= Premium Content

  • Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Arizona Bill Would Require Colleges to Report Some Violent Students

February 22, 2011, 3:06 pm

A bill advancing in the Arizona Legislature would require colleges to report students to behavioral-health agencies if they are expelled or suspended at least twice for violence or threats of violence to someone else, according to the Arizona Daily Star. Employees fired for the same reasons would also have to be reported. The bill was drafted in response to the mass shooting in Arizona last month in which Jared Lee Loughner, a former Pima Community College student, is charged. The college said in a statement, however, that Mr. Loughner had been suspended for disruptive behavior in the classroom and that he “was not violent nor did he threaten others or himself.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • sand6432

    Hmm, wonder if that applies to members of football teams at Arizona universities?

  • rick1952

    This bill is meaningful only IF the Arizona legislature is going to make sure that behavioral-health agencies are properly funded in order to provide the services required to treat persons who are “…expelled or suspended at least twice for violence or threats of violence.” Otherwise this will be just another knee-jerk, political grandstanding ploy by a legislative body that has repeatedly demonstrated its shameless capacity to engage in such activity with respect to other serious issues (e.g., immigration.)

    While there is no guaranteed way to prevent senseless violence, our nation could probably reduce the risk of its occurrence substantially by providing appropriate mental health care for paranoid schizophrenics and reducing their ability to gain access to weapons in general, and guns in particular. It probably wouldn’t hurt to do the same for those with anger management issues.

  • swish

    Just after the shooting of Rep. Giffords, it seemed as if we might actually get some new gun laws, imposing more requirements on sellers and buyers, outlawing certain automatic or semi-automatic handguns, establishing more gun-free zones. Instead, numerous states are trying to eliminate concealed carry restrictions on school campuses.

    And even though it is clear that this shooter and most others could not legally have been arrested or committed for any action prior to the shooting, now there’s this bill in Arizona (with others likely to turn up elsewhere).

    I guess legislators figure they’ll get some kind of brownie points for addressing a problem, even if their solution is worthless or worse.

  • redanlew

    Let’s see, in combination with the proposed legislation permitting guns on campuses, seems like Arizona is adding fuel to the fire, then requiring empty fire extinguishers

  • Guest

    I’m not sure what we can derive from these results. In effect it’s saying narcissistic people are not that way because of technology, but this affects the way they use tech, so? Am I missing something here?

  • goodeyes

    Enjoy life as you only get one and ignore the critics.

  • 11272784

    Another study which reinforces that which we already knew to be true.

  • katisumas

    Van Gogh never said anything like that. It’s more like something Gaugin would come up with. (on the other hand Van Gogh might have said: “first the ear, then…..” but again that episode had to do with Gaugin’s nasty temper.. and both using lead based paint, Van Gogh more than most anyone else….)

  • katisumas

    The sample isn’t statistically significant.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/cshunt312 Courtney Hunt

    I’m glad to see research that incorporates Digital Era technologies and realities, but I also agree it’s important to recognize the many limitations of this study, including the relatively small sample size, the age group, the timing of data collection, and other factors not measured. If we are still in the early days of social media adoption, our efforts to create effective research studies will be similarly experimental. But we have to start somewhere…

    Courtney Hunt
    Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community

  • ivalriche

    I dunno, sounds fishy to me. I am not clear what the moral problem is with people who like to post their pictures and a lot of status updates. I need to hear about this postconventional thinking to get a stronger sense of what the problem is. I’m sure if you took away facebook men would spend more time masturbating. WHat’s the difference?

  • elearners

    I’m curious about this study’s gender discrepancy. Are men are more honest about their so-called narcissism than women? Or does the stereotypical male hunter instinct mean Facebook is a fishing hook to reel in sales objectives, whereas the stereotypical female nurturer instinct means Facebook is an online cocktail party for ladies to connect?

    Great point(s) from texasmusic and electronicmuse. The chili cooks in a slow burner; you’ll see as much self promotion in the opposite age spectrum (except it may be pictures of one’s petunia garden instead of one’s newest sports car). The point of technology like social media, online course forums and comment threads like this is, as texasmusic said, to “get very good ideas.” Self-promotion is simply one route to ideas.

