on March 20, 2023, 11:03:09 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 20, 2023, 07:27:05 PM
But I still have to cycle back to the fact that experienced professionals in both mental health and law enforcement areas have already examined the situation, and found no cause for action. It is especially telling that the local cops have found this as well, since they do not work for the uni and have no potential conflct of interest motivations that might cause them to softpedal or even whitewash this young man's actions.
We went through the steps of this investigation with a faculty member who had gone off the deep end. And who had not only a conviction that people were targeting him, but a very extensive gun collection. (In the end they gave him a huge amount of money to go away, and he faded from view.)
What university officials and police do is determine whether the person has committed an action that would allow for them to be expelled, detained, or what have you. They do not base their conclusions on whether the person is likely to pose a genuine threat. They base them solely on whether it is legal to take action against the person. The fact that these mental health professionals and law enforcement representatives say "No cause for action" does not in any way mean that there is no threat. It just means they can't do anything about it until actual violence or other illegal behavior occurs. Therefore their failure to take action is not reassuring in any way. They're not judging whether he's a threat. I see every reason to believe that he could indeed be a threat, and I would be just as worried as the OP.
Woah, woah. First of all, you're in no position to make a judgement like that. The reason it's hard to identify people who are likely to commit violent acts is because there are lots of people who act in ways that fit a profile and very few of them actually do anything. And we don't even know if this person really fits the profile anyway. There are some really unfortunate results of a widespread and correct sense that our institutions are failing to prevent gun violence. One of them is a tendency to overestimate the personal risk and another is to feel like somehow we all need to be responsible for our own protection and you see both of them here.
There are also a bunch of claims in this post that are misleading, at best. Maybe they are true in Hegemony's university, but they aren't broadly true. University officials, working with mental health professionals and others, absolutely can and do assess whether someone is posing a threat. They call the process "Threat Assessment." It also isn't true that they have to see violence or illegal behavior before they can do anything. It is true that the actions they take have to be proportionate to what's going on, and they do have to take into consideration the rights of students/and or others. Just because the student is still on campus doesn't mean nothing has been done. The way this is supposed to work is that there is an assessment, there's a determination about whether the threat is severe enough to need drastic action like immediate police action, involuntary confinement, or removal from campus. If it isn't, but there are concerns based on the student's behavior or words, then there's a plan put in place to help the student and deal with the concerning behaviors. Then, there's supposed to be a regular meeting attended by various people where they continue to monitor the situation, assess whether things are improving are getting worse and reassess the danger if new information comes in.
I get that that might feel like nothing is being done and I can understand the anxiety, but the ideas behind these systems are basically sound. People don't usually escalate quickly from vague concerning statements to violent actions. Usually threats become more specific and more immediate over time. The goal is to make sure that information is being shared and assessed. It isn't just a legal issue, we shouldn't want students are thrown off campus because they scared someone. We should want to try to avoid stigmatizing students and try to help them and only see them as a dangerous threat when that's absolutely necessary. Of course, all kinds of behavior that doesn't make someone a clear threat can still be extreme enough that they shouldn't be attending classes...
Quote from: apl68 on March 20, 2023, 08:23:04 AM
We've got far too many dangerous lunatics highly disturbing people running around loose in a society where they have little problem accessing firearms. We need far more robust procedures and enforcement in place to keep them off the streets. It's one thing to try to support people with mental and emotional issues and try to help them avoid being stigmatized, but when somebody's conduct is threatening to others and keeps them from going about their business in peace and without fear we ought not to tolerate it.
This is one of those thorny political issues. a Few decades ago there was a push to reduce the number of people who were institutionalized for mental health issues. Now the pendulum has swung to where all kinds of people who even have some sort of history of bad behaviour can't be forced to
take their medication. And every time law enforcement are called to deal with someone having a crisis, they're likely to get criticized for just about
any actions they take.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 21, 2023, 06:59:43 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 20, 2023, 08:23:04 AM
We've got far too many dangerous lunatics highly disturbing people running around loose in a society where they have little problem accessing firearms. We need far more robust procedures and enforcement in place to keep them off the streets. It's one thing to try to support people with mental and emotional issues and try to help them avoid being stigmatized, but when somebody's conduct is threatening to others and keeps them from going about their business in peace and without fear we ought not to tolerate it.
This is one of those thorny political issues. a Few decades ago there was a push to reduce the number of people who were institutionalized for mental health issues. Now the pendulum has swung to where all kinds of people who even have some sort of history of bad behaviour can't be forced to take their medication. And every time law enforcement are called to deal with someone having a crisis, they're likely to get criticized for just about any actions they take.
I'm sure it often feels like a no-win situation for those who have to deal with such issues. I felt much that way in dealing with the threatening patron mentioned above. Some staff members and other patrons wanted me to kick him out almost as soon as he started coming. They immediately got a scary vibe from him before he'd even really done anything provoking at the library (That, and some were aware of his horribly violent history). I held off, because he'd paid his debt to society, and because a public library is supposed to be accessible to everybody--even those whom society is inclined to stigmatize. I could also see us just possibly getting into legal trouble if we jumped the gun and banned a patron without being able to show good cause.
So we documented and waited and hoped that the situation would get better. It deteriorated instead. And that's when we took action. I had to write up an incident report and other documentation, and let our Board of Trustees know everything that was going on. I can see how an institution with multiple layers of bureaucracy could take a good deal longer to take action. It would take longer for them to pull together information regarding a pattern of disturbing behavior. So I can sympathize with whoever is responsible at the OP's institution for trying to figure out the best way to control this situation without possibly becoming guilty of an overreaction. As well as with the OP and with others who are undoubtedly genuinely frightened by the behavior they're witnessing.
