More about weird students at universities

Cho facts (mostly from LA Times article):

(1) Committed to mental hospital.
(2) More than one female student filed formal complaint that Cho was stalking them.
(3) Dorm residents complained to administration that he was writing weird stuff on the dorm walls.
(4) Professors complained to administration about his strange behavior and he had to be removed from one professor's class.

All the university has to say to its defense is "that mental health anti-discrimination laws" prevented it from doing anything about the problem.

As I said more briefly in a previous post, universities should expel students who are too weird. Even when they don't kill anyone, they still scare other students and faculty, and they aren't benefitting from their university education because they will be too weird to get a job worthy of a college educated person after they graduate.

Virginia Tech seems to be in the majority as far as what is done about weird students. Here's an opinion piece in the NY Times about a weird student at Oakland University. Professors complained about his weird behavior and his arsenal of guns, but the university did nothing.

Coddling of weird people does not help prepare them for the real world. An employer won't allow a weird person to stay on the job (except for crappy low wage jobs with high turnover--another reason to avoid being part of the bottom third of society), universities should act in the same manner. If laws truly prevent universities from doing someting about the problem, then the laws need to be changed.

Comments

[Peter]

Yes maybe the laws should be changed, but as they stand right now there was little if anything that Virginia Tech could have done. About the only thing Cho did that might have legally allowed for disciplinary action was his stalking of the two female students.

[mondo]

So what exactly is considered stalking? I'm sure plenty of self-conscious males would like to know.

[The Engineer]

>>Even when they don't kill anyone, they still scare other students and faculty, and they aren't benefitting from their university education because they will be too weird to get a job worthy of a college educated person after they graduate.

I had a weird guy on my hall sophmore year. He walked funny (like a duck, with the head bob), talked funny, lived in a single, ate by himself. He was a really strange guy. I sometimes wonder what the hell happened to him. Living with his mom, I imagine.

So this guy made people uncomfortable. But he didn't have any guns, he didn't stalk people, he didn't threaten anyone. He was just a creep.

You need to make that distinction. You can't target everyone for scrutiny. It is only those that make threats against others that need to be put under some scrutiny.

[Spungen]

So what exactly is considered stalking? I'm sure plenty of self-conscious males would like to know.

Cho's behavior doesn't fit any legal definition of stalking or even harassment that I've ever heard. He didn't make any threats, or persist in contact after being told to stop. It was just a few incidents of unwanted attention that were irritating or unsettling. They weren't even always sure it was him.

[JewishAtheist]

I see two problems:

1) If VT had expelled Cho, couldn't he have still gone on his rampage? It's not like the campus is a fort. Maybe expulsion would inspire rampages, as firing did for at least on postal worker.

2) How to distinguish "weird" from "dangerous." Would universities be better off without schizophrenics like math/economics genius John Nash or computer science students with Asperger's? What about your typical depressed kids? Some HUGE fraction of students are on antidepressants, I'm sure.

I think there should be a mechanism to have a student evaluated by a medical professional. I don't think there are laws against expelling people deemed to pose a risk to the public.

Its about time that someone came out in favor of their being consequences for this weirdo creepiness. Some of this these people cant help, but there is a definitely a big part where theses guys allow themselves to slip farther and farther into this extreme behavior because there are no negative consequences and they get off on showing just how far outside the mainstream they can be.

All you "false flag", black ops conspiracy dudes- you are next. If you are going to be in your own psycho world where there were no planes that hit the world trade center, and there was a call center somewhere that faked all the phone calls to the families, then you dont need to be taking up space in a University that someone else could use, living off of student loans that you are in no way going to repay.

Cho says we had a billion chances to stop him. Kicking him out of the school and making him work at the dry cleaners was probably one chance. Maybe that would have woken him up to how oppressed he was downloading movies and going to class to write McBeef plays.

[mikeca]

Well, UC Berkeley finally expelled the nude guy for refusing to wear clothes to class, after the city of Berkeley could not find a jury that would convict him of indecent exposure.