    As someone with +600 Facebook friends, I admit there’s a fine line between “connect” and “sales tool”. But more virtual or real friends leads to more dialogue, which leads to more ideas and more problem-solving opportunities.

    Aimee Chou
    eLearners.com web producer

  • http://twitter.com/SheldonWordNerd Sheldon the WordNerd

    This seems to me very much a chicken-and-egg situation. The narcissists (a defining characteristic of narcissism is lack of concern for others) are more likely to be heavy Facebook self-promoters. They may also become more narcissistic when given a platform that makes tooting their own horns so easy. The same could be said about Facebook itself…is the success of social media a result of our societal narcissism, or are we becoming more narcissistic because of social media? Sounds like the researchers are trying to answer these questions, but I suspect that the definition of narcissism, at least for psychologists, is going to be in flux (the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder is under consideration to be removed from the DSM). Are too many of us narcissists to rightly call it a “disorder” now?

  • electronicmuse

    Well, yeah he did. He said that he had ” . . . a draughtsman fist,” as even a cursory visit online (if you must) would indicate. And he went on to explain how important that was as an asset that undergirded his painting. (Theo told me this, by the way). And, it was likely antimony as well as lead, as artists in those days used to “point” their brushes by twirling them in the corners of the mouth . . . not recommended by OSHA of course.

    But, the real point should not be lost. We have an entire generation of students who imagine they are ready for the Big Time as frosh, when in fact they know little of their craft and art, and even less of their “shared” (?) culture. How did they get such notions of unalloyed self-importance? Could 12 years of unending praise for any effort, no matter how feeble, be the culprit? Could a society that has elevated style and image above all, have anything to do with it?

    There is a rather obvious “principle” in psychology (borrowed from physiology) called “homeostasis,” that indicates that a system pushed out of its “comfort zone,” will often struggle to return to nominal conditions. Problem is, our public schools don’t push their charges-it might make them “uncomfortable.” Grade inflation is only an outcropping of a more serious syndrome at work, and Facebook for those who have nothing to say is only a medium for expressing the problem in a more public way.

    Again I say, when you have actually produced something of value you would like to present to the Tribe, by all means, flog it on Facebook. Otherwise . . .

    More monks deep in study. Fewer narcissists acting out in public. Better society.

  • electronicmuse

    Couldn’t have said it better myself, thanks!

    The idea of “crowdsourcing” to channel one’s life or career is unfortunate and misguided. Whatever happened to the notion of listening to the people who love us? Family, and oddly enough, a few teachers and mentors along the way, know us and our abilitities and aspirations a lot better than “friends” on Facebook.

    If the notion of having 600 “friends” weren’t so sad, it would be laughable! We’ll all be lucky to count on one or two hands the number of friends we’ll have in a lifetime.

  • saswriter

    Hmmm . . . . How did the researchers determine whether the respondents were capable of making good moral judgments? How did they draw a line between technology use and such decision-making? These questions don’t seem to be answered here. Guess I’ll have to see the paper.
    As far as Facebook goes, I am a 51-year-old female who spends about five to 10 minutes most days checking in on that site. Friends around my age–male and female–post photos of their kids, grandkids, gardens and even homecooked gourmet meals! They brag about their best time in a 5K or show off their new hairstyles. So how is that different from what the college students do? :)
    But I know–yes, know–that most of these people (and yes, I do know most of them pretty well) aren’t self-serving types. Like me, they’re just looking to connect with others for a few minutes and maybe get an “Attagirl!” or “Attaboy!” from someone out there. Maybe they follow a friend’s battle with cancer. Maybe they read posts, too, that inspire them to be better people that day. I know I have.
    Unless we’re neglecting real face-to-face relationships or getting too wrapped up in all that “affirmation” (because it’s there, almost 24-7, it seems), Facebook narcissism seems pretty harmless for healthy people. The new wears off after awhile, anyway.
    Maybe a better question, one that could be answered to aid college students, is what is healthy and unhealthy use of Facebook. And maybe that’s really the question the researchers sought to answer.

