Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 10, 2007, 05:42:46 PM
School Orders Psychological Evaluation
Quote
October 10, 2007
FIRE Press Release
ST. PAUL, Minn., October 10, 2007Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory mental health evaluation before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.
Hamlines punishment of Troy Scheffler is severe, unfair, and apparently unwarranted, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. Peacefully advocating for students ability to carry a concealed weapon as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings may be controversial, but it simply does not justify ordering a mandatory psychological evaluation.
On April 17, 2007, Hamlines Vice President of Student Affairs, David Stern, sent an e-mail to the campus community offering extra counseling for Hamline students in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. Later that day, Scheffler responded directly to Stern, arguing that Virginia Techs ban on concealed weapons was part of the problem and advocating that Hamline eliminate its similar policies. Scheffler also wrote that the universitys diversity programs may have angered some in the student body, himself included.
On April 19, 2007, Hamline University President Linda Hanson e-mailed the campus community again to address the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Scheffler responded directly to Hanson and again criticized the universitys concealed weapons ban, academic standards, financial policies, and the universitys efforts to promote diversity.
Hanson replied to Scheffler on Friday, April 20, offering him a chance to meet with university personnel to discuss his views the following week. Yet on Monday, April 23, before Scheffler was even able to respond to Hansons invitation, he received a hand-delivered letter from Dean of Students Alan Sickbert notifying him that his e-mails to Stern and Hanson were deemed to be threatening and thus an alleged violation of the Hamline University Judicial Code.
Sickberts letter also informed Scheffler that he was being placed on immediate interim suspension that could not be lifted unless he agreed to a mental health evaluation by a licensed mental health professional.
FIRE wrote to President Hanson on May 29, 2007, vehemently opposing the sanctions against Scheffler, since neither of Schefflers e-mails even came close to meeting the legal definition of a threat. FIRE also pointed out that Hamline maintains a Freedom of Expression and Inquiry policy that encourages the public expression of opinions and the freedom to examine and discuss all questions of interest. FIRE wrote that it is difficult to reconcile these admirable commitments to freedom of expression with Hamlines hasty actions against Scheffler.
FIRE also informed Hamline administrators that subjecting Scheffler to a mandatory psychological evaluation poses a grave threat to liberty at Hamline. FIRE wrote, A psychological evaluation, to be overseen by a Hamline administrator, is one of the most invasive and disturbing intrusions upon Schefflers individual right to private conscience imaginable. Because Scheffler has shown no proclivity toward violence and has made no threatening comments, this psychological evaluation seeks to assess his political opinions&.
Hanson responded to FIRE on June 11, 2007, claiming that there were several reasons for Schefflers suspension, including the e-mails, his failure to meet with administrators when invited, and critical input from various members of the Hamline community. FIRE addressed each of those claims in another letter to Hanson on September 17, 2007. Not only did FIRE reiterate that Schefflers e-mails were not threats, but it also pointed out that Scheffler was given less than one full business day before his suspension to respond to the invitation from school officials to discuss his views. FIRE also noted that the alleged information from various members of the Hamline community, which supposedly played a role in determining Schefflers sanctions, had not even been revealed to Scheffler himself, denying him the right to defend himself or present his side of the story. In a September 28, 2007, response, Hamlines attorneys refused to address FIREs concerns that Scheffler has been denied his due process rights.
How can Scheffler hope to defend himself when Hamline refuses even to tell him what he is accused of doing? FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley asked. Hamlines policies promise freedom of expression and basic due process to its students, but this case brings the sincerity of those promises into serious question. FIRE calls on President Hanson to either admit that the suspension and order for a mental health evaluation had no justifiable basis or give Scheffler all the information he needs to respond to the charges against him.
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nations colleges and universities. FIREs efforts to preserve liberty across America can be viewed at thefire.org.
FIRE Press Release
ST. PAUL, Minn., October 10, 2007Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory mental health evaluation before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.
Hamlines punishment of Troy Scheffler is severe, unfair, and apparently unwarranted, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. Peacefully advocating for students ability to carry a concealed weapon as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings may be controversial, but it simply does not justify ordering a mandatory psychological evaluation.
On April 17, 2007, Hamlines Vice President of Student Affairs, David Stern, sent an e-mail to the campus community offering extra counseling for Hamline students in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. Later that day, Scheffler responded directly to Stern, arguing that Virginia Techs ban on concealed weapons was part of the problem and advocating that Hamline eliminate its similar policies. Scheffler also wrote that the universitys diversity programs may have angered some in the student body, himself included.
On April 19, 2007, Hamline University President Linda Hanson e-mailed the campus community again to address the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Scheffler responded directly to Hanson and again criticized the universitys concealed weapons ban, academic standards, financial policies, and the universitys efforts to promote diversity.
