Education Secretary Arne Duncan has endorsed Pima County Community College’s decision last fall to suspend Jared L. Loughner, the accused gunman in shootings on Saturday in Tucson, Ariz., that left a federal judge and five other people dead and a U.S. congresswoman among 14 people wounded. In an interview with The Washington Post, Mr. Duncan said the college had done what it could to deal with the aggressive classroom disruptions by Mr. Loughner, who dropped out after his suspension. The college said it would not consider allowing him to return without a mental-health evaluation. “If I was the chancellor of that community college,” Mr. Duncan said, “I think that would have been my response.”
Following are articles about what colleges can and should do about troubled students that The Chronicle published in the aftermath of the shootings at Virginia Tech, in 2007, and Northern Illinois University, in 2008:
Virginia Tech: the Challenge of Assuring Safety
Creative Writing and the Virginia Tech Massacre
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
15 Responses to Duncan Endorses Arizona Community College’s Suspension of Accused Gunman
jffoster - January 11, 2011 at 9:17 am
Whew, that’s a relief. I was really worried that Federaleducationsminister Duncan might not approve.
11191774 - January 11, 2011 at 3:36 pm
This could win headline of the year.
execasst - January 11, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Quick quips – how appropriate. The sense here is that he was adding credence to their actions, which have been questioned by those who would make knee jerk comments and conclusions about things they are ignorant to. The college can only do so much under the law before “civil rights” are violated and it becomes an even more convuluted issue. Critical thinking is a class you may have missed out on.
rrothmeier - January 11, 2011 at 4:11 pm
As long as a college/university follows its policies regarding the disruptive student they SHOULD be supported by everyone…unfortunately we are living in a society where someone is needing to be blamed for not stopping a situation that could not be stopped….we have to recognize that students like this inhabit almost every campus in this courntry and that the best anyone can do within the law is follow thier policies for keeping the campus safe. What we need to accept as a nation is that we must be able to tolerate the anxiety which accompanies laws that govern everyone; laws that do not permit involuntary intervention until someone has demonstrated a behavior that is dangerous to others or themselves…
Still waiting for the blame game to stop. Rose
michaeld10 - January 11, 2011 at 4:43 pm
The sarcasm in the first two comments above misses the points that colleges and universities are routinely held to higher standards of liability than other kinds of organizations and that some members of the public have already started to blame the community college for not having done enough to stop the student in question. Secretary Duncan is simply trying to be supportive of the college.
taupaft - January 11, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Recognizing that a person has a serious mental illness is not enough to deal effectively with the problem. Even a strong, accurate feeling that trouble is imminent does not alone provide the means to help. A school may have a duty to the other members of its community to expell a student, but it can be stymied in trying to actually help the troubled student (or faculty member). Individuals have a right to refuse treatment, even if they are psychotic at the time they do so. As so many have noted in the various media, actually commiting a someone to a mental hospital almost always requires direct evidence that a person is a danger to self or others. Being paranoid, in and of itself, does not meet the standard for legal grounds for an involuntary commitment. Further, even if a person is hospitalized and is treated, the goal of inpatient treatment is to eliminate the psychotic symptoms with medication. Often this is accomplished in a few days, rarely taking more than two or three weeks. Something more than this band-aid approach requires the cooperation of the patient, who may, for diverse reasons, refuse to accept further treatment. In my experience, insurers have accepted this revolving-door practice of brief hospital stays that can only provide a temporary solution for what may be a grave, life-long illness. There were many reasons to seek to eliminate long-term hospitalizations with all their attendant abuses, but the system we are left with does not result, most of the time, in better care or outcomes for a very vulnerable group of people. Families often know that they are sitting on a time bomb, and also that there are no real options to do anything ahead of time. This does lead to tragedy writ both small and large.
11132507 - January 11, 2011 at 7:40 pm
The next question is, if this guy was recognized by a public entity as a nutjob, why was he legally allowed to buy a weapon of mass destruction? Oh, that’s right, the Founding Fathers wanted us all to be armed to the teeth.
sdryer - January 11, 2011 at 10:55 pm
I agree with several of the comments here. Colleges and universities barely have the resources to keep the lights on these days but are somehow expected to provide all of the mental health services that students will need. Meanwhile, Tea Party legislators in places like Arizona (and my state too) will not be happy until every citizen is armed with AK-47s, including on college campuses and in bars, hospitals, and at political gatherings. Somehow, when a student or former student does start blowing people away with the automatic weapons that are available to literally anyone, no matter how crazy, colleges are to blame. It seems to me that Pima College did everything they could to compel this guy to get help, and the Secretary may be simply trying to deliver that message.
