I’ve been reading a lot more than writing the past few days. One of the themes that has popped up repeatedly in the discussion of the Arizona shootings is whether college officials should have been far more proactive in seeking help for Jared Lee Loughner. The New York Times today ran no less than three pieces on this topic:
- Shooting exposes limits on colleges facing troubled students
- Tucson shooting suspect worried college officials
- A brief window for help (an expert forum)
Couldn’t a caring teacher have intervened? It’s an appealing what-if, isn’t it?
Take for instance the piece that appeared yesterday in Salon, where Sarah Hepola interviews a psychiatrist, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, on the probability that Loughner has untreated paranoid schizophrenia:
Hepola: … What do you do when you see someone like this?
That’s the $64 million question. Among his classmates, if you took all the information known about him and looked at it together, you’d say this guy is potentially dangerous. But one classmate saw one thing, another classmate saw another. The college apparently had enough information to know this guy should be off the campus if he didn’t get mental help. They knew people were purposefully sitting by the door so they could run fast in case this guy did something. This guy clearly struck people as dangerous.
In Arizona the laws are fairly liberal compared to other states. In lots of states the only way you could act on this is if he had demonstrated dangerousness to self or others. But in Arizona, it would have been legal to involuntarily take him to the clinic and have him evaluated. People don’t do this much, because we’re very concerned about people’s civil rights. How do you weigh the fears of a college atmosphere against the civil rights of the individual — an individual who will go in and say, “Look, I might be a little strange, but there’s nothing really wrong with me”?
That’s a key question. Did the college behave properly? Should the school have mandated some sort of mental health treatment for him, rather than kicking him out?
Legally, they could have. Whether they should have or not depends on who had what information and what it looked like at the time. The retrospect-o-scope is a hundred percent.
Exactly. The people around Loughner had only piecemeal information, the impact of which is “obvious” only now that we know how the story ends.
But that’s not the only problem colleges face. For one thing, the actual contact hours a professor has with students are pretty limited. I typically see a student four hours per week (unless they’re taking more than one class with me, the poor dears!). Loughner gave off enough scary vibes that the instructor reported him and the college ejected him until he got treatment. That didn’t happen at Virginia Tech, where as far as I know just one instructor was alarmed enough by Seung-Hui Cho to advise him to seek counseling.
In my eight years of teaching, I’ve had a handful of students who were disruptive of classroom dynamics. There was one guy I considered my “mini-MRA,” who belligerently challenged every idea I presented, but also seemed to think he could kiss up to me by calling me repeatedly at home. Another apparently aspired to become Jonah Goldberg’s clone. But I’ve only had one who gave me an intensely uncomfortable vibe. He talked about how people thought ill of him because he liked to wear a trenchcoat, just like the Columbine shooters. I spotted him again on campus about five years after I’d taught him, and I wondered if he’d had to stop out for mental health reasons. As a new instructor back in 2002, I just thought he was creepy and eccentric. Today, in the post-Virginia Tech era, I’d probably consult with a campus counselor.
But actually reporting someone isn’t a simple matter. Will the student retaliate once he’s put under a microscope? One of my graduate advisers was stalked for many months by a former student, and she had only given him the low grade he’s earned. Loughner, too, acted out when he didn’t get the grade he wanted:
Even in his gym classes, there were problems. In May, the police were called by Mr. Loughner’s Pilates instructor, Patricia Curry, who said she felt intimidated after a confrontation over the B grade she wanted to give him. She said he had become “very hostile” upon learning about her intention. “She spoke with him outside the classroom and felt it might become physical,” the police report said.
Ms. Curry told the police she would not feel comfortable teaching Mr. Loughner without an officer in the area, and the officers stayed to keep watch over the Pilates class until the class ended.
Ms. Curry must have been alarmed indeed to call the police. In her place, I’d be even more frightened about retaliation after class.