Most of all I sympathize with family members and others close to those with intractable mental issues. I've never forgotten the mother of the man we banned in that case. He had a history of dangerous mental illness and truly vicious criminal acts. She was trying so hard to keep him out of trouble after he was returned to society. She thought that going to the library would be a good outlet for him. He only got himself into more trouble instead.
Quote from: Caracal on March 21, 2023, 06:34:46 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on March 20, 2023, 11:03:09 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 20, 2023, 07:27:05 PM
But I still have to cycle back to the fact that experienced professionals in both mental health and law enforcement areas have already examined the situation, and found no cause for action. It is especially telling that the local cops have found this as well, since they do not work for the uni and have no potential conflct of interest motivations that might cause them to softpedal or even whitewash this young man's actions.
We went through the steps of this investigation with a faculty member who had gone off the deep end. And who had not only a conviction that people were targeting him, but a very extensive gun collection. (In the end they gave him a huge amount of money to go away, and he faded from view.)
What university officials and police do is determine whether the person has committed an action that would allow for them to be expelled, detained, or what have you. They do not base their conclusions on whether the person is likely to pose a genuine threat. They base them solely on whether it is legal to take action against the person. The fact that these mental health professionals and law enforcement representatives say "No cause for action" does not in any way mean that there is no threat. It just means they can't do anything about it until actual violence or other illegal behavior occurs. Therefore their failure to take action is not reassuring in any way. They're not judging whether he's a threat. I see every reason to believe that he could indeed be a threat, and I would be just as worried as the OP.
Woah, woah. First of all, you're in no position to make a judgement like that. The reason it's hard to identify people who are likely to commit violent acts is because there are lots of people who act in ways that fit a profile and very few of them actually do anything. And we don't even know if this person really fits the profile anyway. There are some really unfortunate results of a widespread and correct sense that our institutions are failing to prevent gun violence. One of them is a tendency to overestimate the personal risk and another is to feel like somehow we all need to be responsible for our own protection and you see both of them here.
There are also a bunch of claims in this post that are misleading, at best. Maybe they are true in Hegemony's university, but they aren't broadly true. University officials, working with mental health professionals and others, absolutely can and do assess whether someone is posing a threat. They call the process "Threat Assessment." It also isn't true that they have to see violence or illegal behavior before they can do anything. It is true that the actions they take have to be proportionate to what's going on, and they do have to take into consideration the rights of students/and or others. Just because the student is still on campus doesn't mean nothing has been done. The way this is supposed to work is that there is an assessment, there's a determination about whether the threat is severe enough to need drastic action like immediate police action, involuntary confinement, or removal from campus. If it isn't, but there are concerns based on the student's behavior or words, then there's a plan put in place to help the student and deal with the concerning behaviors. Then, there's supposed to be a regular meeting attended by various people where they continue to monitor the situation, assess whether things are improving are getting worse and reassess the danger if new information comes in.
I get that that might feel like nothing is being done and I can understand the anxiety, but the ideas behind these systems are basically sound. People don't usually escalate quickly from vague concerning statements to violent actions. Usually threats become more specific and more immediate over time. The goal is to make sure that information is being shared and assessed. It isn't just a legal issue, we shouldn't want students are thrown off campus because they scared someone. We should want to try to avoid stigmatizing students and try to help them and only see them as a dangerous threat when that's absolutely necessary. Of course, all kinds of behavior that doesn't make someone a clear threat can still be extreme enough that they shouldn't be attending classes...
You have more faith in such experts than I do. I once read an interview by James Fox - one of the leading criminologists in the country. He made it clear that identifying the various components that make somebody shoot up a school (mental illness, social isolation etc) are clear. And there are millions of these folks walking the street. But he claimed that identifying the one who is going to shoot up a school is pretty much just guesswork.
I don't believe that the school mental health office, our security department, or the local po-po is any more likely to accurately identify who is truly at risk than an Ouija Board.
In this case, there may also be a different ethical concern.
Some of you are concerned that the rights of the allegedly mentally ill person are being abrogated due to a lack of evidence. It's not ethical.
Neither is taking his money ethical when it seems (based on what OP has posted) that this student is not likely to be attaining any decent educational outcome due to what appears to be a serious mental illness.
Quote from: secundem_artem on March 21, 2023, 09:23:24 AM
You have more faith in such experts than I do. I once read an interview by James Fox - one of the leading criminologists in the country. He made it clear that identifying the various components that make somebody shoot up a school (mental illness, social isolation etc) are clear. And there are millions of these folks walking the street. But he claimed that identifying the one who is going to shoot up a school is pretty much just guesswork.
I don't believe that the school mental health office, our security department, or the local po-po is any more likely to accurately identify who is truly at risk than an Ouija Board.
In this case, there may also be a different ethical concern.
Some of you are concerned that the rights of the allegedly mentally ill person are being abrogated due to a lack of evidence. It's not ethical.
Neither is taking his money ethical when it seems (based on what OP has posted) that this student is not likely to be attaining any decent educational outcome due to what appears to be a serious mental illness.
I agree with all of that and I have no idea if these processes work. Most of these people who fit that profile are at far greater risk of hurting themselves than anyone else.
I'm sorry you're going through this - agree with the others to report it, in writing, to authorities not answering to the institution, and making the institution aware you are doing so. Also, document, document, document.
