Banning Guns (and Opinions About Guns) in College
Brian Doherty | October 11, 2007, 9:22am
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings in April, Hamline University student Troy Scheffler writes emails (in response to emails from them sent to the student body) to the president and vice-president for student affairs of the Minnesota university, complaining about his school's no-weapons and diversity policies.
He is suspended pending a mental health evaluation. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) comes to his defense. From FIRE's press release:
FIRE wrote to [university] President [Linda] Hanson on May 29, 2007, vehemently opposing the sanctions against Scheffler, since neither of Scheffler’s e-mails even came close to meeting the legal definition of a “threat.” FIRE also pointed out that Hamline maintains a
“Freedom of Expression and Inquiry” policy that encourages the public expression of opinions and the freedom to examine and discuss all questions of interest. FIRE wrote that “it is difficult to reconcile these admirable commitments to freedom of expression with Hamline’s hasty actions against Scheffler.”
FIRE also informed Hamline administrators that subjecting Scheffler to a mandatory psychological evaluation poses a grave threat to liberty at Hamline. FIRE wrote, “A psychological evaluation, to be overseen by a Hamline administrator, is one of the most invasive and disturbing intrusions upon Scheffler’s individual right to private conscience imaginable. Because Scheffler has shown no proclivity toward violence and has made no threatening comments, this psychological evaluation seeks to assess his political opinions….”
Some past FIRE blogging. reason contributor Declan McCullagh discusses this case over at C/NET.
John | October 11, 2007, 10:36am | #
Lets read the emails,
Email one,
Considering this university also pushes “diversity” initiatives like VA Tech, maybe its “leadership” will reconsider its ban on conceal carry law abiding gun owners... Ironically, according to a few VA Tech forums, there are plenty of students complaining that this wouldnt have happened if the school wouldnt have banned their permits a few months ago...
I just dont understand why leftists dont understand that criminals dont care about laws; that is why they’re criminals... Maybe this school will reconsider its repression of law abiding citizens rights.
Considering that accoriding to the university president that there were recently serious “hate crimes” that were committed in the womens bathrooms; there may be people on the edge ready to snap. I cant say I blame them, 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).
Oh by the way, when is your “diversity” department going to include European ancestry?
Respectfully,
Troy Scheffler
Email 2
was wondering why a swastika painted by some frustrated ladies in their bathroom turned somehow into red flags of a hate crime but you dont consider an asian guy admittedly killing people because he hated them not hate motivated... Anyhow, in response to your most recent email concerning a vigil for people most likely nobody in the school knows; I would like to comment on your claims of upped “security”. I attend a MPLS cohort so I dont see any security in the area ever. Infact it seems the dirty bums on the street are the only ones patrolling anything. I would suggest if you are truley concerned about student security, you lift a ridiculous conceal carry campus ban and let the students worry about their own “security”. VA Tech just recently passed their conceal carry permit ban; we can all see how well that worked for criminal minds. Ironically, many students from VA Tech are in online forums which I can direct you to complaining that 32 people wouldnt have died in the students rights were not infringed by
banning their legal right to carry their arms on their person. They take the argument that they would have shot the guy before he was able to massacre that many people; I on the other hand would argue that the guy wouldnt have even attempted this atrocity not only if we didnt pay for everybody and their mother to come here for free to soak up tuition funds but also that by knowing law abiding citizens carried weapons to defend themselves that criminals wouldnt be so bold to commit crimes against them...
As usual, Im sure this plea of common sense will fall on deaf ears as I recently responded to a general email notifying students of the conceal carry ban...
On a lighter note... 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.
Yes, I obviously feel that Hamline has been a serious let down, so far I am almost finished with half of my MAPA degree and havent even cracked a book. All the books that came in plastic wrap are still in plastic wrap despite the ridiculous amounts students are charged. I have yet to hear a student in my cohort that is happy with the curriculum or quality of professors. Why does this school charge so much for such a substandard education?
Furthermore, why are you diversity initiatives anti-Euro American (ie white folks)? All over the university grounds I see loads of leftist propaganda, why not warn a student before they enroll at Hamline? It took me complaining to a few different people before even the hamline website finally included white people in the random pictures on the main page. If I remember corrextly it was like 1 white in a picture out of like 12... Now it is obviously better but just goes to show how biased this university is and the painstaking efforts of diversity pandering it does at the expense of people that are actually planning on contributing back to the TAXPAYERS that are footing the bill for your iversity initiatives. In fact, 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. I bet the staff here is wondering how a swastika ended up in a bathroom... More people than you can imagine are tired of this all. It’s just sad that they resort to petty vandalism rather than speak their mind like I am.