The danger of retaliation would be great if the student weren’t treated or didn’t adhere to his treatment. My university does offer psychological services, but they’re woefully understaffed. Severely depressed students are routinely told to wait a month until they can see a therapist qualified to prescribe medications. This has occurred even when the student was suicidal, and said so. Multiple students have told me that they sought help and endured a long wait to get in, only to find they had no rapport with their assigned counselor. One rape survivor told me her sessions were downright counterproductive. Much of the counseling is provided by graduate students. The experienced therapists are quite good, I think, but they’re far too few in number.
Pima College, where Loughner took classes, provides no mental health services. It has over 68,000 students. Much of Loughner’s behavior was bizarre rather than threatening – for example, insisting that the number 6 was actually 18. I can understand why they Pima expelled him but didn’t petition to have him involuntarily committed.
One of the New York Times articles makes the argument that colleges can keep a closer eye on troubled students if they remain enrolled. That’s true as long as students are in dorms. (Incidentally, the same holds true for substance abuse problems.) But when a student lives off campus, we cannot expect an instructor – who in community colleges may teach four or more classes – to keep tabs on a student she sees only four or five contact hours per week. Pima is not a residential school. Did I mention it has 68,000+ students?
It’s striking that no one is asking why Loughner’s former restaurant employers didn’t call in the state. Or why the dog shelter where he volunteered didn’t so the same. Or the Army! All of these entities recognized that Loughner had serious issues. The Army rejected him for having a drug arrest. Quiznos fired him for bizarrely refusing to respond to a customer, and his manage recognized a “personality change.” At the shelter, he exposed puppies to parvovirus after being clearly told to keep them out of a contaminated area. But the New York Times is not asking why these entities didn’t intervene.
I think the difference is that Americans still expect colleges to operate in loco parentis. Even residential colleges haven’t really borne that responsibility – or wielded that power – since the 1960s. We no longer have housemothers and curfews. Young people 18 and older aren’t legally children. Universities can’t act like their parents. Especially when the student is still living at home with his parents.
I don’t want to indulge in blaming Loughner’s parents. His father is reportedly an unpleasant fellow. They still deserve pity and compassion. They have lost their only son forever.
But we surely cannot expect an underfunded, overgrown community college to stand in for his parents, either.
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
Well, there’s also the fact that thanks to laws that prohibit involuntary institutionalization except under very strict circumstances of “eminent danger to self or others”, laws that had widespread support from both right-wing loonies tired of paying for institutionalizing people and left-wing loonies who thought the insane were merely “misunderstood”, there is jack sh*t that you — or anybody — can do regarding a crazy who refuses to take his meds or get proper help. The cops can’t do anything unless the dude breaks a law, and being crazy ain’t illegal, otherwise the entire leadership of the Republican Party would be in padded rooms. Report the kid? Well, sure, and that apparently happened here, and the college apparently did reach out to the kid and offered counseling… and the kid said “shove off”, leaving the college no alternative but expulsion.
In short, folks who say someone else should have “done something” just don’t understand the law, which protects the right of the crazy to be crazy.
- Badtux the Law Penguin
@Sungold: I’m not sure what your experiences are with college counseling centers, but it sounds like they’re based on ideals that I rather doubt are ever met. Counseling isn’t a “silver bullet,” and report with a counselor is just as hit and miss as report with teachers often is. Many professional counselors are quite good at what they do, but, like any profession, there are rape apologists, ablists, sexists, and the whole milieu of the human experience within the profession. I’ve had seasoned veterans I found repulsive and still-grad students who seemed like serendipity.
A lot of that, of course, is because I’m transsexual, which is still often viewed through a very clinical lens by many counselors, and I’m sure you’re well aware of how dependent (and vulnerable) trans people are to mental health care professionals, in general.
That said, I think you’re definitely right about colleges et al. in terms of their responsibilities. Hindsight bias makes the whole puzzle make sense, but that’s just because we know the ending.
@Badtux: Your comment is full of ablism. From “loonies on the right and left” to “protecting the right of the crazy to be crazy,” you’re really erasing the humanity of many people who aren’t neurotypical. I think a better way of putting it would be that the law protects the rights of people who haven’t committed crimes to not be treated like they have.