When I was a student, there was a fellow student who I, among others, shared an apartment with, and we were in some of the same classes. He became withdrawn and grumpy. But then he began to act in ways that seemed like an obvious mental illness - from his facial expression to doing things like getting up in the middle of a lecture and just stare at the rest of the audience without rhyme or reason. We - me and those who lived with him - reported him to everyone we could think of. I don't know if the instructor did the same. Some folks we contacted perhaps had their hands tied, at least one clearly just wanted to pass the buck and not do his job - but nothing was done until he actually became violent. I wasn't there but I don't think anyone was seriously hurt, in any case what happened is that he moved to dorms. I ran into him once after that and he seemed better. Not sure what happened to him next, I never saw him again. My point is that yes, he did ultimately turn violent, and that up to that point nobody in charge did anything, at least nothing remotely effective or visible.
That's my bias - and I think K16 and others have an extraordinary faith in the diligence and competence of those nominally in charge, and a lot of faith that their hands aren't actually tied and that they're not simply overwhelmed so cases like this fall entirely through the cracks. Even assuming that there has actually been some kind of investigation seems to me a huge leap of faith - I'm not seeing any evidence of it. In any case, people's hands may actually be tied - they might think the behavior alarming but in practice be unable to actually do anything meaningful based on hearsay of threats and problematic behavior.
Quote from: qualiyah on March 18, 2023, 11:20:29 AM
I'm afraid this guy going to murder someone. I think it's absurd that he's still allowed on campus. I also think it's extremely unfair to other students, especially female students, that they have to be in a classroom with this frightening and misogynistic person--that if he (correctly) freaks them out, they're effectively being told that they are the ones who will need to drop the class.
The bolded above is the problem. Students should not have to put up with someone like this student in their classes. What does admin tell students when they complain or when they drop the course? This isn't merely a question of fairness, but rather the right to have a classroom environment where students do not have to walk on eggshells.
Amen to what Stockmann is saying. If the experts were so exact in prediction, and if the system were so well-designed and effective in preventing violence from unbalanced people, we wouldn't have the level of violence we do have. As a PBS report about mass shootings at universities says, "Mass shootings tend to be boys and men in a noticeable crisis who communicate intent to do harm in advance."* (This is just mass shootings, meaning 4 or more people were shot. Violence toward fewer people should be similar.) In the great majority of these cases, the signs were there ahead of time, and in many cases, others noticed and tried to do something about the person who was clearly coming off the rails, but were unable to do so.
Now, maybe the guy in the OP's case will never do anything violent. But it is certainly not irrational to think that the potential is there. I wonder what idyllic realm some of you are living in, that you think the potential is negligible.
*https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-data-analysis-shows-about-campus-shootings
Quote from: Hegemony on March 21, 2023, 12:47:57 PM
Amen to what Stockmann is saying. If the experts were so exact in prediction, and if the system were so well-designed and effective in preventing violence from unbalanced people, we wouldn't have the level of violence we do have. As a PBS report about mass shootings at universities says, "Mass shootings tend to be boys and men in a noticeable crisis who communicate intent to do harm in advance."* (This is just mass shootings, meaning 4 or more people were shot. Violence toward fewer people should be similar.) In the great majority of these cases, the signs were there ahead of time, and in many cases, others noticed and tried to do something about the person who was clearly coming off the rails, but were unable to do so.
Now, maybe the guy in the OP's case will never do anything violent. But it is certainly not irrational to think that the potential is there. I wonder what idyllic realm some of you are living in, that you think the potential is negligible.
*https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-data-analysis-shows-about-campus-shootings
Well, I think the potential is relatively slight, because mass shootings are rare. Way too common, but rare in the broader sense. And I'm saying this as someone who taught a student who tried to commit a mass shooting on campus the next semester. I can't go into teach and think about whether any of my students are dangerous or think about barricading doors or any of that. If I thought the risks were high enough to justify that kind of thing, I'd just quit. It doesn't mean this guy should be in classes. People don't need to be in perfect mental health to attend college, but they have to be able to function. We aren't therapists and if someone appears to be untethered from reality that's not something we can manage in a class and its not something students should be expected to manage.
One more thing, actually two, comes to mind: 1) the cops/ security did hear that the student in question was supposed to have said something threatening to a fellow student, and rejected the accusation-- people do , and can, lie-- and 2) the OP, and we here, do not know, really have no way of knowing, exactly what the level of scrutiny was that the cops, campus security, and campus mental health people, vetted the guy with. They could easily have subjected him to a serious evaluation about which the OP simply knows nothing.
Actually, what K16 says rings partly true to me, as I know that most forms of resolution are confidential, and even if they were not, no agency would necessarily feel obligated to inform the initial complainant of how the problem was resolved (unless it was by, say, a trial or hearing in which they were a witness, but even then, they aren't officially informed of the resolution). That being said, I know how things can slip through the cracks or be resolved in a matter that is probably too superficial.
Quote from: Ruralguy on March 22, 2023, 12:30:35 PM
Actually, what K16 says rings partly true to me, as I know that most forms of resolution are confidential, and even if they were not, no agency would necessarily feel obligated to inform the initial complainant of how the problem was resolved (unless it was by, say, a trial or hearing in which they were a witness, but even then, they aren't officially informed of the resolution). That being said, I know how things can slip through the cracks or be resolved in a matter that is probably too superficial.
