Sued If You Do, Sued If You Don't

In the wake of the VA Tech shootings, people are questioning whether the university did the right thing in responding to the various complaints about the shooter's behavior in the preceding years at the college. Apparently, he engaged in inappropriate contact with two girls, wrote disturbing plays, and was generally regarded as a problematic guy in one of his English classes. However, if you look at the details of these complaints, it becomes clear that none of them met a particular threshold that warranted stronger action. At one point, he became suicidal and, with the aid of a roommate and police, voluntarily went to a mental institution but he denied having suicidal thoughts and the doctor and judge released him.

The issue of what colleges should do with such students is far more complicated than it would seem. Following the shootings, people are asking why the college didn't do more -- e.g. kick him out of school. However, as this article makes clear, colleges have absolutely no guidance as to their role in dealing with students who have mental health issues. The article cites the case of GW University which was sued because it asked a student who had become severely depressed to leave. On the other hand, MIT was sued when a student there committed suicide.

Moreover, the colleges' hands are tied by a variety of laws, including those dealing with privacy and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, just this spring, Virginia's legislature passed a law preventing public colleges from expelling suicidal students. Schools cannot summarily kick students out -- the students must have their "due process". The current state of affairs screams out for better guidance from the government as to what schools can and should do.

However, on a bigger scale, what this whole situation REALLY screams for is a society that doesn't constantly look to place blame on greater authorities for individuals' actions -- and better yet, courts that do not tolerate absurd lawsuits that hold universities responsible for individuals' suicides (e.g. MIT's case). Once again, as with the MySpace lawsuit that I blogged about earlier, if MIT is responsible for not preventing someone's suicide (what should they do? Put video cameras on every student 24/7?), then aren't the parents even MORE responsible? Shouldn't the parents be even MORE knowledgeable about their kids than the colleges? So, doesn't it seem a little absurd that the parents get to sue MIT for this?

The problem with our society's attitude toward colleges, and even, to some degree, pre-college schools, is that we send mixed signals. We don't want schools to act in loco parentis -- except when we do -- and we only know when we want them to AFTER the fact. Thus, GWU's actions were wrong because they weren't treating the student like an adult, whereas MIT's actions were wrong because they WERE treating the student like an adult.

Personally, I would prefer that schools NOT act in loco parentis and that we acknowledge that students are, in fact, adults and, therefore, are responsible for their own actions. But, regardless of which way we go, it's wrong for society not to choose. I suppose now all we have to do is wait and see how long it takes before someone sues VA Tech for not "doing something" about the shooter, as if all bad or criminal actions were preventable.