STAFF EDIT: Protecting campuses
Issue date: 4/11/08 Section: Opinion
It reflects a sad state of affairs when it takes a national tragedy for a state to reform its mental illness statutes, but sometimes officials need a wakeup call to act. Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine signed a series of laws yesterday aimed at better treating the commonwealth's mentally ill -- an altruistic reform, no doubt, and one that should embarrass and motivate the remaining states to reform their appallingly poor mental health safety nets. Still, despite all the safety conferences and alert systems universities held after the Virginia Tech massacre, which happened a year ago next Wednesday, colleges have yet to do all that is necessary to protect the mentally ill from harming themselves and others.
One reform the new laws cannot produce is the way institutions -- specifically universities -- interpret them. Universities cannot treat the mentally ill under stricter laws if college officials cannot identify them. According to an August 2007 review panel report on the tragedy, Virginia Tech officials failed to stop the shooter because they did not connect the dots. Students and at least one professor notified administration officials of the shooter's risk, but these officials feared keeping too many tabs on him because of privacy concerns.
This lack of communication was due more to university reluctance to track students than actual laws forbidding it. Though laws like the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Rights Act thankfully keep universities from disclosing students' personal information to outside parties, there is no reason universities cannot keep files internally on students who show signs of trouble.
Boston University's new website for identifying "students in distress" a step in the right direction, but it does not substitute an active safety net involving real people from top to bottom. It is true that a BU student can go through four years of college without forging a single personal relationship with a member of the staff or faculty, but all professors do see their students' work. If a student's behavior in class raises alarm bells, faculty members need a personal chain of communication they can follow.
Of course, even the best mental health monitoring cannot prevent troubled minds from inflicting serious harm with a deadly weapon. It is absurd that national gun laws allow any American to buy firearms online without background checks. Virginia's state gun laws cannot prevent a mentally ill citizen from going outside the state to buy these weapons, as both the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University killers did.
The Supreme Court will rule soon on the momentously important question whether the Second Amendment's right to bear arms applies to individuals or just groups. If the Court rules in favor of gun advocates, however, a crucial loophole will remain -- no U.S. citizen should be able to purchase guns online to avoid his state's gun laws. States should also have the ability to track gun owners using modern databases -- regardless of one's right to bear arms, there is no excuse for allowing the mentally ill to own firearms without oversight.
One reform the new laws cannot produce is the way institutions -- specifically universities -- interpret them. Universities cannot treat the mentally ill under stricter laws if college officials cannot identify them. According to an August 2007 review panel report on the tragedy, Virginia Tech officials failed to stop the shooter because they did not connect the dots. Students and at least one professor notified administration officials of the shooter's risk, but these officials feared keeping too many tabs on him because of privacy concerns.
This lack of communication was due more to university reluctance to track students than actual laws forbidding it. Though laws like the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Rights Act thankfully keep universities from disclosing students' personal information to outside parties, there is no reason universities cannot keep files internally on students who show signs of trouble.
Boston University's new website for identifying "students in distress" a step in the right direction, but it does not substitute an active safety net involving real people from top to bottom. It is true that a BU student can go through four years of college without forging a single personal relationship with a member of the staff or faculty, but all professors do see their students' work. If a student's behavior in class raises alarm bells, faculty members need a personal chain of communication they can follow.
Of course, even the best mental health monitoring cannot prevent troubled minds from inflicting serious harm with a deadly weapon. It is absurd that national gun laws allow any American to buy firearms online without background checks. Virginia's state gun laws cannot prevent a mentally ill citizen from going outside the state to buy these weapons, as both the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University killers did.
The Supreme Court will rule soon on the momentously important question whether the Second Amendment's right to bear arms applies to individuals or just groups. If the Court rules in favor of gun advocates, however, a crucial loophole will remain -- no U.S. citizen should be able to purchase guns online to avoid his state's gun laws. States should also have the ability to track gun owners using modern databases -- regardless of one's right to bear arms, there is no excuse for allowing the mentally ill to own firearms without oversight.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Harold A. Maio
posted 4/11/08 @ 3:21 PM EST
colleges have yet to do all that is necessary to protect "the" mentally ill from harming themselves and others.
there is no excuse for allowing "the" mentally ill to own firearms without oversight. (Continued…)
Post a Comment