“Proper meds” and “proper help” might seem really simple to people who are neurotypical, but both counseling and medications can have really counter-effective results. That’s not to say that they’re bad to seek, but that sort of mentality/language has led to centuries of abuse that has only in the past few decades really been challenged.
I think a better way of putting it would be that the law protects the rights of people who haven’t committed crimes to not be treated like they have.
Hi. “Non-compliant” law-abiding middle-aged loony here. The blog owner has stated that she doesn’t want a debate on this issue here, so I will refrain, but I did want to say to Ophelia: Thanks for the above.
Ophelia, thank you for providing a perfect example of the politically correct nonsense that has mentally ill homeless dying on our streets every year because they are mentally ill and thus not capable of making the decisions necessary to deal with their illness or with the realities of daily life. I congratulate you on calling them “differently abled” (I *think* that’s what you’re saying) and standing up for their right to die of their illness.
As for your ASSumptions about my own mental state (hint: I post as a penguin. Dude or Dudette, that might be a *clue*), my experience with the mentally ill both personal and professional, my knowledge etc., well. You don’t know me. You haven’t the foggiest idea who I am, what I do, what I’ve done, what I know about treatment for mental illness, my experiences dealing with the mentally ill, you don’t know *anything* about me. But did you let that stop you from making ASSumptions? Why, NO! Why let a perfect vacuum of lack of facts step in the way of politically correct rhetoric?!
So in any event — the fact of the matter is that if a college student whose behavior has interfered with his ability to interact with his instructors and fellow students doesn’t want to receive counseling or assistance, if his mental illness prevents him from doing so, there’s nothing that can now be legally done at that point except expel the student. That’s just the realities of the situation. Used to be, a cop could take someone acting odd to the local psych ward for evaluation, and the State could take some action if the psych types determined that the person was mentally ill to the point where he was not capable of making rational decisions about dealing with his illness, until such time that the person was able to do so. That was abused sometimes especially when dealing with issues of homosexuality and the cross-gendered, but by and large did work to help the homeless mentally ill get off the streets and get their life back together. But we have to be politically correct and let them die on the streets now — or, in this case, make someone ELSE die on the street. Yeah, quite some improvement, that.
- Badtux the Bitterly Sarcastic Penguin
First, I don’t want this thread to devolve into a basic discussion of the merits and horrors of mental health treatments. I recognize that anti-psychotic drugs have serious side effects, and I know that some people refuse them for that reason, or due to impaired judgment, or just because no one is checking up on them. I’ve written more than one post on this blog that’s critical of anti-depressants. I know that counseling is not a panacea (and yes, I’m aware that bad experiences with shrinks are virtually universal among trans people).
But people with serious mental health issues ought to at least have the option to *try* drugs and counseling. They do work for some people, and the sicker the mind, the more important it is to seek a solution. Loughner never even once sought help, based on what I’m hearing in the news. And I do think people with psychosis need to be in treatment – for their *own* sake, if nothing else.
It’s probable he was schizophrenic. Most schizophrenics never kill anyone. Loughner acted intimidating but the police and college officials said he never crossed the line to overt threats and violence. Even the web posting equating the college with genocide wasn’t an overt threat, though it was enough to get him ejected from Pima.
Badtux, Arizona law evidently sets forth a lower standard than the one you describe (which is the norm in most states). In Arizona, someone can be involuntarily evaluated on the basis of other people’s concern. So the cops or college *could* have taken stronger action. They just didn’t see enough evidence that anyone felt it was warranted.
The college *did* hold the door open to Loughner returning. He wasn’t expelled forever. But his return was contingent on his seeking help.
Ah… good ol’ hindsight bias:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/14/hindsight-bias/
It’s so easy to blame people for not catching things that seem obvious in retrospect.
Cool link!
I’ve noticed that kids start really early with this – and of course we never stop. If I just had a nickel for every time one of my kids has said, “I KNEW IT!!!”
After the involuntary evaluation, could they have forced him into treatment? Or can you just do the evaluation based on concern of others and then it’s up to the person whether to accept treatment?