Yeah, I think that's right. There's no way for us, or for Qualiyah to know whether this has been handled well. Even if this was dealt with appropriately and thoroughly, that wouldn't take away all risk. Mental health and security professionals can't predict the future or see into someone's mind. There's just no way for an individual instructor to take control of the situation and keep everyone safe. The impulse to try to do that is coming from a larger systemic failure, but it's not something an individual can address. You have to just do your job which is
1. Report any new disturbing interactions. You shouldn't assume this is all just going into a hole because you aren't seeing the process
2. If you're teaching the student and they are being disruptive in class, or if you are hearing from advisees or colleagues that there are continuing problems, find a way to make it clear to the administration that this is something that needs to be dealt with independent of any threat concerns.
3.
OP,
It's your class. You are the the tip pf the spear, as it were, in this conflict. What are your policies about disruptive behavior? Consider offering the disruptive student the option to finish the semester online. IE - "Student, I feel you are frustrated with your interactions in the classroom. Would finishing this class virtually help you focus on the subject matter?" This action removes any perceptions of retribution because it's all about helping the student meet their academic goals - passing the class, while allowing you to finish teaching your class on campus. It's a mental heath quarantine. You are giving the student time to recover.
Good luck. It's never easy trying to balance your responsibility to your class while maintaining contextual sensitivity.
On what campuses in this country would a professor have the right to unilaterally exile a student to involuntary online status? Especially when that student has been investigated by competent campus security and mental health authorities and found not to be a threat? Of course, merely asking the kid if he would consent to such an online exile is *somewhat different*, but not by much, since the kid may well feel that he has no choice but to accept, lest he be graded harshly, even failed, or perhaps also become the victim of bogus allegations of actual impropriety be lodged against him. Remember that the professor- student relationship is a fundamentally unequal power one.
Almost every student I know would consider an offer not to have to come to class any longer a consummation devoutly to be wished. The chief problem I foresee is that all the other students would want the same perk.
Some of them might consider this in those terms, yes, but if the student is given the 'I know you feel frustrated by your interactions in the course' line by a professor whose objective is to impose a 'mental health quarantine' on him, well... what do you think many such students' reactions might well be, and what would you as the professor do when/ if the student declines this kind offer?
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 24, 2023, 11:34:16 AM
Some of them might consider this in those terms, yes, but if the student is given the 'I know you feel frustrated by your interactions in the course' line by a professor whose objective is to impose a 'mental health quarantine' on him, well... what do you think many such students' reactions might well be, and what would you as the professor do when/ if the student declines this kind offer?
Yeah, I agree, you can't do that. It probably violates disabilities law. You can't assume the student has a disability and create your own disability accommodation based on that. Among other problems, I hope the only incentive to come to class isn't attendance. Presumably the student would have a difficult time on the assessments if they aren't in class, so you'd basically be setting this student up to fail the course.
What you can do, is insist on a standard of behavior and tell the student that he can't do certain things in class and ask him to leave if he does those things. It would make sense to try to frame this with compassion and you could hope that it might force people in administration to get involved. I wouldn't be excited about this option either with a volatile student who scares me, but I think you either have to do this, or just try to manage the behavior and get through the semester.
There have been times when a disruptive student had not yet crossed the actionable line for campus police, but they were perfectly happy to station an officer outside the classroom 'just in case'. They have never, in our department at least, had to do anything. Their presence alone quelled the disruptive behavior. Other students voiced their appreciation.
Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, to the point of being negligible risk.
I suspect that college students becoming violent and seriously hurting others inside the college environment is pretty rare (1 in 1,000? Not including men beating each other up at parties).
Students having serious and visible mental health issues is pretty common (maybe approaching 1 in 100?).
Students/faculty feeling uncomfortable around others and labeling them creepy is pretty common (at least as high as the last line).
IMO these frequencies suggest the need to be wary of overreacting. Sometimes learning to get through a bit of discomfort might be the best solution. And sometimes our students have issues but are just not ready to get care.
I've had a number of very close relationships with ppl with visible mental health issues and none of them were violent (although some could make ppl uncomfortable). Repeatedly calling the cops on them or getting them expelled doesn't accomplish much.
Quote from: fizzycist on March 26, 2023, 04:41:31 PM
Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, to the point of being negligible risk.
I'd be interesting in knowing the number of planned mass shootings, or even individual shootings in similar environments, that are imminent but prevented. We've had several incidents at our own place where people with some degree of nefarious intent have been disarmed, and one at the local high school. That's in addition to one local mass shooting (at our high school, several killed, over 20 wounded), one local college mass shooting (~10 killed, a similar number injured at a university in a nearby town), and several incidents at our own place where people with some degree of nefarious intent have been disarmed. This is since I moved to town. I guess compared to the millions of kids in high school and college, that's an infinitesimal fraction. It doesn't feel like a negligible risk, though. And for those of us who are female, we know that an obsessed misogynist threatening women is not rare at all. Nor is a violent man murdering a woman. Women are aware of the threat all the time, and not unjustifiably.
Quote from: fizzycist on March 26, 2023, 04:41:31 PM
Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, to the point of being negligible risk.
So are plane crashes, but that doesn't mean we don't find ways to
thoughtfully prevent them.
Quote from: fizzycist on March 26, 2023, 04:41:31 PM
Repeatedly calling the cops on them or getting them expelled doesn't accomplish much.
Agreed. Getting rid of easy access to guns would help.
