Grad student suspended after pro-gun-rights e-mail
A Minnesota university has suspended one of its graduate students who sent two e-mail messages to school officials supporting gun rights.
Hamline University also said that master's student Troy Scheffler, who owns a firearm, would be barred from campus and must receive a mandatory "mental health evaluation" after he sent an e-mail message arguing that law-abiding students should be able to carry firearms on campus for self-defense.
Hamline spokesman Jacqueline Getty declined on Wednesday to answer questions about the suspension, saying that federal privacy laws prohibited the school from commenting. Scheffler had previously waived his privacy rights in a letter to Hamline University President Linda Hanson.
Hamline University President Linda Hanson, who said the school "acted carefully" in suspending its pro-gun rights student
The nonpartisan civil liberties group FIRE, which stands for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has taken up Scheffler's case, but with no luck so far. In a letter to FIRE on September 28, Hamline's attorneys said the school would not reconsider Scheffler's punishment.
Scheffler had sent the pair of e-mail messages after Hamline offered students counseling after the Virginia Tech shooting in April, which took place half a continent away. His response was that, if administrators were truly concerned about safety on campus, they should "lift a ridiculous conceal carry campus ban and let the students worry about their own 'security.'"
Scheffler is licensed under Minnesota law to carry a concealed sidearm, which requires a background check and specific training.
In May, after word got out about Scheffler's punishment but before FIRE became involved, conservative blogs rallied to his defense. A psychologist in Tennessee called it a case of university officials learning that "a conservative is on the loose on campus." Captain's Quarters interviewed Scheffler about so-called gun-free zones and concluded he was a "nice guy caught up in the academic manifestations of political correctness."
That's the high-level summary. Some of the details are important, though.
Angry e-mails: One point is that while Scheffler's e-mails were not threatening, they were angry and had sexist and racist overtones. Read them for yourself: The first, to Vice President of Student Affairs David Stern, said: "I myself am tired of having to pay my own extremely overpriced tuition to make up for minorities not paying theirs. On top of that, I am sick of seeing them held to a different standard than the white students (Of course its a lower and more lenient standard)."
The second message, to President Linda Hanson, said: "For a 'Christian' university, I am very disappointed in Hamline. With the motif of the curriculum, the atheist professors, jewish and other non-Christian staff, I would charge the school with wanton misrepresentation...3 out of 3 students just in my class that are 'minorities' are planning on returning to Africa and all 3 are getting a free education ON MY DOLLAR." (Hamline is affiliated with the United Methodist Church and claims to promote "the ethics and values of the United Methodist tradition.")
Even some libertarians who think Scheffler was ill-treated have criticized his grammar and approach. A professor at Brooklyn College who believes the suspension was unjustified said he was nevertheless "dismayed that (Scheffler) has progressed to the master's degree level without having mastered some aspects of basic grammar."
"Privacy" rights: What's odd is that Hamline initially claimed the e-mail messages were "threatening" and placed Scheffler on an indefinite suspension that required him to undergo a mental health evaluation, a possible "treatment plan," an interview with the dean of students, and so on. The possibility of "further" internal discipline was also mentioned.
But then, after FIRE pointed out being suspended for expressing political views violated the school's freedom of expression policy, President Hanson retreated to a fallback position. Hanson said that the suspension was also based on "critical input from various members of the Hamline community."
The bizarre thing is that to this day, Hamline has never informed Scheffler what those anonymous allegations were (or who his anonymous accusers are). It claims that Scheffler's formal waiver of his rights under federal privacy law is insufficient because it has to "protect the privacy rights and interests of these other individuals."
FIRE's Harvey Silverglate quipped: "Confidentiality is so protected at American colleges and universities that they don't even let the students know what the charges are!"
Hamline's response: I spoke with Hamline spokesman Jacqueline Getty on the phone on Wednesday and exchanged six e-mail messages with her, but never actually got an answer to why the school wouldn't answer general questions about student free speech rights and due process.
All she gave me was this statement:
Hamline has never suspended a student for advocating for gun rights, nor for advocating for any other rights...As we have already informed FIRE, federal privacy laws that protect the rights of that student actually prevent the university from correcting each item of misinformation on FIRE's press release and from articulating in detail what may have transpired with this student.
This misses the point. If there are serious allegations against Scheffler, he has a right under the student code to hear them and be able to respond. It's hardly appropriate to base a suspension and mandatory psychological evaluation on anonymous and undefined allegations that may not even exist.