Hanson replied to Scheffler on Friday, April 20, offering him a chance to meet with university personnel to discuss his views the following week. Yet on Monday, April 23, before Scheffler was even able to respond to Hansons invitation, he received a hand-delivered letter from Dean of Students Alan Sickbert notifying him that his e-mails to Stern and Hanson were deemed to be threatening and thus an alleged violation of the Hamline University Judicial Code.
Sickberts letter also informed Scheffler that he was being placed on immediate interim suspension that could not be lifted unless he agreed to a mental health evaluation by a licensed mental health professional.
FIRE wrote to President Hanson on May 29, 2007, vehemently opposing the sanctions against Scheffler, since neither of Schefflers e-mails even came close to meeting the legal definition of a threat. FIRE also pointed out that Hamline maintains a Freedom of Expression and Inquiry policy that encourages the public expression of opinions and the freedom to examine and discuss all questions of interest. FIRE wrote that it is difficult to reconcile these admirable commitments to freedom of expression with Hamlines hasty actions against Scheffler.
FIRE also informed Hamline administrators that subjecting Scheffler to a mandatory psychological evaluation poses a grave threat to liberty at Hamline. FIRE wrote, A psychological evaluation, to be overseen by a Hamline administrator, is one of the most invasive and disturbing intrusions upon Schefflers individual right to private conscience imaginable. Because Scheffler has shown no proclivity toward violence and has made no threatening comments, this psychological evaluation seeks to assess his political opinions&.
Hanson responded to FIRE on June 11, 2007, claiming that there were several reasons for Schefflers suspension, including the e-mails, his failure to meet with administrators when invited, and critical input from various members of the Hamline community. FIRE addressed each of those claims in another letter to Hanson on September 17, 2007. Not only did FIRE reiterate that Schefflers e-mails were not threats, but it also pointed out that Scheffler was given less than one full business day before his suspension to respond to the invitation from school officials to discuss his views. FIRE also noted that the alleged information from various members of the Hamline community, which supposedly played a role in determining Schefflers sanctions, had not even been revealed to Scheffler himself, denying him the right to defend himself or present his side of the story. In a September 28, 2007, response, Hamlines attorneys refused to address FIREs concerns that Scheffler has been denied his due process rights.
How can Scheffler hope to defend himself when Hamline refuses even to tell him what he is accused of doing? FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley asked. Hamlines policies promise freedom of expression and basic due process to its students, but this case brings the sincerity of those promises into serious question. FIRE calls on President Hanson to either admit that the suspension and order for a mental health evaluation had no justifiable basis or give Scheffler all the information he needs to respond to the charges against him.
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nations colleges and universities. FIREs efforts to preserve liberty across America can be viewed at thefire.org.
Post by: Hawkmoon on October 10, 2007, 07:45:18 PM
I guess freedom of expression at Hamlin applies only to the president and administration ... CERTAINLY not to the students.
Post by: Ned Hamford on October 10, 2007, 09:38:49 PM
Post by: LadySmith on October 10, 2007, 10:26:27 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 11, 2007, 01:59:41 AM
Post by: Standing Wolf on October 11, 2007, 02:54:32 AM
Quote
FIRE also informed Hamline administrators that subjecting Scheffler to a mandatory psychological evaluation poses a grave threat to liberty at Hamline. FIRE wrote, A psychological evaluation, to be overseen by a Hamline administrator, is one of the most invasive and disturbing intrusions upon Schefflers individual right to private conscience imaginable. Because Scheffler has shown no proclivity toward violence and has made no threatening comments, this psychological evaluation seeks to assess his political opinions&.
Well, heck. It worked for Stalin, didn't it?
Post by: HankB on October 11, 2007, 03:31:57 AM
The Soviets routinely used "psychological problems" as a pretext for taking punitive action against refuseniks - people who were unwilling to sing the praises of the Communist system.
It is TOTALLY clear that Hamline is following this same policy.
Funny how the mass media has "spiked" this story . . .
(If he DOES go in for this "screening" he ought to bring along a video camera & microphone . . . )
Post by: SteveS on October 11, 2007, 03:41:45 AM
Quote
Because Scheffler has shown no proclivity toward violence and has made no threatening comments, this psychological evaluation seeks to assess his political opinions&.
As bad as it looks, I'd like to see the e-mail before I decide. So far, the only thing we have to go on is the press release of the group that is helping they guy. Why should I take their word, alone?
Quote
Scheffler also wrote that the universitys diversity programs may have angered some in the student body, himself included.
This could be expressed in many ways:
"The university's diversity programs may be a source of resentment for some here."
or
"F$%^ing ni$%#@s should ...."
I don't know anything about this school. I did an internship in a university counseling center and they never ordered psychological evaluations. Personally, I don't think they should.