Please stop alienating the students that are working hard every day to pay for their tuition. Maybe you can instruct your staff on sensitivity training towards us “privilaged white folk”. If your staff is going to continually berate the evil white male for this privilage and his racist tendencies, at least have them explain where to find the privilages and point out the evil people that are ruining the world. Strange for how horribly racist Europeans and other white people are that everyone seems to want to exploit our generosity. Maybe someday the favor will be returned but I doubt it seeing what I have so far...
Thanks for your time...
Respectfully,
BrianTerrel | October 11, 2007, 10:57am | #
Cindy | October 11, 2007, 10:23am | #
The university has a right to have him psychologically evaluated and reeducated if his views do not conform to the norms of political correctness. You have the right to your private views, but you don't have the right to express your views publically if they may be offensive to others.
Err...did you get lost and wander here by accident? You know where you are...right?
^_^
Joking aside, the article states:
FIRE also pointed out that Hamline maintains a “Freedom of Expression and Inquiry” policy that encourages the public expression of opinions and the freedom to examine and discuss all questions of interest.
So if they are encouraging people to express their opinions and then forcing psych evaluations on anyone who expresses an opinion that lies outside the norm, that pretty much makes their policy meaningless verbage at best. In my view it is an insidious attempt to cull non-PC folks and political outliers from the student body, but I always have had a tendency to impart the worst motives possible onto administrators of all sorts.
Getting away from the post and arguing a bit on general principles, I would contend that your standard that:
you don't have the right to express your views publically if they may be offensive to others.
is a severe burden to freedom of speech. In fact I would contend that if followed, it destroys the right it is meant to modify. I would classify you as an opponent of free speech. I'm curious as to how you would classify yourself.
Any chance you're a european?
Getting back to argument, If we are forced to censor ourselves based on the rule that we cannot offend anyone, we are pretty much forbidden to comment publicly on any substantial issue. The factor that I believe you underestimate is people's ability to get emotionally wrapped up in all sorts of odd beliefs.
Imagine for a moment that there exists person who is emotionally attached to his belief that the sky is green. Now should I, as a responsible person exercising my right to free speech, censor myself with regard to my understanding of the color of the sky?
Aside: This may seem like a nutty example, but I have an ex who is passionately convinced that indigo is a shade of green, and would get seriously irate when I would point out that it is a shade of blue. I never thought to ask her what she thought of the sky...
Perhaps what you are arguing for is to censor views that are offensive to
many others. If so you are essentially calling for a ban on any unpopular speech. But what is the point of affirming a right to free speech at all if it only protects popular, uncontroversial opinions. I don't believe anyone has ever called for a ban on an idea that didn't offend anyone. The right to free speech exists specifically to protect unpopular, offensive ideas.
I'll leave off with a couple of choice quotes from Frederick Douglass, a fellow who certainly had cause to think hard about the issue:
"Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason…
There can be no right of speech where any man…[is] compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning."
thoreau | October 11, 2007, 11:19am | #
I read the emails. For the most part, he doesn't sound like he needs a mental health evaluation. He does sound like he's obnoxious and immature (his complaints are not reasoned critiques of affirmative action but rather rants about life being unfair), but for the most part he doesn't sound mentally ill. If anything, he sounds like a guy in need of education, which is what universities are for. So I would have been very reluctant to do what the school did.
However, there is that one line about people being ready to snap:
there may be people on the edge ready to snap. I cant say I blame them, I myself am tired of having to pay my own extremely overpriced tuition to make up for minorities not paying theirs.
If it weren't for that line, I'd simply say that the university was being ridiculous, and I'd side with the asshole in need of education. However, when the guy who says he wants to carry a gun goes on to say that he can see why people would snap, and gives the insinuation that he has his own reason for snapping, well, I can't fault the university for erring on the side of caution here. He created that first impression, and everything after that reinforces that he is a tightly wound asshole.
I don't think he'll snap. I really don't. But he talked about snapping, and I can't blame the people who responded to it.
If it weren't for the part about snapping, I'd be entirely on his side. He's clearly obnoxious, he clearly has a lot to learn, and he clearly has a victim mentality. If those were his only flaws, I'd say that he's not so different from other students, and he should be allowed to study and mature. But he put in that part, and I can see why people are responding the way they are.
Hopefully the evaluation will confirm my suspicions about him, and he'll be free and clear to continue his education and learn something. He has a lot to learn.