[Peter]

Well, UC Berkeley finally expelled the nude guy for refusing to wear clothes to class, after the city of Berkeley could not find a jury that would convict him of indecent exposure.

After being expelled, the Naked Guy (Andrew Martinez) spent several years drifting between pyschiatric hospitals and jails, with frequent stretches of homelessness, and about a year ago hung himself in a jail cell.

[Spungen]

Well, UC Berkeley finally expelled the nude guy for refusing to wear clothes to class

Andrew Martinez, the former Berkeley naked guy, died recently, did you hear? Killed himself in a jail cell, where he'd ended up after a fight at a halfway house. It was sad. He clearly had some mental problems. He didn't hurt any students, though.

[The Engineer]

>>All you "false flag", black ops conspiracy dudes- you are next. If you are going to be in your own psycho world where there were no planes that hit the world trade center, and there was a call center somewhere that faked all the phone calls to the families, then you dont need to be taking up space in a University that someone else could use, living off of student loans that you are in no way going to repay.

That will never work. Noam Chomsky has tenure.

Oh, you meant STUDENTS that believe these stupid things.

What about their professors?

Fortunately the professors psychosis is contained and they are harmless- for the most part society does not listen to these 'elites'.

[Alex]

What about their professors?

How many professors go on shooting rampages because "the rich kids treated me badly."

How many professors go on shooting rampages because "the rich kids treated me badly."

Well they do go on rampages against LAX players and other 'helmet sports' because they are 'sure they are guilty of something'. Or if you are Kim Curtis, you give white students failing grades and keep them from graduating.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/dowd-and-duke.html

[Gannon]

Half Sigma's proposition is too dificult to carry out in the real world. To begin with, I believe that Cho's weirdness is being overstated. The media wants to portray him a a monster, and therefore is trying to deny anything positive about him. The line between seducing and stalking a girl is very thin. Giovanni is a nutty feminist professor. In the end, it's impossible to determine if a person is simlpy excentric or really too weird. People who are truly crazy tend to be confined in mental Institutions.

[JewishAtheist]

Fortunately the professors psychosis is contained and they are harmless- for the most part society does not listen to these 'elites'.

The unabomber was a former professor.

That said, the right's obsession with liberal professors is hysterical. Chomsky doesn't believe planes hit the WTC? Really?

[michael vassar]

The basic fact, as Jewish Atheist pointed out, is that expelling Cho would not, plausibly, have prevented the shootings.

Shit happens. Events like this are probably avoidable, but not a plausible priority for the effort requried to avoid them.

[The Engineer]

Chomsky's political views are on the "nut" end of the scale. Rather than saying that 9/11 was in inside job, he tries to minimize the scale of the crime by comparing it to the bombing of Sudan. In fact, Chomsky believes that the US promoted terrorism through such actions as the Contras in Nicaragua.

Look, you have professors out there that believe that Communism is real, it's workable, and it's the future. That's nutty. In fact, the way some of them talk, I'd say that they're insane.

But I don't think that that kind of insanity is worthy of being thrown out of a university.

Just as an example, check out this guy's review of Chomsky's 9/11 book. Scientific Anarchism? That's nutty.

And that's what you find on college campuses. But is that something that should be grounds for expulsion? I don't think so, even though anarchism is oftentimes violent.

[Alex]

Look, you have professors out there that believe that Communism is real, it's workable, and it's the future. That's nutty. In fact, the way some of them talk, I'd say that they're insane.

None of these "nut" professors is going to ever get a powerful position in the government, so I think worrying about them is a waste of time.

I have heard Chomsky speak in person and he seems like a bright guy (he did contribute greatly to the field of linguistics). Sure, he has some strange ideas, but a lot of professors seem to be eccentrics.