  • calgrad

    Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic: “U. of North Carolina to Investigate Christian Singing Group’s Dismissal of Gay Student”.  No double standard there, no sir.

    (Ref: This issue of the CoHE: http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/u-of-north-carolina-to-investigate-christian-singing-groups-dismissal-of-gay-student/35837?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en)

  • http://internettime.com Jay Cross

    Hold on. Are we talking about dumping the dead-trees version only? Or are we killing the compendium of facts?

  • piske109

    When did The Chronicle turn into such a rag? This is not WorldNet Daily, Mother Jones, or the Wall Street Journal op-ed page (which, in WSJ’s defense, is generally much more professional than Mr. Vedder’s post). Please keep the demagoguery off this site.

  • tjfarrel

    “Despite a storied existence of some 130 years, the Obama Administration . . .”

    Would to God that the Obama Administration could be imagined to have had, or to have the prospect of having, a 130-year existence.  And this grammatical blunder is probably the highpoint of Vedder’s rant . . . .

  • sivavaid

    I think you mean “Congress.” It’s Congress that sets spending. Congress zeroed out the SAUS last spring. 

  • Gregory_Sadler

    I see that question popping up periodically on Chronicle posts — typically, tendentious ones.  The Chronicle tends to be rather hit-or-miss, it seems, when it comes to lending its name and prestige to demagoguery.  So, the answer — tongue in cheek — is that CHE has been a demi-rag for some time now

  • 11301717

    In reply to sivavaid:

    Didn’t you read the title of Vedder’s piece? Facts are not important.

  • droslovinia

    Thanks for that. I think that the important thing that everyone is missing here is that this page is a place for “insights and commentary,” not reporting fact. People are going to have diverse opinions, and while some news outlets deliberately blur that line (they report their opinions and spin the news, we decide to believe it), I rarely see CHE doing that. I profoundly disagree with the opinions of this writer that are submerged in this screed, but I am aware that they are opinions with which I am free to agree and disagree.I doubt that rational people believe that the president does everything in this country as if through some executive fiat, but I also know that there are people who make a lot of money pushing that meme, so if it pops up in someone’s opinion, I’m not overly surprised. Just please, bear in mind that this is an opinion – no matter how wrong-headed parts of it may be – and that’s all CHE is purporting to share here.

  • mjw13

    The Census Bureau, in its latest budget request, eliminated the Statistical Compendium Program which produces Stat Abs (as well as State and Metropolitan Area Data Book and the County and City Data Book). They wish to use the money saved for other initiatives. There will be no online version. It is important to realize that while the data may “be available online”, it comes from disparate sources (check the back of the “book”), some of which are not government sources, some of which may not be available to the public. See this article for more information: http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/889924-264/statistical_abstract_faces_an_untimely.html.csp

  • mjw13

    Everything, see below

  • ricksburgh

    All the politics and inaccuracy aside, I stand with Professor Vedder in lamenting the loss of the SAUS. It was an essential tool for me during 20 years as a corporate librarian in the health insurance industry. It was equally useful as a databook and as a sourcebook, and the later editions will continue to be useful as sourcebooks for a while, until sources change or go out of existence. Most, though unfortunately not all, of the data will be available from the source entities, often on their websites. Nevertheless, it’s a shame that the Census Bureau couldn’t even find the resources to publish an online source guide based on the organization of the SAUS.

  • Al_de_Baran

    ” It is my Bible, my Talmud, my Quran. It is everything.”

    I am second to none in my disgust over the pending disappearance of the extremely valuable *Statistical Abstract*, but the sort of ridiculous hyperbole quoted above, even if semi-humorous, does neither the author nor like-minded proponents of the volume any favors.

  • http://www.facebook.com/druderman David Ruderman

    There is now a petition to save the Statistical Abstract.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/dont-cancel-the-us-statistical-abstract

  • rebek56

    At my institution, search committees have been forbidden from contacting candidates outside the interview process, and all communication with non-selected candidates is handled by HR. If my experience is at all typical, the problem does not lie with the faculty committees but with the process itself.

