On the agenda: a student who got into a shouting match with a faculty member; another who harassed a female classmate; someone found sleeping in a car; and a student who posted a threat against a professor on Facebook.
In a practice adopted at one college after another since the massacre at Virginia Tech, a University of Kentucky committee of deans, administrators, campus police and mental health officials has begun meeting regularly to discuss a watch list of troubled students and decide whether they need professional help or should be sent packing.
These “threat assessment groups” are aimed at heading off the kind of bloodshed seen at Virginia Tech a year ago and at Northern Illinois University last month. “You’ve got to be way ahead of the game, so to speak, expect what may be coming. If you’re able to identify behaviours early on and get these people assistance, it avoids disruptions in the classrooms and potential violence,” said Maj. Joe Monroe, interim police chief at Kentucky.
The Kentucky panel, called Students of Concern, held its first meeting last week and will convene at least twice a month to talk about students whose strange or disturbing behaviour has come to their attention. Such committees represent a change in thinking among U.S. college officials, who for a long time were reluctant to share information about students’ mental health for fear of violating privacy laws.
“If a student is a danger to himself or others, all the privacy concerns go out the window,” said Patricia Terrell, vice-president of student affairs, who created the panel. Terrell shared details of the four discussed cases with The Associated Press on the condition that all names and other identifying information be left out.
Among other things, the panel can order a student into counseling or bar him or her from entering a particular building or talking to a certain person. It can also order a judicial hearing that can lead to suspension or expulsion if the student’s offense was a violation of the law or school policy.
Although the four cases discussed last week were the ones administrators deemed as needing the most urgent attention, a database listing 26 other student cases has been created, providing fodder for future meetings.
Students are encouraged during their freshman orientation to report suspicious behaviour to the dean of students, and university employees all the way down to janitors and cafeteria workers are instructed to tell their supervisors if they see anything.
Virtually every corner of campus is represented in the group’s closed-door meetings, including dorm life, academics, counseling, mental health and police.
“If you look back at the Virginia Tech situation, the aftermath, there were several people who knew that student had problems, but because of privacy and different issues, they didn’t talk to others about it,” said Lee Todd, UK president.
High schools have been doing this sort of thing for years because of shootings, but only since Virginia Tech, when a disturbed student gunman killed 32 people and committed suicide, have colleges begun to follow suit, said Mike Dorn, executive director of Safe Havens International, a leading campus safety firm. “They didn’t think it was a real threat to them,” Dorn said.
Virginia Tech has added a threat assessment team since the massacre there. Boston University, the University of Utah, the University of Illinois-Chicago and numerous others also have such groups, said Gwendolyn Dungy, executive director of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Bryan Cloyd, a Virginia Tech accounting professor whose daughter Austin was killed in the rampage, welcomed the stepped-up efforts to monitor troubled students but stressed he doesn’t want to turn every college campus into a “police state.” “We can’t afford to overreact,” Cloyd said, but “we also can’t afford to underreact.”
Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, was ruled a danger to himself in a court hearing in 2005 that resulted from a roommate’s call to police after Cho mentioned suicide in an e-mail. He was held overnight at a mental health centre off campus and was ordered into outpatient treatment, but he received no follow-up services, despite his sullen, withdrawn behaviour and his twisted, violence-filled writings.
Mary Bolin-Reece, director of counselling and testing at Kentucky, attends the threat assessment group’s meetings but cannot share what she knows or, in most cases, even whether a student has been undergoing counseling. But participants can share information on other possible red flags.
“We always look at, ‘Is there a change in the baseline?”‘ Bolin-Reece said. “The student had previously gotten very good grades, and then there was a drop-off. Something has happened. Is there some shift in their ability to function? If a student is coming to the attention of various parties around the university, we begin to be able to connect the dots.”
The University of Kentucky has not had a murder on campus since 1984. Still, the threat-assessment effort has the strong backing of Carol Graham of Fort Carson, Colo., whose son Kevin was a Kentucky student when he committed suicide before leaving for an ROTC summer camp in 2003. “UK is such a huge university,” Graham said. “It’s important to know there’s a safety net — that people are looking out for each other. With Kevin, his professors thought he was perfect. He’d be an ‘A’ student. But the people around him were noticing differences.”
As for the four cases taken up by the committee: the student who got into an argument with a faculty member — and had also seen a major dip in grades and exhibited poor hygiene — was ordered to meet with the dean of students.
The one accused of harassment was referred to a judicial hearing, during which he was expelled from university housing. The student who made the Facebook threat was given a warning. In the case of the student sleeping in a car, a committee member was dispatched to check on the person. No further details were released.
-with a report from CP