It's also inappropriate, especially in light of the Cleveland shooting on Wednesday, to try to squelch discussion of whether holders of concealed carry permits should be able to bring their sidearms on campus. It's already legal at the University of Utah and other states are considering the idea of eliminating victim disarmament zones. That may be a good idea; it may not. But universities should try to encourage debate rather than punish students for poorly written rants broaching the topic.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
This wasn't about a university attempting to be politically correct. It was about making sure that what happened at Virginia Tech wouldn't happen at Hamline.
apply pretty much everywhere in the state, except for private
property (such as Trolley Square which, ironically, prohibits
firearms on its premises, unless you are a crazed shooter
ignoring the law, of course). So probably the other academic
institutions in the state can't prohibit concealed carry, either. It
is important to note, though, that you have to be at least 21 to
get a concealed carry permit in Utah, so not all that many
undergraduates will have them. And of course no high schoolers
or younger students. So far, so good. Keeping fingers crossed.
do that was bent on shooting someone. He could save some lives
and worry about the repercussions later.
Go to another University? Which one would accept a student expelled for illegal carry?
everyone's a suspect, when terror is around
I'm sick of hysterical ******* everywhere. Grow up, and let's all get
on with life. We have a lot of work to do to fix this place up!
Currently there are students being denied degrees for espousing conservative values. Yes, you read that right. This isn't hyperbole or hysteria. It's really happening at Universities across America, and this incident is simply another case-in-point.
The Universities overreaction to stating an opinion about gun rights is actually a lot more common than people believe, simply because it's not reported in the news media.
Trying to blame this on Bush is simply ridiculous.
was the least bit questioned... for all the faults the Democrats have
(and there are many), at least it's either womanizing or do-gooder
crap. Why does the other party revel so much in the control freaks
who pretend to be battling 'PC' stuff?
More like COMMON SENSE if you ask me.
But nevermind that, if his main concern was his safety and his right to have his gun, why did he waste his time bringing up other useless points? the locker rooms, minorities (not all of us fall under his affirmative action poster child category), and then religion??
He is indeed confused
Scheffler's emails paint a worrying picture of an angry man. He constantly rails against the perceived injustice against white males in favour of minorities and foreigners. He also bemoans the under-representation of people of European ancestry in pictures on the university website. Furthermore, he complains about the curriculum as well as the presence of atheists, Jews and other non-Christians on the university staff. Hamline may be affiliated to the Methodist Church, but it is a traditional liberal arts university. So, it's rather strange that Scheffler expects it to operate like a bible college.
The contents of Scheffler's emails suggest possible racist, xenophobic and religious fundamentalist tendencies. His grievances seem to echo those of white-supremacist groups. In any case, he is entitled to his views. However, when he claims that there are "people on the edge ready to snap" over the racial issues that he has mentioned and that he doesn't blame them for it, it's hard not to imagine alarm bells being set off within the university administration. Surely, the last thing the university wants is for an angry man like Scheffler to carry arms on campus.
All said, Scheffler should never have been suspended without a fair hearing.
As an aside, it's rather astonishing that Scheffler wrote to top officials of his university using such atrocious spelling and grammar. They must certainly be wondering how he got through admissions in the first place.
To all posters: Please read Scheffler's emails before responding.
As for comparisons with Guantanamo, there is no comparison. This disturbed man was suspended from school. He was not locked up. He was not branded a criminal. He is free to have legal counsel if he chooses to press a civil action against the school. Further, he is free to attend school at another institution, perhaps one that is more sympathetic to his racist and intolerant views.
And as far as Mr. Scheffler's Fourth Amendment rights, he must know there are plenty of other outlets for his violent and racist views: bathroom stalls, vacant tenement buildings, his local news paper, etc.
I feel that your assumptions that "concealed carry" gun owners have some "love of guns" which is not necessarily the case. From your statements, I would suspect that you are somewhat an anti-weapons type.
As opposed to continue attacking your statements, I will just state my opinion of the matter at hand here instead...
I am a pro-carry firearm owner and concealed weapons permit holder. I excersized my right to acquire this license not because I think it is "cool" to carry a firearm, but because I believe it is my right to do so. I feel that the idea that many people have to disarm the public will prevent tragedies from happening is sorely mistaken. Disarmament zones fall into the same category as firearm registration and banned weapons. They seem like good ideas, if there was a way to get everyone to follow them, but the problem is that the people who don't follow them are the ones they are designed to prevent from acquiring weapons.
