OPEN UNIVERSITY APRIL 22, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
by Jeffrey Herf
One of the historian's favorite words is "conjuncture." It refers to the simultaneous presence of causal factors that leads to an outcome that none on their own would have produced. It is our alternative to simplistic, single-cause explanations of events. It is an older term for what we now call "a perfect storm." The Virginia Tech massacre, and others that have preceded it are the product of a conjuncture of the ready availability of powerful, rapid fire guns; laws that have tilted too far in the direction of the rights of the mentally ill and away from protection of others; a mass culture of films and video games drowning in images of sadism and violence that makes the "fascist aesthetics" of the last century seem tame by comparison; state governments that fail to enforce federal laws on the books that restrict gun access to the mentally ill; and a public and political establishment that has tolerated an intolerable level of murder and mayhem in our country, especially since the 1960s. (On this see my article in TNR online ("True Crime," August 10, 2005).
With so many factors leading to disastrous outcomes, the temptation is great to throw up one's hands and conclude that there is some deep sickness in our country and our culture that is immune to cure. I have two practical suggestions to reduce the likelihood of more perfect storms on campus.
First, in our universities, administrators should listen more closely to the faculty when they point to dangerous students. Many administrators have become used to viewing faculty as a nuisance to be managed more than as a source of wisdom. We now know that at Virginia Tech, at least two of the murderer's professors in the English Department, Lucinda Roy and Nikki Giovanni, saw clear evidence of his madness in his written work. They notified the administration and the counseling service of the danger he posed. When literary critics whose profession lies in examining the human heart and mind send up warning signs, it would have been a good idea, to put it mildly, to take them very seriously. This was especially the case as the state of Virginia is infamous for the laxity of its gun laws--and for allowing the sale of many guns that have been used in inner-city crimes in Washington, Philadelphia, and New York.
As we all know, the eventual murderer was allowed to remain on campus. So the second thing that should happen is that universities and colleges need to change the way they think about student rights and responsibilities. On the one hand, April is the cruelest month for thousands of high school seniors who worry about whether or not they will enjoy the enormous privilege of admission to the university and college of their choice. None of them have a right to attend any particular college or university. Rather, admission must be earned. Logically, that which can be earned can also be lost through infractions of university rules. Plagiarizing a paper, for example, can and sometimes does lead to punishment including possibly expulsion from school. In this case, threatening other students and writing lunatic essays did not.
University administrators at Virginia Tech and elsewhere thought more about the various laws that protect the privacy of any student over the age of 18 than they did about the wisdom of Professors Roy and Giovanni. A letter to the editor in The New York Times of April 21st from Dr. William S. Appleton, an assistant clinical professor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is a marvel of common sense and wisdom. It deserves to be widely read and discussed so I'll do my part and summarize and quote Appleton's important points. He notes that "corporate America is not as timid as college administrators" in requiring employees to sign forms permitting release of sensitive information to insurance companies and others they deem fit. Appleton then suggests that "entering students ought to be required to sign a privacy waver covering serious mental and other illnesses under certain clearly defined conditions. Refusal to sign would mean failure to matriculate," that is, the student would not be admitted.
Doctor Appleton then combines common sense with the wisdom of a physician: "It is inconceivable that parents and concerned administrators are not informed and permitted to act upon students who fall down drunk, take dangerous drugs, make suicidal attempts, lose weight in anorexic proportions, fall to get out of bed and go to class or stalk or threaten anyone in their college community."
The truth is that it is impossible to protect a sprawling university campus from every lunatic with a gun. But it is possible to protect us from some of them. It is possible to place the security of life and limb of the members of the university and college community ahead of the privacy rights of individuals likely to do them harm--or kill them. It is time to change laws and mentalities. If we don't, who can be surprised if more conjunctures and perfect storms descend on us in the future.
10 comments
Jeffrey Herf wrties of: laws that have tilted too far in the direction of the rights of the mentally ill and away from protection of others
Is this true? I thought the problem, since the Reagan era, was a societal unwillingness to fund treatment of the mentally ill. The crazy people I see on the streets don't seem to have much in the way of treatment - or rights for that matter. However, with adequate treatment perhaps they would not need special rights.
- ndmackenzie
April 22, 2007 at 12:56pm
I think Jeffrey Herf was making a smaller point in the service of a wider argument about privacy, sickness, and potential destructive violence on university campuses. What I find interesting, however, is that on a couple of recent TNR threads dealing with the Duke case, there have been polemical attacks on the humanities in general that -- on the basis of their poisonous hatred and incomprehension -- could easily have come from a Khmer Rouge press release. At Virginia Tech, however, it appears to be the much-vilified humanties faculty who had the clearest grasp of something wrong with this student and who attempted to inform, appeal to, and urge the administrators to take the problem seriously. Indeed, it's the VT administration that looks like its only mode of response to grounded warnings of danger was to nod reassuringly and file under "no action -- possible litigation." Now of course, when the dust settles, they may be dealing with more of that than they ever imagined.
- ironyroad
April 22, 2007 at 4:22pm
Professors Roy and Giovanni are not to be found at the link given here, for their NYT letter. If anyone has the coordinates of that letter ... ?
- yerubal
April 22, 2007 at 5:22pm
The blog refers to a letter by Dr. William S. Appleton not Professors Roy and Giovanni.