Check out Kamau (Die Cracker!) Kambon if you like eccentric professors. I don't know if he teaches any more, I kind of wish I could take his class. The of course there is Ward Churchill, the fake Indian. I also recall Professor DeGenova at Columbia who called for "a million Mogadishus." Chomsky is the more sedate of a truly wack job bunch, but no fool. He knows where his bread is buttered and doesn't fuck around with socialism, class struggle and wealth redestribution too much. He reportedly has some nice investments and gets over 10K a speech. I am sure it all goes to help the downtrodden! Even better is the story that he drives a red Audi. I had always thought it would be a Volvo, but I guess since it is red, he is staying true to his communist roots. The above named professors and many more like them are part of what makes the liberal arts fun and well, liberal.

Chomsky did contribute a bit to formal languages- Pumping Lemma etc if I remember. But he is clearly off his bean on politics. I have heard that he keeps changing his theories in linguistics, but most people dont follow that in the first place.

But how did you sidetrack us onto the strawman of Chomsky? I said that if you are a student who is in one of these 9/11 truth groups that you ought to be booted from school because you are:
a. mentally unstable. Dont need any more of those thank you.
b. unlikely to be productive and you are taking up space in college
c. its improbably that you will be employed above the level of Starbucks or a TA and wont be able to pay back your loans. Meaning everyone else will have to.

[The Engineer]

I got this from NRO:

Joe Biden at Al Sharpton's confab said this:

"I would argue, since 1994 with the Gingrich revolution, just take a look at Iraq, Venezuela, Katrina, what's gone down at Virginia Tech, Darfur, Imus. Take a look. This didn't happen accidentally, all these things."

Now that's nutty. Should Biden be institutionalized?

I'm sorry. I'm just a huge fan of Chomsky and other wack job professors. When those guys hold court with their acolytes, it is like they were the king of France or something. And Kambon's "kill whitey" speech was some of the best work I have seen in years, top notch and outstanding (I just wish he would let me know if a date has been set so I can either shoot back or run for the hills!). 9-11 has been a kind of wet dream for him and others of his kind. Guys like them have provided quite a bit of entertainment for me over the years. Never a dull moment.

[The Engineer]

Anon, I think that you could say the same 3 things about Chomsky, Communists, "Scientific Anarchists", my weird hallmate, etc. Where do you draw the line?

[JewishAtheist]

Chomsky's political views are on the "nut" end of the scale. Rather than saying that 9/11 was in inside job, he tries to minimize the scale of the crime by comparing it to the bombing of Sudan. In fact, Chomsky believes that the US promoted terrorism through such actions as the Contras in Nicaragua.

You might disagree with his interpretations, but the things you cite are essentially factual. The bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant probably killed more people (indirectly) than died on 9/11. The U.S. did in fact support the contras, who probably engaged in terrorism.

Engineer,
Did Biden give any inkling as to who or what sinsiter forces (Dick Cheney and/or John Poindexter, the Illuminati, Masons, etc..) were involved in Iraq, Venezuela, Katrina, Virginia Tech, Darfur and Imus. Maybe if he knows too much his life could be in danger. It took a lot of coursge to say what he did! I will miss his astute and original thinking in that august body, the US Senate!

[Joe Average]

Chomsky doesn't believe planes hit the WTC?

No, that would be akin to the "9-11 Truth" movement, of which many college profs are signatories.

And yes, many of those do not believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

[The Engineer]

>>Did Biden give any inkling as to who or what sinsiter forces (Dick Cheney and/or John Poindexter, the Illuminati, Masons, etc..) were involved in Iraq, Venezuela, Katrina, Virginia Tech, Darfur and Imus.

It's just Republican policy. JewishAtheist would add supporting the Contras to that list (he'd add the Sudan bombing, but Slick Willey did that. Maybe Gingrich made him do it, JA?).

Gingrich, Cheyney, and Rove. Oh my.

[Turambar]

Well if it just a "climate" thing its going to be some tortured, indirect argument. Cant pin him down on that.... but can we get a link?