  • kestewart

    j20craig, thanks for your comments.  I agree that the behavior of the search committee members does, for applicants (and perhaps the circle of friends/colleagues/mentors to whom the applicants are discussing the application process), reflect on their College or University.  Recognizing that long periods with no communication may create bad feelings about the institution is another reason that, when I’m serving on a search committee, I feel that tension of what to tell candidates and when.  The professional circles within some (most?) of our disciplines are quite small, so those kinds of bad feelings can have a real effect on an institution’s reputation over time.  Rebek56′s comment is relevant here, too: perhaps some kind of coordination between the search committee chair and HR (when HR requires that their office, rather than search committee members, communicates with candidates) so there is at least a timely notice to all candidates when the search has progressed to an advanced or final stage would be helpful. (Another task for the search committee chair! Those assignments certainly should not be accepted lightly or without a good understanding of the work involved.) Katharine

  • j20craig

    Whizzkid43: Hang in there. I feel your pain and frustration.

  • raouldebord

    The waiting is certainly torture and universities and departments are not always prompt – for various reasons ranging from laziness to overload to keeping their options open – in keeping people involved in the hiring process informed.

    That said, the peer-sourced Academic Jobs Wiki is a useful source for those stuck waiting to hear back about hiring decisions. Like any such forum, it can play host to rumors and false information, but it is a way to keep up with the process. While surety is disappointing, it’s less painful than the waiting.

  • krusa

    whizzkid43-
    I’ve been there too. Here’s a tip I was given long ago: Message you can send at this time: 

    “May I please have an update on the status of my application? I need to know how to respond to another opportunity.”

    This should nudge them along and get you out of LIMBO – which is so draining.  Good luck!

  • oscarwilde

    As a department chair responsible for multiple searches annually, my preference is to inform those whom we’ve interviewed once they are out of the running. However, we have been strictly cautioned by HR, the legal office, and the offices of the dean and provost against saying ANYTHING until we have a signed contract from the selected candidate. It is very frustrating, as my inclination is to be up front with all candidates as possible.

  • thetravelinggrad

    In your professional opinion, is it okay to ask what the hiring process looks like after the interview?

  • kestewart

    Travelinggrad, I think after your interview, it’s reasonable to ask the chair of the committee what you can expect in terms of when you will likely hear from the committee about a decision. In my experience, they will likely hedge a little; schedules do get disrupted and they may have constraints on them from their HR or legal offices as mentioned above. But I think most search committee chairs don’t mind being asked and will try to give you a time frame in which you can expect to hear something. I do think krusa’s advice, above, is good too: if you don’t hear something within the time frame you are given, it’s not unreasonable to do a polite email query about the status of your candidacy.

  • thetravelinggrad

    Thank you! I have an interview today & this article felt a little discouraging – although it is a harsh reality. I really appreciate your advice!

  • midcareerprof

    Any thoughts on how the process is different for a senior position with tenure?  Does it take longer, generally?  I’ve only ever served on searches at the TT level, and am waiting now to hear about an endowed senior spot. 

  • kestewart

     Midcareerprof, please forgive my delay in responding! I certainly hope that by now you’ve heard something about that endowed position.  My experience is that more senior positions often do take a bit longer, but I will qualify that statement by saying that this really is just my experience.  So, if the plural of anecdote is data…

    I suspect that search times are quite variable, and they depend a great deal on factors that have nothing to do with the seniority of the open position.  Rather, it’s going to be the size and quality of the applicant pool, the beliefs of the search committee members about how they should communicate with applicants, the time delays in getting applicants to campus for interviews, etc., that drive the delay.  When I’ve been involved as an applicant in a search for a more senior position and I’ve waited a good while, I’ve sent an email to the chair of the committee, saying that I would be grateful for an update on the status of the search although I of course understand that the chair cannot share specific information about my application’s status. 

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.