- ndmackenzie
April 22, 2007 at 6:40pm
Professor Herf , writing about the tragic massacre at Virginia Tech, raises important questions about privacy rights of students. These privacy rights may prevent university authorities who are responsible for maintaining the protection of academic communities from knowing about dangerous impulses and violent tendencies of students which jeopardize the safety of everyone. With students' privacy rights hiding such tendencies under wraps, it is impossible to provide safeguards against potentially dangerous individuals, or to help those individuals who are psychologically disturbed, and prevent them from acting on violent impulses. In such cases it seems clear that students' special privacy rights must be set aside in order to maintain the safety and well-being, and even the survival of all. Yet side by side with this concern for students' privacy there is an important separate issue pertaining to the publicity given to madmen such as Cho once they have unleashed their violent urges. Monstrous mass murderers such as Cho are reshaped into tragic victims and cultic "action figures" of rage and adolescent discontent. This publicity is an atrocity. It is a reward-the desired reward-sought by Cho and his like for their murderous protests. It is also an inspiration for some to imitate such acts of unspeakable and senseless destruction, hoping for their own share of the spotlight and an opportunity to indulge their own rage and hatreds. This we see in the copycats who caused many universities and schools to close last week because of threats and warnings of similar violence. Meanwhile, all the major media outlets granted Cho his reward by showing and re-showing his videotapes, by airing his deranged writings, and by featuring hordes of psychologists and social work experts eager to explain and excuse the hideous crimes of the "troubled loner." Instead of honoring the many victims who died at his hands-innocent students and professors, scholars, athletes, artists, all people he neither knew nor cared about-- the media concentrated on the murderer who was so much more newsworthy and sensational, and better for increasing their own viewer ratings. This sort of thing happens all the time. Suicide bombers have made a profession of it, with their videotaped messages for the world. Terrorists thrive on it. Copycat school shooters and serial killers long for the glamour and fame they think their crimes will win for them. This situation makes no sense. Criminals get publicity and airtime, dramatic exposure, intense and often sympathetic scrutiny, while students' special privacy rights and university administrators' neglect of faculty concerns keep the antisocial impulses and rage, which can ultimately explode in such acts of violence, hidden from the university community they threaten, and from police authorities whose job it is to protect us from them.
- ProfsA&J
April 22, 2007 at 8:30pm
NDM, many thanks for setting me straight. Sorry to have committed slop here.
- yerubal
April 22, 2007 at 9:11pm
You write: "It is possible to place the security of life and limb of the members of the university and college community ahead of the privacy rights of individuals likely to do them harm--or kill them. It is time to change laws and mentalities. If we don't, who can be surprised if more conjunctures and perfect storms descend on us in the future." I can't help but hear the arguments of Alberto Gonzales and likeminded individuals in those words. Surely the safety of the nation must take precedence over the privacy rights of those who might do them harm! Note "might." Just as we have a problem with the assumption that someone "might" be a terrorist and therefore worthy of their privacy being invaded just because they're Muslim or anti-Bush or what have you, I would be very careful about assuming someone is so dangerous as to lose his privacy rights because he's depressed or got too drunk at a party or missed a few classes. It's a slippery slope here...
- Phobos_ColZ
April 23, 2007 at 1:12am
The tone of the letter to the editor was a little worrying. In particular the line "Corporate America is not as timid as college administrators" raised huge red flags for me. Do we want colleges to be more like Corporate America? The letter to the editor also groups several activities together seemingly under the category of the mentally ill. Some of the activities are considerably less worrying than others. That's one problem with lessening privacy restrictions: different standards for dangerous behavior. Generally i'd say err on the side of privacy and freedom unless there's a pressing need otherwise (say, if school massacres were not incredibly rare events). In regards to the Open University post, I have to question the wisdom of saying this: "So the second thing that should happen is that universities and colleges need to change the way they think about student rights and responsibilities" in response to extremely rare events. There were a few other red flags. Calling college a priveledge, for example, while technically true, has misleading implications. Colleges need and serve students. They don't exist solely for students but that's obviously a main reason, if not THE main reason, for their existance. Expelling a student should not be taken lightly. I don't want to overstate the pitfalls of Mr. Herf's suggestions, but they are worrying.
- Count
April 23, 2007 at 5:08am
I'm a college student. I've been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. I have emotional issues that can and do interfere with my academic performance. A half-century ago, I doubt that many psychiatrists would have diagnosed me as being "mentally ill," (did they even *have* Type II bipolar disorder back then?) but today it is obvious to the shrinks that I talk to that I've got issues. I don't even want to talk about how many medications I've been on. So, again, this is personal. Many students today do suffer from medically-diagnosed mental illnesses. Many of them can be very successful. But as a university official making admissions decisions, all else being equal, you tell me who you think they'd prefer to accept to their school: the kid with a psychiatric record or the kid without one? I'd sure like to have "BIPOLAR DISORDER" typed in big, friendly red letters next to my LSAT score when I'm applying to law school. The fact that we protect people's medical records isn't just a matter of respecting their privacy. It has a very practical goal: people might be discouraged from seeking treatment if, say, universities base their admissions decisions on psychiatric history. Chos are rare; suicides are common. Take your pick.
- guyminuslife
April 23, 2007 at 5:14am
The section 12 that was writen regarding the Cho boy, is a method by which people with bizarre behaviors or incidents witnessed can be evaluated for future treatment or hospitalization. It only lasts 72 hours - if the person does not sign a voluntary committment he/she walks. Diagnosis by court?
- Marit87
April 23, 2007 at 3:29pm