Colleges: safety versus privacy

In the wake of the recent tragedy in Arizona, violence has yet again come to the forefront of our nation’s concerns.

It is becoming more common for colleges and universities to deploy tactics aiming to find and track students that may present a danger to themselves, other students and the community at large. In Illinois and Virginia, institutions of higher education are bound to do so by law.

Jared Loughner was identified as being possibly dangerous by various students, instructors and administrators at Pima Community College in Arizona and was suspended as a result.  The campus remained safe but, as we’ve seen, the community did not.

The assumedly well-intentioned efforts of Pima Community College officials possibly prevented a tragedy from occurring on school grounds, but failed to extend any benefit beyond the physical and legal boundaries of that institution.

Does the fact this shooting took place off-campus make it excusable? Of course not. That’s why efforts to prevent students from causing harm while they are enrolled must provide a route to action even after they are not.

Of course, that’s easier said than done. Making a judgment call on a student’s mental well-being is especially difficult at a community college, where it is common for students to live off-campus, take only one class, and deal with jobs and other stressors beyond the classroom.

Such systems run the risk of incorrectly identifying students without malicious intent as dangerous. Everyone has bad days — should a one-time, uncharacteristic action that harms no one be grounds for further action by college officials?

There is at least one documented incident where a student was improperly investigated due to the student’s opposition toward the building of a campus parking garage. A federal judge sided with the student, but risk of abuse is a major ethical issue that schools implementing behavioral monitoring teams must consider.

If colleges are going to track their students, the responsibility of ensuring a student’s mental welfare cannot end once the student is off school grounds for good. Mandatory referrals to mental health providers would not be an excessive burden on administrators and would help better meet a student’s possible health needs.

Perhaps instead of simply spying on students, colleges should implement programs to eliminate the ridiculous stigma that many people continue to hold against the field of mental health. Well-intentioned but unconstructive efforts to keep tabs on students help neither potential attackers nor victims. When used correctly, mental health treatment is very effective.

Colleges must have the means in place to intervene in cases where the public is clearly in imminent danger. However, nurturing a campus culture where it is considered acceptable to seek mental health services and using these resources when a student poses an immediate threat would be a strong first step in preventing future tragedies from occurring both on campus and off.