I'm not naive - my cousin had a mental break in France, where guns are illegal, and stabbed his wife and his mother to death. So, while getting rid of guns will not eliminate all murders, imagine how many people he could have killed had he been easily able to access a gun.
Quote from: Ruralguy on March 22, 2023, 12:30:35 PM
Actually, what K16 says rings partly true to me, as I know that most forms of resolution are confidential, and even if they were not, no agency would necessarily feel obligated to inform the initial complainant of how the problem was resolved (unless it was by, say, a trial or hearing in which they were a witness, but even then, they aren't officially informed of the resolution). That being said, I know how things can slip through the cracks or be resolved in a matter that is probably too superficial.
True,.but it is also true that many mentally disturbed people are very capable of hiding it at times. In many cases it comes in fits and spurts, and many are quite intelligent. It is also true that police are not psychologists either, and are often limited to only looking at if a crime has been committed, or another offense on which they can act, otherwise their hands are tied even if they agree This is a major reason we see so many cases where mass shooters had been reported, but nothing could be done.
So, just because police and others have dismissed it, doesn't mean there isn't a problem, just that the student has not crossed any lines where they can do anything. This is the unfortunate consequence of freedom, that we often cannot act until it is too late.
I really don't have any good suggestions for the OP, but hope it all works out.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 27, 2023, 02:21:23 AM
Quote from: fizzycist on March 26, 2023, 04:41:31 PM
Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, to the point of being negligible risk.
So are plane crashes, but that doesn't mean we don't find ways to thoughtfully prevent them.
Right, and those systems mean that when people fly on planes they don't think they should be in charge of assessing and managing dangers and risks. That's good, because we don't have the information or the knowledge to accurately assess those risks and trying to do so would just induce anxiety. The system isn't perfect, planes do occasionally crash and sometimes these crashes involve failures of oversight, but the system is designed to figure out what went wrong and prevent similar things from happening again, even though crashes are quite rare.
Mass shootings are also rare, and the individual risk is quite low, but our political system has completely failed to address them (Or gun violence in general which kills far more people than the mass shootings that get so much attention) The result is that some people try to mitigate and manage their own risk. That's understandable, but it isn't effective and it certainly isn't healthy. What scares me is the way that this kind of thing seems to becoming a sort of societal neurosis. People talk about being afraid in public places and scanning crowds always looking for signs of danger as if these are rational actions. I hear colleagues talk about which classrooms are more dangerous in the case of a mass shooter or discuss door locking mechanisms as if they are discussing car maintenance. There is a political failure, but these kinds of anxieties just aren't justified by the risk.
Quote from: Hegemony on March 27, 2023, 12:05:30 AM
Quote from: fizzycist on March 26, 2023, 04:41:31 PM
Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, to the point of being negligible risk.
I'd be interesting in knowing the number of planned mass shootings, or even individual shootings in similar environments, that are imminent but prevented. We've had several incidents at our own place where people with some degree of nefarious intent have been disarmed, and one at the local high school. That's in addition to one local mass shooting (at our high school, several killed, over 20 wounded), one local college mass shooting (~10 killed, a similar number injured at a university in a nearby town), and several incidents at our own place where people with some degree of nefarious intent have been disarmed. This is since I moved to town. I guess compared to the millions of kids in high school and college, that's an infinitesimal fraction. It doesn't feel like a negligible risk, though. And for those of us who are female, we know that an obsessed misogynist threatening women is not rare at all. Nor is a violent man murdering a woman. Women are aware of the threat all the time, and not unjustifiably.
Yes. That's why I'm fully prepared to give the OP the benefit of the doubt for justifiable conceern, even though the statistical probability is that the scary student won't do any actual harm.
Quote from: Caracal on March 27, 2023, 06:32:53 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 27, 2023, 02:21:23 AM
Quote from: fizzycist on March 26, 2023, 04:41:31 PM
Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, to the point of being negligible risk.
So are plane crashes, but that doesn't mean we don't find ways to thoughtfully prevent them.
Right, and those systems mean that when people fly on planes they don't think they should be in charge of assessing and managing dangers and risks. That's good, because we don't have the information or the knowledge to accurately assess those risks and trying to do so would just induce anxiety. The system isn't perfect, planes do occasionally crash and sometimes these crashes involve failures of oversight, but the system is designed to figure out what went wrong and prevent similar things from happening again, even though crashes are quite rare.
Mass shootings are also rare, and the individual risk is quite low, but our political system has completely failed to address them (Or gun violence in general which kills far more people than the mass shootings that get so much attention) The result is that some people try to mitigate and manage their own risk. That's understandable, but it isn't effective and it certainly isn't healthy. What scares me is the way that this kind of thing seems to becoming a sort of societal neurosis. People talk about being afraid in public places and scanning crowds always looking for signs of danger as if these are rational actions. I hear colleagues talk about which classrooms are more dangerous in the case of a mass shooter or discuss door locking mechanisms as if they are discussing car maintenance. There is a political failure, but these kinds of anxieties just aren't justified by the risk.
They are rational actions, because people have no faith in the political or social systems that would theoretically prevent being a victim of gun violence or mass shootings. So we have to do our own work.
I don't bother making sure the pilot has done the appropriate safety checks or the mechanics haven't done their jobs because there are enough structures in place to make sure they have. So, plane safety is a task I have cheerfully delegated, with full faith.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 27, 2023, 07:53:16 AM
Quote from: Caracal on March 27, 2023, 06:32:53 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 27, 2023, 02:21:23 AM
Quote from: fizzycist on March 26, 2023, 04:41:31 PM
Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, to the point of being negligible risk.
