|
May 10, 2007
"why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they own one"?
Well, that was Andrew Sullivan's question about guns, and I tried to come up with a few theoretical answers yesterday while trying to be funny. What happened to a 31 year old Minnesota college student, while not funny, has provided an answer from the real-life world (as opposed to the often theoretically argumentative life of the blogosphere). Unfortunately, I'm deadly serious. Via Glenn Reynolds, I saw a reminder that the freedom we enjoy in blogging is often in short supply in the "real world." For criticizing affirmative action, and for "talking about concealed carry" a Hamline University student has been suspended, and he will only be allowed back if he submits to -- get this -- psychological evaluation and treatment: On April 23, Scheffler received a letter informing him he'd been placed on interim suspension. To be considered for readmittance, he'd have to pay for a psychological evaluation and undergo any treatment deemed necessary, then meet with the dean of students, who would ultimately decide whether Scheffler was fit to return to the university.I guess I should be glad I'm not a student anywhere, or else they'd say I'm mentally ill and kick me out. (Well, I've had commenters question my mental health, but they can't do anything to me.) Frankly, the tactics they're attempting to use against Mr. Scheffler remind me of Soviet-style "treatment" of political dissidents. The difference is that the government isn't doing it, and I suppose there's no right to attend college. Unbelievable. (This is starting to sound eerily like Harvard's anti-homosexual witch hunts back in the 1920s.) The most ominous aspect of this is that the same people who would declare Scheffler mentally ill would love to turn right around and use the same argument to deprive him of his Second Amendment rights. This is related to a concern I expressed in the immediate aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting: I think if standards are toughened as a result of this, it will be more along the lines of making it impossible for anyone who has ever sought treatment for mental illness to ever buy a gun. Couple that with the notion that nearly all of us are all mentally ill (whether from depression, neurosis, OCD, ADHD, "codependency" etc.) and I don't think it's much of a stretch to see a movement to use mental illness as grounds for disarming a lot of people who, while they might arguably need treatment for one thing or another would never shoot anyone.But this latest idea by college administrators is a wonderfully neat trick. "Talking about concealed carry" supplies grounds for mental health treatment. And then mental health treatment supplies grounds for losing the right to concealed carry. Sheesh. It is any wonder that gun owners don't want to be identified? At the risk of making this more painfully obvious than I should have to, gun owners are fearful of being identified precisely because in the real world, they are increasingly face persecution like that meted out to Mr. Scheffler. Or they might face stigmatization, which leads quite predictably to life in the closet: So anathema are guns among my friends that when one learned I was doing this piece, he opened his wallet, silently pulled out an NRA membership card, then (after I recovered from the sight) asked me not to spread it around lest his son be kicked out of nursery school.It should surprise no one that stigmatization and persecution force people into closets. What's surprising is that anyone would anyone be surprised. posted by Eric on 05.10.07 at 02:56 PM
Comments
No, it's completely unreasonable. This sort of panicked reaction is how people lose all their rights bit by bit. That university needs to be sued within an inch of its endowment, pour encourager les autres. Aaron · May 10, 2007 05:14 PM Froblyx, how did I know you would defend the University? You're getting predictable already. So help me out. Where is the "unknown threat" in his letter? Is it an offense to write an email that someone may deem "cantankerous"? That's quite a standard. tim maguire · May 10, 2007 05:58 PM "So help me out. Where is the "unknown threat" in his letter? Is it an offense to write an email that someone may deem "cantankerous"? That's quite a standard." The fact that there is no standard is the source of the University's strong reaction. If there were a standard in place, the administration could simply have applied the standard and acted accordingly. The absence of a standard puts the monkey on the administration's back: if this guy does turn out to be a nut case and does go on a rampage, your career is over because you failed to respond to an "obvious" threat. In cases like this, bureaucrats always behave in the most CYA manner possible. What we're looking at here is not some grand anti-gun conspiracy but rather bureaucrats behaving like bureaucrats. Froblyx · May 10, 2007 06:09 PM He already had a concealed weapon permit, IIRC. Regardless of leftard hyperbole, they don't just feature those as prizes in Cracker Jacks boxes. And there is a standard vis-a-vis firearms: view the firearm owner as a criminal. That seems well established, to my unbiased view. skh.pcola · May 10, 2007 08:04 PM this is typical of the Left Thought Police. Because the guy committed a thought crime, thinking thoughts that were politically incorrect: opposing Affirmative Action, supporting the second amendment, he must be insane. Just like the Left's model, the Soviet Gulag imprisoned in insane asylums Democracy Dissidents, and Jews. The school should be sued to within an inch of it's endowment. Perhaps settling for $100 million or so. Jim Rockford · May 11, 2007 02:06 AM "Because the guy committed a thought crime, thinking thoughts that were politically incorrect: opposing Affirmative Action, supporting the second amendment, he must be insane." I don't read it that way. The letter alarmed the president because it made references to guns and expressed ill will towards a minority group. Sure, there was nothing in the letter that proved the writer to be insane. But knowing nothing more about the writer than the letter, which would be more prudent: to ignore it, or to investigate the writer? Froblyx · May 11, 2007 10:10 AM "The requirement of a psychological test seems fair enough to me; recall that the country was reverberating with stories about the failure to follow up on psychiatric information on the shooter in Virginia. Get the facts, interview the subject, and then make a determination." AChiu _2* · May 13, 2007 01:13 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
May 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
May 2007
April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Kyoto Destroying European Economy
Remembering my mother on Mother's Day Fossilizing on the beach? Chompsky Chewed, Jihadis Booed Real acting? Or just pretend acting? Can't stop the popping The Solar Conveyor Has Slowed the climatic consequences of truthertarianism Sign The Fusion Petition Another knuckle-head against Nutter!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
After reading the news article linked to in the post, my own read is that the administration was playing CYA after Virginia Tech, not discriminating against Mr. Sheffler for his conservative opinions. I would not have gone as far as they did, but I think that their actions fall within the range of prudent behavior. Remember, they don't really know this guy from Adam; he's one of 4,000 students. He sends a rather cantankerous letter to the president and he seems to have a proclivity for guns. Any campus president who did NOT react in some fashion would be fairly accused of dereliction of duty. This president chose to take instant action to isolate the unknown threat; I would have ordered the Dean of Students to take rapid action but would not have suspended the student.
The requirement of a psychological test seems fair enough to me; recall that the country was reverberating with stories about the failure to follow up on psychiatric information on the shooter in Virginia. Get the facts, interview the subject, and then make a determination. That in itself is just fine. The suspension until the requirements had been met was a bit heavy-handed, but had the President given the student a week, would that mean only that the student would go on a rampage in six days? Would you be willing to take that chance?