Scenario 1) A person without a carry permit intent on shooting up a school, business, etc. goes out and purchases a weapon, and takes it illegally (lack of permit) through or into a disarmament zone, and empties rounds into students which can not defend themselves as they have left their sidearms at home.
Scenario 2) Same person takes it to a place, but other students have firearms with which to defend themselves and others, casualties are lessened.
Scenario 3) Same person, but has permit to carry. Scenario becomes no different than #2.
IMHO, the disarmament zones have no effect on criminals, only have an effect on law abiding citizens by removing some of their means of self defense.
While many compare the extreme left to Trotskism, in many cases, it is more correctly Stalinism. Criminalize thought. Ban anyone who dares disagree with politburo.
The mixture of the political left and academia creates environments similar to what happened when the ideology of communism met the absolute power of dictatorships. The ideology of the political left, so prevalent on America's campuses, meets the disproportionate power structure of the students versus the faculty of the modern university.
The bit about requiring a mental health evaluation is truly frightening. Perhaps Hamline can open its own Psikhushka.
And while some conservatives are myopically screaming about the victimization of conservatives, some like the blogger at Captain's Quarters seem to understand that there are actually principles being violated here, like those of equal treatment, free speech, and the exercise of the rights given to students under the school's code of conduct, which appear to have been blatantly circumvented.
It rankles me when people use events like this as just another tired launching point for an attack on those they disagree with. The school administrators here overreacted and treated this student unfairly because of their own issues with his views, not because they hold a certain political viewpoint.
No wonder you have such a high mortality rate by fire arms in your educational system.
What a stone age mentality.
expressed in more than one written communication (made
public in this article -- his own words) that he has nothing shy
of hatred and contempt for other students. And you want him
on campus? Carrying a weapon?
Did you NOT view the videos made by the shooter at Virginia
Tech? Did you NOT see the same venom spewing from his
diatribe?
When this guy literally goes off half-cocked and hurts another
student, are you going to be first in line saying the school
should be sued because they didn't do enough? The college did
the right thing -- in case of expressed hostility and a desire to
carry lethal weapons he already possesses, they said "No, you
cannot come back to school until we believe you aren't a threat
to others." Good for the college. Neo-cons might not like it.
Civil libertarians might not like it. But I like it. I'm a Hokie. Our
school saw enough pain for the whole country. It's time to grow
up about handguns and get over your paranoia about laws that
can protect us from future 4/16s. The handgun lobby and the
wild west types need to recognize their time to go away has
come.
suggests much of this kind of thought is regurgitated neocon
crap. Let's see what government has repealed the most
freedoms our country offered. Hmmm, that would be the
current president and the last three Congresses. Review the
Patriot Act and tell me what party is becoming the Party.
If the school protects students by forcing one of its own who has
epxressed anger and the desire to be armed in the same breath,
you claim it's communist control. And when he goes on a
shooting rampage to rid the school of what his misinformed
mind believes to be tax leeches to fit his Aryan mindset, you'll
be complaining about how the liberal lefty policies of the school
could have permitted such... pick a position, will you? You are
absolutely no better than those you cast stones against.
The student said nothing other than stating a position. But you as a liberal you abandon respect for the individual who's creed, convictions or feelings differ from yours.That approach is what lead to the gas chambers.
As a lifelong Democrat I assure you you would be better informed and have a much better understanding of our nation if you did listen to Rush Limbaugh each day.
By the way, what freedom have you lost because of the current egg head in the White House? It seems you can ***** and moan, make very uninformed and unreasoned statements and not fear that you will be harmed for doing so.
That sounds awfully damn free to me.
Clearly the guy was hitting a wall in some aspect of his life with the U. It shows. Not all of us deal with institutional stonewalling well.
From the emails the guy was aware of clear and present issues in society.
While I vehemently disagree with the sentiments the student has expressed, I see nothing that takes them past legitimate political disagreement. I am fairly astonished if others can find anything there that would be grounds for suspension. I see absolutely NOTHING that would seem to constitute a direct or indirect threat. If he thinks that the minority students in his class who intend to go to Africa shouldn't be allowed to be educated via government funds, how do you turn that into a threat? How do you turn it even into true hate speech? Why is that a political opinion that can't be expressed?
They don't have infinite discretion because they may have policies endorsing freedom of speech, but they tend to think they do...