Post by: vaskidmark on October 11, 2007, 04:48:46 AM
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8475.html?PHPSESSID=17244a428fba0de591e95afb8b2862a6
<cut & paste into your browser as one long string - I don't know why is posted as 2 lines>
"FIRE" has the full exchange of e-mails and letters posted for all to see.
Then we can discuss.
stay safe.
skidmark
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 04:54:32 AM
Where is the ACLU?
Busy defending terrorists and NAMBLA. They don't care one bit about 2A issues, you know that.
Post by: SteveS on October 11, 2007, 05:03:45 AM
Quote
I have yet to hear a student in my cohort that is happy with the curriculum or quality of professors.
Why are you going there? Transfer!
Quote
Furthermore, why are you diversity initiatives anti-Euro American (ie white folks)?
Quote
If I remember corrextly it was like 1 white in a picture out of like 12.
Quote
Maybe you can instruct your staff on sensitivity training towards us privilaged white folk .
Good grief. I hope he isn't an English major.
That being said, I don't see anything that warrants a psychological exam...maybe a remedial writing class.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 11, 2007, 05:05:47 AM
Post by: charby on October 11, 2007, 05:06:31 AM
Universities aren't the places for the open exchanges of ideas and creative thought that they used to be.
They are if you go with more leftist ideas. Global warming, welfare for everyone, socialized medicine, bunny hugging extremeism, special rights to protected classes and intelligent design.
Post by: auschip on October 11, 2007, 05:20:02 AM
The e-mails were certainly not "PC" but, I found them in no way threatening.
I agree, I didn't see anything threatening either. Bad taste? Maybe, but thankfully that isn't against the law (yet).
Post by: Werewolf on October 11, 2007, 05:21:53 AM
Threatening - a real stretch there but if one is looking for an excuse to squelch the expression of opposing opinion as the school's admins obviously were...
The ideas the student expressed have been expressed both here and on THR many times, in many ways and most here and on THR would agree with them.
The way the ideas were expressed, however, were less than stellar. In this day and age of PC anything not expressed with a positive spin will go over about as well as the Bricks of Bubba thru a plate glass window.
The student should have found a spin-meister to edit/rewrite his thoughts before forwarding them on to the PC University Admin.
Better yet - if there even is such a place - transfer to a less oppressive institution of higher learning.
Post by: Ned Hamford on October 11, 2007, 12:17:47 PM
I know I'm stuck at my current school. While I seldom think myself targeted, I know the administration is filled with opportunistic bastards.
I don't tow the line. I have had consuling suggested and have time and time again found rooms reassigned the day of scheduled events or new policies which seem to affect no orgs but the ones I belong to.
While I find the guy's email's poorly expressed, I think his speech legitimate and worthy of protection. Doubly so as I seem to agree with abunch of it.
Post by: Balog on October 11, 2007, 12:24:09 PM
Quote from: charby
Global warming, welfare for everyone, socialized medicine, bunny hugging extremeism, special rights to protected classes and intelligent design.
One of these things is not like the others......
And my I just say this makes me really want to go back to college.
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 12:31:37 PM
Quote
Where is the ACLU?
Have they been asked for assistance?
Eh, why worry about that kind of minor detail when we can whine about them evil ACLUers, right?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 12:32:13 PM
Quote
Where is the ACLU?
Have they been asked for assistance?
Eh, why worry about that kind of minor detail when we can whine about them evil ACLUers, right?
Wooderson, just TRY to look at how many 2A claims the ACLU has ever helped with. Ever.
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 12:34:00 PM
And I repeat the question.
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 12:51:49 PM
Post by: m1911owner on October 12, 2007, 07:30:46 AM
Completely ignoring the firearms issue, I'm thinking perhaps the school wasn't completely unjustified in wondering if that guy is playing with a full deck.
Post by: Len Budney on October 12, 2007, 07:44:39 AM
Completely ignoring the firearms issue, I'm thinking perhaps the school wasn't completely unjustified in wondering if that guy is playing with a full deck.
He certainly did his cause a disservice by combining 2A and affirmative action. That, combined with his sometimes-muddled expression, does have a slightly creepy effect; the only reason I'm confident he wasn't hinting that fed-up white folks might start shooting black folks is that I already had some idea where he was coming from.
--Len.
Post by: m1911owner on October 12, 2007, 10:03:07 AM
The actions of Hamline are a predictable result of the "someone should have done something" mindset that the media and vulture lawyers have demonstrated with VA Tech. ("Nanny State", anyone?)
Post by: doczinn on October 12, 2007, 03:17:25 PM
Quote
This isn't a second-amendment issue, dude.
It's a first-amendment issue. But to leftists, it smells like the Second.