So are plane crashes, but that doesn't mean we don't find ways to thoughtfully prevent them.
Right, and those systems mean that when people fly on planes they don't think they should be in charge of assessing and managing dangers and risks. That's good, because we don't have the information or the knowledge to accurately assess those risks and trying to do so would just induce anxiety. The system isn't perfect, planes do occasionally crash and sometimes these crashes involve failures of oversight, but the system is designed to figure out what went wrong and prevent similar things from happening again, even though crashes are quite rare.
Mass shootings are also rare, and the individual risk is quite low, but our political system has completely failed to address them (Or gun violence in general which kills far more people than the mass shootings that get so much attention) The result is that some people try to mitigate and manage their own risk. That's understandable, but it isn't effective and it certainly isn't healthy. What scares me is the way that this kind of thing seems to becoming a sort of societal neurosis. People talk about being afraid in public places and scanning crowds always looking for signs of danger as if these are rational actions. I hear colleagues talk about which classrooms are more dangerous in the case of a mass shooter or discuss door locking mechanisms as if they are discussing car maintenance. There is a political failure, but these kinds of anxieties just aren't justified by the risk.
They are rational actions, because people have no faith in the political or social systems that would theoretically prevent being a victim of gun violence or mass shootings. So we have to do our own work.
It's the same two issues. First of all, these things are too rare to make hyper vigilance a rational strategy. It can be reasonable to take some precautions against rare events-Lighting striking people is pretty uncommon, but I don't stand around in open fields or under large trees, as thunderstorms move in. However, those precautions need to be well calibrated to the risk or it quickly becomes neurotic and obsessive. Scanning crowds for guns is not like checking the weather before you go for a walk, it's more like spending the entire walk starting at your radar to make sure no thunderstorm pops up.
But, even if these things weren't disruptive to enjoyment of life and doing your job, they don't help. Individual vigilance isn't going to prevent mass shootings, nor is carrying a gun of your own, nor spending your time thinking about how to barricade your room, nor worrying about the behavior of every student who seems a bit off. I'm not accusing the OP of being obsessive, I'd be nervous about this student too, but there are just limitations to what individuals can do.
I'm guessing Caracal is male. For women, we know that we take male violence into account every day. And that to do so is prudent, not obsessive. Is it too dark to walk down to the corner store? Should I park in this far-away parking lot or will I be returning to my car so late that I won't be safe walking in this deserted space after dark? How late is it safe to stay in this building finishing my work, when most other people will be gone? And yes, that unbalanced misogynist guy in the class who talks about violence — what should I do about him? He's part of a bigger picture and women are familiar with that bigger picture, and with taking these things into account in all our moves. It's like being on the highway — it's not obsessive to think "That truck is coming really fast, I'd better wait till it goes by before trying to pass," "It's getting rainy, better slow down," "That guy trying to merge looks a bit reckless, better slow down and steer clear of him." The possibility of male violence is one of those everyday things we take account of, just like bad drivers and slippery roads.
Quote from: Hegemony on March 27, 2023, 03:50:00 PM
I'm guessing Caracal is male. For women, we know that we take male violence into account every day.
If we're doing stereotypes, it's also possible a lot of the security hawks in this thread are white. Some of the rest of us are wary about calling the cops and trying to get ppl expelled because of vague fears.
And for the record, before things turn nasty here, I can totally relate to trying to avoid having an annoying student in my class and do not blame OP for trying. I just push back on the tendency in this thread to assume the harshest responses are the good, just thing to do.
A few more things:
1) this student could well be on the spectrum, something the professor will never be told unless a) kid says it himself, or b) he requests and gets disabilities accommodations.
2) Things really have changed since the 80s. In 1987, during my sophomore year of college, I got kicked out of a class by a professor who overreacted to something I did, assuming it was a potential threat. It appalled me at the time.... but looking backl on the incident, although I threatened no violence, used no bad language, etc., it remains clear to me in hindsight that she probably legitimately felt threatened. And it certainly would have gone badly for me had I done this in 2023. Again, there was no violence, no threat of violence-- really I overreacted to what I, a stupid 19yo conservative Christian kid, felt was people ganging up on me in a seminar dominated by people who did not think like me, and I assumed a persecution complex. I shudder to think of what might have happened to me had 2023 standards been in effect.
Quote from: Hegemony on March 27, 2023, 03:50:00 PM
I'm guessing Caracal is male. For women, we know that we take male violence into account every day. And that to do so is prudent, not obsessive. Is it too dark to walk down to the corner store? Should I park in this far-away parking lot or will I be returning to my car so late that I won't be safe walking in this deserted space after dark? How late is it safe to stay in this building finishing my work, when most other people will be gone? And yes, that unbalanced misogynist guy in the class who talks about violence — what should I do about him? He's part of a bigger picture and women are familiar with that bigger picture, and with taking these things into account in all our moves. It's like being on the highway — it's not obsessive to think "That truck is coming really fast, I'd better wait till it goes by before trying to pass," "It's getting rainy, better slow down," "That guy trying to merge looks a bit reckless, better slow down and steer clear of him." The possibility of male violence is one of those everyday things we take account of, just like bad drivers and slippery roads.
That's fair and again, I really I wasn't accusing the original poster of overreacting or being scared of nothing. I was talking about the broader fear of mass shootings in response to other comments.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 27, 2023, 07:58:40 PM
A few more things:
1) this student could well be on the spectrum, something the professor will never be told unless a) kid says it himself, or b) he requests and gets disabilities accommodations.