The charge of racism is a weak, grasping at straws tactic of hypersensitivity and is a sign of greater intolerance by the administration than it is a sign of racism in the student.
At no time did the student utter a threat or provoking words or gestures.
This university owes the student an apology, restored access to all programs, and free life-time tuition as compensation.
Universities are already under scrutiny for not acting when nutjob students shoot up the campus, so its obvious if you send them sexist, racist emails with gun references, well they have to do something lest they get sued yet again when they later find out the hard way that Tony was building an armory in his dorm room.
Opinions, fine, but when it comes to touchy subjects like campus violence, both sides must have tact. We don't joke about workplace violence where I work, because frankly if HR hears about it you never know if you will get pulled into your Supervisor's office for "a talk".
Even though I don't want him walking around with a gun, I don't think he was suspending for his pro gun rights e-mails. It was for his harassing e-mails and other incidents to which "federal privacy laws that protect the rights of that student actually prevent the university from correcting each item of misinformation".
I agree partly with the actions of University, though I don't agree with their approach or the severity of punishment: maybe an anger management course would benefit Scheffler from sending hasty anger filled e-mails in the future, hopefully keeping the logical fallacies to a nill as well.
supreme law of the land...The Constitution of the United States.
Although I don't agree with the grad student's opinions. I do,
however, believe in the freedom of speech. Has this country lost
it's marbles? And from a place of 'higher education' at that...
I find it irreprehensible that Universities would actively seek to
supress freedom of speech. It's time for America to wake up
and to realize what a dangerous plank we are walking.
Welcome to the Fourth Reich!
- rights vs safety
-
by PaulM
October 11, 2007 11:41 AM PDT
- To an outsider looking in, the demand that many US citizens express for the right to bear arms is bizarre. You want the right to carry a gun on campus to defend yourself against the crazies who want to bring guns onto campus. That's clearly an insane philosophy but you can't recognise it because you're blinded by the "free speech" and "right to bear arms" chants. Your newspapers are full of stories about how the signs were all there before a massacre - angry guy, owns a gun, sent threatening emails to people. So when this latest guy explodes in a month or two, and kills a bunch of people at the university that is "doing him wrong", you'll defend his right to own his gun, to bring it onto campus, and to send angry emails. That is bizarre. Here's what really happens when everyone brings their gun onto campus to "defend" themselves. Somebody gets concerned about one of the people carrying a gun and challenges him. A passer-by sees someone with a gun drawn, and immediately draws his gun. But he doesn't know which of the other guys is a good guy or a bad pone. Shouting ensues - "He's the nutcase" "No HE'S the crazy". More worried people come by, drawing their guns. Someone shoots, and everybody starts shooting. Nobody knows who is good and who is bad. Innocent bystanders get caught up in the hail of bullets. When the cops come by, how do they sort out who among all the people wandering around with guns is a killer and who is a good guy? That's the certain result of everyone bringing their guns onto campus. That whole "wild west" legacy is what got you mired in Iraq.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- Wild West??
-
by grangrump
October 11, 2007 12:06 PM PDT
- Please let me know of the last such occurrence (or for that matter the first occurrence) that you are aware of?? Approximately 47 states have a right to carry. I know of no such incidents.
-
-
- I don't know where you're from, but...
-
by CloakedMirror
October 11, 2007 12:09 PM PDT
- You have watched too much television, and too many movies. You should try reading some of the history regarding the formation of the United States. If your own country has outlawed the citizenry owning firearms and being able to speak freely then I am guessing it is so that the people at the top can be assured of staying there.
-
-
- Well...
-
by devbost
October 12, 2007 7:08 AM PDT
- Your example is kind of dramatic and a little (if you'll pardon the expression) cartoony in nature, there's a good point hidden in the middle of it.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (109 Comments)We are not all so willing to abdicate our rights and obligations to self defense to "mama government." If you are attacked in the street, you better hope one of us is around.
I am generally supportive of the right to bear arms, although I choose not to exercise that right personally. However, in spite of all the fantasy-based swagger being expressed by the gun owners on this board about the do-gooder with the concealed piece stopping a massacre because they happened to be carrying, I really fail to see how adding to the quantity of gunfire ricocheting down the hallway of a campus helps the situation.
It doesn't happen like you describe here the way it does in John Woo movies. But conversely, since when did espousing a wild west mentality become a prerequisite for defending the right to bear arms?