The mother of a friend of mine had a scary run-in with Loughner at a job center, and she was really worried he was going to come back and shoot up the place. (She is an administrator at the job center.) A LOT of people had scary/concerning encounters with this guy, but we don’t have any way to bring all this information together, to form a complete portrait, until folks are doing the reporting after-the-fact.
Agree that it’s odd to focus on the colleges, particularly a non-residential community college. Even setting aside whether he could be compelled to undergo treatment, I’d be surprised if they have much in the way of student services.
I don’t know if treatment can be forced. Presumably if the evaluator determined a real threat to self or others, they’d proceed toward involuntary commitment.
But boy would I be afraid of triggering the involuntary evaluation if that person was turned loose again a day or two later! Loughner held grudges against his profs who gave him a B. This is evident not just in the example I cited above, but also in the YouTube video that the LA Times has obtained – the one where Loughner calls Pima a “genocide” school. He also expresses resentment against an instructor who gave him a B “for free speech.”
I’m amazed that he didn’t shoot up the college, to be honest. Resentment of Pima seems to have ranked pretty high on his list.
Gosh, I best a lot of people are now having the creepy experience that your friend’s mother had. Loughner was far from socially isolated, even if he was *emotionally* isolated. I read a story about how he came into a job center and started videotaping. I wonder if it’s the same place.
Never having set foot on one of Pima’s campuses, I can nonetheless guarantee you that it has only bare-bones student services. It is huge and underfunded. It does have some counselors and some police. I’m sure the counselors are far too few in number. They do have a new threat identification team, which began meeting this fall, according to one of the NYT articles I linked in my post.
I think it is the same jobs center. There was an article about it, and my friend’s mother was the main person quoted in it. He said she was quite shook up about even weeks after, and they actually were talking about her ongoing fear of Loughner coming back just the weekend before the mass shooting.
And Loughner seems to have held a grudge against Gabby because she didn’t take seriously some weird question he asked her at a previous constituent event. This does appear to be someone who really knows how to work a grudge.
Badtux: I hope you are kidnapped from your home in the middle of the night, handcuffed to a bed, whatever stuff you happen to have on you confiscated, and forced down onto a table and held down while someone pulls your pants down and sticks a needle in you filled with drugs. And that you spend weeks in there, told you’ll be let out when your captors consider you worthy of being let out but given very few clues as to how to make them think that. And that later you’re unable to take legal action against those who did this to you, and expected by mainstream society to say it helped you. All this was done to me in the name of treatment.
Look up some actual statistical studies on mental illness and violence, and you will find that there is no difference between “mentally ill” people and “sane” people as far as violence rates go. The real danger is that we are more likely to be victims of crime–partly because the perpetrators think, often rightly, that our accusations will be dismissed as crazy-person rantings.
First, I’m really sorry you had a horrible experience. I don’t know any of the details, and even if I did I would be loathe to judge, so I will just say it sounds very traumatic.
There’s no question that people who don’t appear sane will be targeted in all sorts of ways. That’s a terrible vulnerability. Many mental illnesses pose a suicide danger. Overall, as far as I (a purportedly “sane” person) can see, people with mental illness are more likely to become a victim than a victimizer.
The rates of violence for schizophrenia are somewhat higher than for the general population, both according to the psychiatrists interviewed in Salon, and according to studies that pop up pretty quickly once I started searching: see here, for instance, or here, or this article for general readers (which certainly plays up the sensationalism but provides some anecdata, at least). So while our biggest concern ought to be finding tolerable treatments that will help people return to mental health, in some cases a person with out of control schizophrenia will pose a threat to other.
What *should* be done to help potentially violent people who are delusional, and to protect their potential victims? When does a moral imperative to prevent harm to self or others outweigh an individual’s civil liberties.
I ask this partly in the shadow of Tuscon, but also because I’m concerned about my dad’s episodes in which he did not recognize my brother and threatened him physically. These occurred last fall. He has Alzheimer’s. Everyone around him lives in fear that these episodes will recur. My brother is stronger, but if my dad were angrier and had an impromptu weapon … who knows?
Anyway, that’s all to say that when a person loses their grip on reality, I see a legitimate conflict between individual rights and the safety of all parties. And I really do not have all the answers.