But it does point out how the Dems have no one electable if Gore or Kerry dont get in the race. Waiting for the other shoe to drop here- are they really going to let Hillary or Obama suck up all the money when they are not electable?

[JewishAtheist]

It's just Republican policy. JewishAtheist would add supporting the Contras to that list (he'd add the Sudan bombing, but Slick Willey did that. Maybe Gingrich made him do it, JA?).

Oh please. Have I given any indication of being blindly partisan? I'm just pointing out that the things you said Chomsky said are... well, kinda true.

[SFG]

I think we're referring to social ineptitude here, not odd political beliefs. They are either tolerated (anarchism), encouraged (Marxism), or persecuted (White Nationalism), depending on how closely they align with the college's own views. The real issue is whether a college should persecute eccentrics. You could make an argument for conformity enforcement due to the workplace's emphasis on conformity, but I don't think it's worth it to prevent these spree killings. These things are so rare and kill so few people (in the 30s or so every 3 years? That's less of a social problem than lightning or Von Hippel-Lindau disease, for crying out loud) that, despite the fact that they tend to grab the papers, any attempt to prevent them is likely to cause too much collateral damage to be worth it.

Gun control advocates have a good point with regards to the shootings but would technically be more correct to argue about urban gun violence. (Of course 20 white kids killed at once are better for propaganda purposes than a few black kids killed every day...) This might even be argued to be a form of the free-rider problem, where rural areas reap the benefits (firearms are useful pest control and self-defense in rural areas where you can't count on the police) and urban areas suffer the drawbacks (gun violence etc.)

[Turambar]

Doesnt his note complain about gold jewelry and Mercedes? Shouldn't those be the things we ban to prevent another occurance? I mean if we want to get to the root of the problem.

The guns are incidental. He could just have easily made propane bombs or blocked the exists and set a fire. Or rammed students with a rented car.

[Jim Beam]

And that's what you find on college campuses

Which is exactly why I think that college (state UNIs, big publics, ivies) is something to be avoided in the distant future. Unless they make more "trade" like rather than academic. (More emphasis on practical skills rather than ideas.)

Perhaps the best strategy, from the capitalist point of view, is to shut down every kind of higher education except business school, law school, med school, and the hard sciences...and send all those potential trouble-makers to get jobs at Walmart or McDonalds.

A life of minimum-wage drudgery and compulsory television-viewing is all the poor dumb bastards really deserve anyway, right?

[Joe Average]

I'm just pointing out that the things you said Chomsky said are... well, kinda true.

Chomsky has a habit of saying things that are either nutty and false (that Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson is a "relatively apolitical liberal of some sort," for example) or nutty and not falsifiable (that Washington is "the torture and political murder capital of the world," for example.)

That Chomsky, through the manufacture of mendacious moral equivalence, aids and abets the sort of people who would enthusiastically murder both you and me conspicuously fails to inspire confidence in his sanity and good will.

[Agnostic]

Sorry to further sidetrack the comments, but JewishAtheist is letting the lazily moronic comments off the hook too easily: concerning the Contras, the US was convicted guilty of illegal invasion, illegal use of force, and illegal training of paramilitaries. Given that these were designed to effect political change, it makes some sense to consider them state-sponsored terrorism.

By what Communist conspiracy group of nuts was the US thus convicted? The International Court of Justice (World Court), the main judiciary body of the UN. Read the summary of the judgments here:
Summary

One good thing about Chomsky: he reads. The judgment against the US is hardly secret knowledge -- I knew about it by _looking it up_ in college, and now it's even easier since the World Court's cases are all online. If you knew anything at all about the US' involvement in Nicaragua, regardless of your political persuasion / sentiments, you'd know of the outcome. I mean, the US convicted of illegally using force -- that's pretty noteworthy.

