Higher Ed Law Prof Blog

The killing continues at the K-12 level as well

Gay boy, who responded to taunts by flirting, is the victim of a hate crime.From the LA Times

What is hazing? A Legal Definition

by Jim Castagnera

Mr. Webster defines “haze” as “to harass by exacting unnecessary, disagreeable, or difficult work… [or] to play abusive or humiliating tricks on, by way of initiation.” Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Diction (Springfield: G&C Merriam Co, 1963) at 382. A more recent edition of the famed dictionary hones in on the subject of this section: “to initiate or discipline by forcing to do ridiculous or painful things.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus (N.Y.: Hungry Minds, Inc. 2d ed. 1999) at 292.
This definition is exemplified by the case of Brueckner v. Norwich University, 169 Vt. 118, 730 A.2d 1086 (Vt. 1999). In this case, Plaintiff attended Norwich for only sixteen days as a result of his subjection to, and observation of, numerous incidents of hazing. In those sixteen days, plaintiff withstood a regular barrage of obscene, offensive and harassing language. He was interrogated at meals and thereby prevented from eating. He was ordered to disrobe in front of a female student, although he did not follow the order. He was prevented from studying during some of the assigned study periods and, on several occasions, cadre members destroyed his academic work with water. Members of the cadre also forced him to squat in the hall as they squirted him with water. He was forced to participate in unauthorized calisthenic sessions, despite an injured shoulder. He was slammed into a wall by a cadre member riding a skateboard in the hall. After cadre members vandalized his room by dumping water in it, plaintiff was ordered to clean up the mess. On two occasions, plaintiff was prevented from attending mandatory ROTC study hall on time, leading him to believe his scholarship status was endangered. One morning, as plaintiff walked along the corridor in the dormitory, he encountered two cadre members, one of whom asked plaintiff where plaintiff's nametag was. When plaintiff responded that he had forgotten it, one cadre member hit plaintiff hard in the shoulder, which was injured and in a sling. After the other cadre member told the hitter to stop, the hitter struck plaintiff again in the same shoulder, causing pain and bruises. After reporting the hazing problems to Norwich officials, plaintiff left the campus, believing that his situation would not improve. He returned briefly once more, then withdrew from Norwich, his scholarship terminated. Norwich investigated plaintiff's complaints and, as a result, several cadets were disciplined.
Plaintiff brought his action against Norwich for assault and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. By means of special interrogatories, the jury found Norwich liable on all counts and awarded plaintiff $100,000 for emotional distress, $8,600 for medical expenses, $80,000 for the lost four-year college scholarship and $300,000 to cover lost earnings (past and future). The jury also awarded $1.75 million in punitive damages. The court denied Norwich's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Norwich appealed.
The Vermont Supreme Court’s Decision. The high court explained that under the settled doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer or master is held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of an employee or servant committed during, or incidental to, the scope of employment. Norwich conceded that cadre members acted as its agents in “indoctrinating and orienting” rooks such as plaintiff. Norwich claimed, however, that the tortious acts complained of were not committed within the cadre members' “scope of employment.” Whether a given act is committed within the scope of employment, the court observed (echoing settled American common law) is properly determined by the finder of fact after consideration of the attendant facts and circumstances of the particular case.
To be within the scope of employment, conduct must be of the same general nature as, or incidental to, the authorized conduct. Conduct of the servant falls within the scope of employment if: (a) it is of the kind the servant is employed to perform; (b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; (c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master; and (d) in a case in which the force is intentionally used by the servant against another, it is not to be expected by the master. Conduct of a servant is not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time and space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master.
In this instance, concluded the court, the cadre were authorized by Norwich to indoctrinate and orient rooks through activities performed at various times of the day and night. A jury could reasonably find members of the cadre were acting in furtherance of their general duties to indoctrinate and orient the rooks and thus within their “scope of employment” at the time of the hazing incidents of which plaintiff complains.
Norwich argued that, because it had adopted policies against hazing and had instructed the cadre to refrain from mistreating the rooks, the tortuous conduct was outside the scope of employment. Norwich contended that McHugh v. University of Vermont, 966 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.1992), supported this result. In McHugh, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Vermont law, concluded that an employee who sexually and religiously harassed a fellow employee was not acting within the scope of employment. There, a major in the United States Army and an employee at the University of Vermont's Department of Military Studies told plaintiff, a female secretary, that his definition of a “secretary” was a “paid whore.” The employee repeatedly joked about plaintiff contracting AIDS, stating that he hoped she would be able to avoid infection. The employee also told plaintiff that it was “a good day to watch Catholic babies burn.” The court rejected the argument that the employee's conduct was within his scope of employment because it was within that scope for him to talk with the plaintiff, either to give instructions or to avoid the awkwardness of silence at work. It held: “It can hardly be contended that [the employee's] alleged conduct furthered the business” of his employer.
Rejecting this analogy, the judges wrote, “The same cannot be said of this case, where the actions involved in hazing rooks may fairly be seen as qualitatively similar to the indoctrination and orientation with which the cadre members were charged. Indeed, Norwich described some of the acts of which plaintiff complained, such as forced calisthenics and questioning at mealtime, as not far removed from the official system of military discipline and training which recruits are expected to endure. The evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the cadre members were acting within the scope of employment.”
Although the existence of policies prohibiting hazing did not save Norwich University from liability in this case, no college or university can in the absence of published policies. (Of course, such policies are empty words unless properly promulgated and consistently enforced.)

