frightening student

[kaysixteen]

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.

[Caracal]

[. . .]

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.

Conduct 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.

[apl68]

[. . .]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[fizzycist]

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.

[artalot]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.

[Caracal]

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...

[marshwiggle]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[secundem_artem]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[Stockmann]

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.