This is a good point. There's a lot of "therapeutic common sense" that many of use to discuss mental health. That's fine, but it can lead to misdiagnosis in the same way that if you look up your physical symptoms, you can easily conclude that your sore throat is probably cancer.
People who have violent or disturbing thoughts, for example, are more likely to be dealing with a form of OCD than they are to be psychotic. My impression is that it's usually quite easy for a professional to distinguish between these things. It's completely possible that this student isn't delusional at all, but there's something else going on that's causing him to say disturbing things. Or not.
Again, this is why I think the only real path forward is to focus on the behavior, rather than the risk. If a student is saying things in class that scare you and scare other students, that's untenable, regardless of the cause.
Another thing... I get that if any student makes objectively threatening comments in class, or takes objectively threatening actions there, he should be dismissed from the class. But the key word here is 'objectively'-- IOW, there must be an objective basis for determining that the kid's words or actions were indeed threatening, and an adolescent young woman's feelings, or even the feelings of a middle aged professor, cannot substitute for such objective evidence... I simply have to come back to the reality that, in this case, said kid was vetted by cops, campus security, and campus mental health, and found not to be a threat.
I can well imagine someone saying things that they are found not to mean, but that would be objectionable anyway. If a class is talking about the causes of poverty, and one guy keeps saying, "It's the feminazis raising sissy boys, they should all be shot, like you should all be shot. You, Emily, and you, Jenna, and you, Professor Janeway -- a bullet through each heart" — the cops may find he has no intention of actually shooting anyone, but this is not the kind of language fellow students or a professor should have to put up with. Actually taking violent action is not the only way that an unbalanced person can be disturbing.
Sure, but a statement of desire or intent to shoot someone IS an objective threat, and should be treated as such. It strains credultity that the OP's campus security, mental health, and local cops would ignore such a type of remark, and continue to view him as not a threat.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 03, 2023, 05:32:59 PM
Sure, but a statement of desire or intent to shoot someone IS an objective threat, and should be treated as such. It strains credultity that the OP's campus security, mental health, and local cops would ignore such a type of remark, and continue to view him as not a threat.
One would certainly like to think so, and yet very often in murder investigations it turns out that prior terroristic threats had not been dealt with by the relevant authorities. There are several kinds of cracks that this sort of thing can fall through.
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 03, 2023, 05:32:59 PM
Sure, but a statement of desire or intent to shoot someone IS an objective threat, and should be treated as such. It strains credultity that the OP's campus security, mental health, and local cops would ignore such a type of remark, and continue to view him as not a threat.
Happens all the time. For some of the most egregious examples, see Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, Murad Dervish at U Arizona, and the unnamed six-year old who shot his teacher in Newport News, Virginia.
I have been told personally by a dean that a disruptive student could not be removed from one of my courses because he had already paid for it.
Quote from: Caracal on March 27, 2023, 10:43:36 AM
I hear colleagues talk about which classrooms are more dangerous in the case of a mass shooter or discuss door locking mechanisms as if they are discussing car maintenance. There is a political failure, but these kinds of anxieties just aren't justified by the risk.
<snip>
They are rational actions, because people have no faith in the political or social systems that would theoretically prevent being a victim of gun violence or mass shootings. So we have to do our own work.
<snip>
But, even if these things weren't disruptive to enjoyment of life and doing your job, they don't help. Individual vigilance isn't going to prevent mass shootings, nor is carrying a gun of your own, nor spending your time thinking about how to barricade your room, nor worrying about the behavior of every student who seems a bit off. ... but there are just limitations to what individuals can do.
We had to attend an 'active shooter training' a couple of weeks ago at my institution, this was just before the tragedy in Nashville. In that training, faculty and staff were specifically asked to (1) report students whose behavior seemed off to the mental health systems in place in the University, and how these systems connected with University and town police; and (2) to observe the layout of every classroom we are going to teach in, to know what locks, barricades, and escape routes are possible. That day lots of us learned that 'y bar' is not Ȳ (expected value of the sample mean) but is the thing that makes a door swing shut.
My behavior has certainly changed as a result, and I have now started looking at rooms, doors, and routes wherever I am. I will report students to the mental health system even though I have little faith in their ability to prevent a tragedy, especially in a region where basic gun controls are being removed year by year. This is a dreadful societal failure. I am an aging female with physical limitations, not freakin' Jack Reacher.
The Nashville teachers had received a similar training and put it into place, so that the numbers of victims were comparatively few though even one is too many.
Quote from: spork on April 04, 2023, 10:41:52 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on April 03, 2023, 05:32:59 PM
Sure, but a statement of desire or intent to shoot someone IS an objective threat, and should be treated as such. It strains credultity that the OP's campus security, mental health, and local cops would ignore such a type of remark, and continue to view him as not a threat.
Happens all the time. For some of the most egregious examples, see Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, Murad Dervish at U Arizona, and the unnamed six-year old who shot his teacher in Newport News, Virginia.
I have been told personally by a dean that a disruptive student could not be removed from one of my courses because he had already paid for it.
For what it's worth Dervish was expelled and banned from the university, but the police determined that there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with making threats.