12080243 - January 12, 2011 at 10:24 am
No competent health care professional will advise that s/he can predict who will commit a Virginia Tech, UA-Huntsville, Tucson AZ, etc. After the fact, it’s easy to find reasons that the slaughter should have been predicted. Try applying the “signs” before hand and see how successful you are. Then there are those who bemoan that laws protect the obvious killers from being treated. We all to often forget that human nature has another side to this problem. Officials, administrators and others in power use accusations of insanity to banish/discredit people whose ideas they don’t like. If you don’t think this happens, visit http://www.psychologistethics.net/. Now, put yourself in the position of someone who is the subject of false accusations. We often think it’s impossible in this day and age that administrators and officials would apply a Soviet Union approach to dealing with dissidents. There isn’t a Gulag in the US, but banishment from school and marking someone as insane has the same effect. Try to get a job under that cloud. And the compelling issue for us is that not one shred of evidence has to be put forward. Just the feelings of the accusers is required.
Now, let the glib diagnoses and legal opinions continue. What do they contribute to prevent the next slaughter?
benbel28 - January 12, 2011 at 11:12 am
“predict who will commit a Virginia Tech,….”? No, those predictions aren’t possible. But let’s not ignore the path of kicked-out-of-the-college-for-clear-mental-health-issues-and-then- take-a-stroll-down-to-the-gun-store.
As someone who’d been threatened by a student, I was unable to have any conversation with those counselors and administrators who successfully steered the student to drop my class. Why? because that conversation would have violated the STUDENT’S privacy. I wanted to press charges, which would have at least created some sort of record with the police, but was stymied because my college wouldn’t come clean.
keis8427 - January 12, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I am stumped by these comments because I haven’t heard anyone say that the college is to blame for what happened. Could it be that what you are hearing is coming from inside the education field?
It is shocking to hear a professor and student say they were afraid of this kid and most of us outside the classroom wonder why he wasn’t kicked out sooner. I guarantee you, if he was a working stiff and pulled that stuff in an office, he’d be fired on the spot.
saluki87 - January 12, 2011 at 12:53 pm
The only thing I have heard that could be changed that may (or may not) make any difference in these situations is to shield colleges from lawsuits (i.e. exempt them from privacy violation claims) if they act reasonably in referring some one to authorities for a mental health evaluation. A congressman has made this type of proposal recently without success. Otherwise, colleges can generally only follow their policies on suspension or expulsion.
Campuses attract a number of unusual people who some times act very strangely (this person apparently was way beyond strange). It’s not an easy situation to manage since it is so rare that people go to violent extremes.
dank48 - January 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I think those who are perfectly willing to accept responsibility for anything and everything a student of their has ever done or ever will do should continue to throw stones. Ditto for anything and everything their own kids have done or will do.
quidditas - January 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“I wanted to press charges, which would have at least created some sort of record with the police, but was stymied because my college wouldn’t come clean.”
My understanding of FERPA law is that privacy extends to those who do NOT have a “legitimate educational interest” in the student, so it seems to me that an administrator to whom you referred this issue should have been willing to talk with you to a certain extent anyway.
Meanwhile, if the police thought you had a legitimate report, I’d think they’d go question them for supporting evidence.
So, is it the case that the police wouldn’t take YOUR word for it and the police stymied you by failing to take the complaint? Or is it that you wanted your personal nanny state administrator to give this kid a criminal record FOR you, on second hand knowledge, wherein you stymied yourself by declining to do it yourself because you wanted an administrator to assume the risk for you?
I’m just trying to understand where the breakdown was, because you seem to be laying the blame on Admin for not filing a report I’d just assume I could file myself.
jamesm - February 23, 2012 at 11:13 am
Thanks Scott, for a good description of the many challenges that face a new admission director. It’s apparent that you’ve mastered the questions, and that’s far more difficult than finding the answers. I’m confident that your thoughtful approach will yield success for you and St. Martins.
Jim Miller, NACAC Immediate Past President