Posted on 08/27/2007 2:38:54 AM PDT by Timeout
...Professors and school administrators at Virginia Tech could not have known of Cho's emotional disability -- Fairfax [high school] officials were forbidden from telling them. Federal privacy and disability laws prohibit high schools from sharing with colleges private information such as a student's special education coding or disability, according to high school and college guidance and admissions officials. Those laws also prohibit colleges from asking for such information.
The only way Virginia Tech officials would have known about Cho's anxiety and selective mutism would have been if Cho or his parents told them about it and asked for accommodations to help him, as he had received in Fairfax. Cho's disability was first reported in the Wall Street Journal and will be explored further when a panel appointed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) releases an investigative report about the shootings.
...
The reason, explained Barmak Nassirian, with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, is that in the competitive admissions process, students don't want to be at a disadvantage. As recently as 2003, parental pressure caused the College Board to stop flagging SAT scores for students who had been given special education accommodations while taking the test.
Moreover, many colleges say they don't want to know because of the potential liability. "In soliciting a student's history of psychiatric treatment or diagnoses by treating physicians, you basically open a Pandora's box," Nassirian said. "Even if you should decide, for reasons that have nothing to do with medical circumstances, not to accept a student, you most certainly will have a case that will be litigated."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
After decades of treating dangerously ill/malevolent children as "disabled", we got Columbine and its aftermath. The elites took to the airwaves and told us such violence was unprecedented and blamed it on guns, violent videos, etc. What they failed to tell us was that, unlike all previous history, disturbed and/or dangerous individuals had been "mainstreamed" to the point that it was actually illegal for schools and/or other institutions to remove what they considered a threat to public safety (might require a value judgement and we can't have bureaucrats doing THAT!).
It'll be interesting to see if the Kaine Commission is allowed access to Cho's "private records".
Laws are made to protect Society from individuals. They got it half A backwards on this one.
The Ivory Tower Dwellers don’t want to be held responsible in either case. They don’t want to be “litigated” if some mental defective isn’t chosen for their university OR if that same mental defective goes over the edge and kills other peoples’ kids. They want to be held harmless in all cases.
I am flabbergasted that somebody on a conservative forum would write a statement like this.
This is exactly what liberals, communists, and statists say when they start talking about gun control or other convenient social restrictions. Saying that the basis of Law is to protect society from 'individuals' is nothing less than spitting on the Constitution. The United States is powerful because the Law was designed to protect individuals from society and the state. Not the other way around. Are you arguing that we would be better off if everyone fit into their assigned social boxes?
“Society” has the right to be protected from drunk drivers. And from convicted sex offenders (though we know how well THAT one works!).
The problem here is that the liberal elite community began to treat mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. as “disabilities” rather than as psychotic disorders posing a danger to the public. “Privacy” prevented the public from even being informed of the potential dangers.
For example: suppose Cho had been covicted of sexual assault as a juvenile, his high school knew about it, and he exhibited no sign of rehabilitation. Should THAT be disclosed to the university?
I would think that Congress or legislatures could give them limited immunity.
The only way?
Well, VT admitted him. Couldn't they go back to interviewing students for admission? Then they'd get a peek at someone with a severe personality disorder and get a chance to decide whether they really belong on campus.
Interviewing as a condition of the admission process has apparently gone by the wayside, I've been told.
And how many of us would NOT be diagnosed with a “disorder” of some sort or another in today’s world? There is a disorder for every conceivable problem - all by today’s medical and psychological excuse-giving world....
It is kind of like crying wolf - eventually, folks just tune it out. Disorder-this, and disorder-that.
It sounds like colleges for the most part, don’t want to know and don’t care to protect students or staff.
This only strengthens the need for students and teachers to be allowed to carry concealed weaponry.
Nobody will know til “hell breaks loose” and the only line of defense will be immediate and self-protection of oneself and the ones around self.
I guarantee you he was admitted because of his immigrant status. You know, diversity is the most important thing.
I disagree. I think laws are made to protect INDIVIDUALS from individuals, among other things.
"Special educational accommodations" may include someone to read the questions to the student, someone to write the answers, a distraction-free environment, and extra time on the test.
Those special accommodations will continue to be offered once the student is admitted to college. Most common is extra time on exams. I have been told to give some students 250% time on exams to accommodate a "learning disability." That, I was assured by the disability "experts" at my university, was entirely appropriate. (They never would explain how they arrived at 250%.)
I once objected that allowing a student two and a half hours to take a one-hour exam would give him an unfair advantage. Not so, said the "experts"; it merely "levels the playing field." Besides, they said, in real life (outside the university), the ability to work quickly is not important.
In other words, time is not money, and the graduate will continue to expect special accommodations on the job. Nothing could convince the disability "experts" that an engineer who cannot read because of a learning disability will be a severe liability on the job. Apparently, they expected the employer to hire a reader, provide a distraction-free environment, and arrange extended work deadlines for the learning-disabled engineer.
Never mind what VA Tech knew. Cho knew that VA Tech was unarmed.
It goes to the problem of moral relativism. "Rules" and "findings" are designed to eliminate every possible situation where a bureaucrat might have to make a "value judgment". Just do it by the book and your job is safe.
Bureaucrat thinks to self:
"Let's see here. Student has exhibited past anti-social behavior. Diagnosed with a disorder that poses a threat to students and society. But, heck, he's graduating and it would be unfair to "label" him for potential colleges. So---I go to my little rule book---and, voila!, there's the rule that says I CAN'T inform them. Whew. Saved by the rule book...no one can blame me! It's the law's fault!"
[ed: apply above rule to falling bridges, killers out on parole, etc.]
They'll probably want to avoid that for fear of litigation.
Exactly. The bureaucracy pushes for these “compassionate” laws protecting the individual’s privacy. Then, when their lack of scrutiny proves fatal, they can say they did everything by the book.
Amazing how easy my job would be if I never had to make value judgments about employees, vendors, etc!
Since when? When does this happen, in multiple classrooms of a college?
If it were true, this sentence would be an indictment of Virginia Tech.
I don't believe it. I call horsesh!t on the whole article.
I don’t get your point. Are you speculating that students and professors wouldn’t be so “uncaring”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.