The fact that no one slamming Chomsky had the slightest clue what went on shows how broad and deep is the research that informs the ranting. Again, sorry for sidetracking it further, but I'm not gonna sit around and listen to any more of this casual know-nothingness. (And I'm not partisan either; I wouldn't tolerate it if several liberals were carrying on about gun control being a nearly magic bullet to the school shooting problem.)

[Joe Average]

If you think that the mining of Nicaraguan harbors is as evil or more evil than commandeering two airplanes filled with civilians and deliberately ramming them into the World Trade Center for the express purpose of killing random "Zionists and Crusaders", you come pretty close to the legal definition of insanity and are just as nutty as Chomsky.

[skippy]

College is an important, expensive purchase. If the university assigns you a mental case as your roommate, you should get your money back even if the roommate does not shoot anybody.
We had THREE anexoric freshmen girls on our floor. One was in my room. She showered three hours a day and only ate a bit of dry popcorn before going to sleep.

I was just 18. When I pointed out her scaly skin and said "you know you have the signs of anorexia shouldn't you get counseling?" she decided to hate me. I stayed as her roommate because I wasn't a "quitter".

Well I will make sure that doesn't happen to one of my children. Would you tell your teen to "keep on rooming" with an anorexic or alcoholic or gambling or sex addict? They will not be your child's friend if he tries to intervene to help them anyway.

[Mark Allen Peterson]

Joe Average's response to agnostic is typical of those I get in classrooms when we deal with history: an effort to overcome ignorance by constructing black-and-white world views that allow you to heckle facts that you don't know or like as "nutty" or worse.

Indeed, there seems throughout this string of posts, when you get off the main point onto this tangent about us nutty professors, to try to construct a black and white world. It isn't so simple.

Most of those of us who, back in the day, opposed U.S. support of the Contras did not do so because we believed their socialist of communist ideologies. We opposed the Contras because they were evil, and we did not want our tax dollars supporting their activities.

Joe Average seems to have done very little research before responding. The Contras did much more than mining harbors. Like most paramilitaries, they quickly lost sight of the difference between legitimate military and political targets, and illegitimate civilian targets, thus crossing the line from freedom fighters to terrorists. They blew up busloads of people, bombed health clinics and engaged in numerous other atrocities. Did the Contras set a world record for the most people killed in one terrorist attack the way Al-Qaida did? No, of course not. But that is entirely irrelevant.

The Reagan administration justified our involvement by claiming that Nicaragua posed a military threat to the U.S. and that if we didn't stop the Sandanistas communism would spread to neighboring Honduras and beyond. The first claim was hard to swallow, even for a cradle Republican like myself. The second claim was more problematic. How many innocent people killed by terrorists funded by my tax dollars are a justified in order to stop the spread of Communism. I belonged to the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party (then beginning its decline as the party made its alliance with the religious right)that believed that Communism was an inherently unworkable system, and that the U.S. should allow any state stupid enough to legally elect such a government to fall apart on its own.

Note that the bulk of U.S. citizens, Democrat and Republican, felt this way (there's polling data) and so their elected representatives, the U.S. Congress, used their Constitutionally-given power over the purse strings to cut off U.S funding for the Contras.

President Reagan was a man of his convictions. Members of his administration (he himself was never legally connected with it) did an end run around Congress, enabling the CIA engage in drug trafficking and selling of arms (to a rogue state officially on our interdicted list) in order to continue funding the Contra terrorists. It all came out in a series of Congressional hearings and court battles. Those convicted were pardoned by President Bush, Sr. at the end of his term.

For most of us at the time, the question was, did the end justify the means?

Prof. Chomsky is a brilliant linguist whose work profoundly changed that science and heavily influenced the development of cognitive science and thus computer language development. Whatever one makes of his politics, and his sometimes shrill and over-the-top interpretations of the facts, he rarely gets his actual facts wrong. I am not a fan of Chomsky's (either his linguistics or his politics) but this kind of ad hominem assault is valueless.

Mark Allen Peterson
International Studies
Miami University