Many, many years ago now I had a student who submitted a half-burned piece of paper in a greasy folder instead of the required essay (on a play about Lizzie Borden, unfortunately). The essay(?) talked about the need for violence. I gave it an F. He made no direct threats, but I was scared. I reported the incident to the university and kept the folder for years, just in case something happened. He told me his fraternity had called the police on him, but nothing came of it. I had that class on such a tight timeline for group activities because of this person ( I was worried he would go off on a dangerous tangent), but none of that showed up in the course evals. I don't know what ever happened to him; I hope he got some psychological help. But the experience wounded me (cisgender female) deeply.
I can't give the details since this is an ongoing issue with a student, and it is not my story to tell.
But I can say that it is amazing how close to the line a student can get without admin or counselors taking any real action other than documenting incidents, leaving the professors to nervously deal with the problem.
All this is true, but the key point here still seems to be that the kid was also investigated by the local cops, who are not on the uni's payroll and have no incentive to cover things up for it. How much do we necessarily want to preemptorally wish to exile a student because, well, maybe, the cops, security dept, and mental health folks all collectively might have erred?
I just went back to the original post to remind myself what this student has been doing.
Quoteis specific paranoid delusions include the view that many specific people at the school are terrorists who are controlling his mind and planning to blow up the school. He has repeatedly expressed these views to specific professors. He views women in general as terrorists and is really, really angry at feminists.
Whether or not he is a
danger to others, he sounds like he's incapable of behaving himself properly in class. I know that Kay is a big proponent of treating students as if they are responsible adults who must take full responsibility for their behavior. Isn't there a way to to ban this student from class on the basis that he's not behaving properly? Regardless of whether he's going to show up with a gun, surely we can hold the line on 'no sexist rants in class' and 'no accusing classmates or colleagues of terrorism and mind control in class'
Quote from: poiuy on April 05, 2023, 05:35:49 AM
observe the layout of every classroom we are going to teach in, to know what locks, barricades, and escape routes are possible. That day lots of us learned that 'y bar' is not Ȳ (expected value of the sample mean) but is the thing that makes a door swing shut.
My behavior has certainly changed as a result, and I have now started looking at rooms, doors, and routes wherever I am.
Yeah, sorry, I just won't and can't do this. Our personal risk is just not high enough to justify this kind of thing and it's really unhealthy behavior to engage in.
Since 1990 there have been 26 shootings that killed more than 2 people at colleges. There are more than 5000 colleges and universities in the country. It's very unlikely there will even be a shooting at your school, and, if there is ,your chance of being involved in it is very small. That just doesn't justify walking around always planning for an attack.
Hoo boy this post brings back suppressed memories of my own scary student from a dozen years back. He'd send me emails that I should watch my back and the dean of students would tell me "Oh that is not a threat. I have ruled that it is not a threat so that issue is closed." My own dean pushed back but it did no good. And even my own dean got mad at me when I emailed her that the student was mentally unbalanced and should be removed from campus. He could sue if he got ahold of that email, didn't I understand? "Dean," I told her, "I am leaving a paper trail so my survivors can sue this institution if something happens to me. And I am printing out everything and keeping it in a folder at home."
Eventually that DoS moved on and a new one came in and the scary student pulled his shit with a new professor and was permanently expelled. I testified in support, reading from the sheaf of emails I shared with the committee while he looked daggers at me. I looked both ways before I walked out of my house for several years. Here are a few things I would have done differently in retrospect:
File reports with local police as well as campus police. Your admin won't like it but too bad. See what it takes to get a restraining order for example. Speak frankly with them. "I feel like there is a high possibility of violence from this individual." You want to leave them concerned but also worried about how it will look if they don't do anything.
Encourage others to do the same--but never in writing.
Document incidents in writing in the form of an email. Send it to whoever is in charge of these matters but cc judiciously. The tone should be neutral and factual but also alarming. Subject line "Continued threatening behavior from a student." "Campus safety concern." Again you want them to worry about how it will look if they don't do anything and something happens and these emails go to the press.
Encourage others to do the same--but never in writing.
I also think the Title 9 approach has merit. Explore that.
My own scary student just went away after his expulsion. He sent some odd emails to various people for a year or two but then just vanished. I just googled him and found nothing much, but then he went by a couple of names.
Ok, here's my story about scary students.
My mother, who taught composition at the local CC, had a student bring a gun to class to talk to her about his grade.
'Is it loaded?' she asked.
'Of course it's loaded,' he said. 'What's the point of having a gun if it's not loaded?'
The conversation proceeded entirely normally from there, except that he had a big, loaded shotgun in his hand. She kept waiting for a colleague to peak through the door of the classroom door and observe that a student was talking to his professor with a gun in his hand, but she was so shocked that she went on autopilot, which for her meant calm, collected conversation. Later, colleagues said they did see the conversation, but she seemed fine, so they didn't call the police.
Only later, after the student had left (without harming anyone), did the police come. Because, in our state, carrying a loaded gun was not a crime, the only thing they could possibly charge him with was threatening her. But to charge him with that, he needed to have frightened her. So the question came down to, 'Did you feel frightened?'
Of course she felt frightened! She felt so frightened she could not remember a word of the conversation that took place between them, So when the cops asked if she felt frightened, the best she could say was, 'I must have been!'
(I've always thought that a better answer might have been something like, 'I've literally blocked out everything that happened in that conversation, so Im going to say that I was so scared I couldn't think straight.' But then, she was so scared she couldn't think straight, so we've got to go easy on her for suboptimal responses when the cops took her statement.)
Anyway, that wasn't good enough for them, so no one did anything about the student who brought a loaded gun to campus to talk to his composition professor about his grade.
But then, he didn't shoot her. Does that mean that the university and the police made the right decision?