Student to Student Harassment, Discrimination, Hazing, and Violence: A Model Policy

University Harassment Policy

All students, faculty, staff and administrators at the University have the right to expect an environment that allows them to enjoy the full benefits of their work or learning experience. Harassment is any action that may reasonably be expected to threaten, coerce or intimidate an individual or a class of individuals. Where the alleged harassment involves a potential violation of federal or state anti-discrimination laws, the University’s affirmative action officer may be called upon to investigate the allegations, using procedures approximating those outlined below under “Sexual Harassment.” However, nothing contained in this policy shall be construed either to limit the legitimate exercise of the right of free speech or to infringe upon the academic freedom of any member of the University community.

Sexual Harassment

It is the policy of the institution that no member of the community may sexually harass another. Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and/or physical, verbal or written conduct of a sexual nature when:
1.Submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, education, or participation in University programs or activities, or
2.Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for decisions pertaining to an individual’s employment, education, or participation in University programs or activities; or
3.Such speech or conduct is directed against another and is abusive or humiliating and persists after the objection of the person targeted by the speech or conduct, or
4.Such conduct would be regarded by a reasonable person as creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment that substantially interferes with an individual’s work, education, or participation in University programs or activities.

In the educational setting within the University, as distinct from other work places within the University, wide latitude for professional judgment in determining the appropriate content and presentation of academic material is required. Conduct, including pedagogical techniques, that serves a legitimate educational purpose does not constitute sexual harassment. Those participating in the educational setting bear a responsibility to balance their rights of free expression with a consideration of the reasonable sensitivities of other participants. Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed either to (1) limit the legitimate exercise of free speech, including but not limited to written, graphic, or verbal expression that can reasonably be demonstrated to serve legitimate education, artistic, or political purposes, or (2) infringe upon the academic freedom of any member of the University community. The following procedures apply to instances in which a claim is made of inappropriate behavior that might be interpreted to be sexual harassment. -Informal Procedures The informal procedures are designed to resolve complaints quickly, efficiently, and to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved. The Affirmative Action Officer (or designee), with relevant supervisors when appropriate, seeks an outcome that is mutually agreed upon by all parties to the complaint. If it seems appropriate the Affirmative Action Officer will use the services of a counselor to assist in resolving an informal complaint. If the accused is represented by a bargaining agent, the accused may have that agent present at any interview with the Affirmative Action Officer or designee. Records maintained by the Affirmative Action Office arising from informal procedures will not be used for any purpose other than those described above unless an informal complaint results in a formal hearing. Since informal level records represent allegations not supported by formal findings of fact, they will be maintained in a confidential manner separate from any other records for four years. They will be destroyed after that period if no further allegations or formal complaints have been received concerning or by the same individual. Such records shall not be used as evidence of guilt or innocence in any investigation or hearing involving a future complaint involving the same accused. The accused shall be entitled to include a response in the records.

Formal Procedures

If the alleged harassing behavior that triggered the informal complaint has not ceased as a result of informal intervention or is of the kind that contradicts informal efforts, a formal investigation may be initiated. Before a formal investigation, the Affirmative Action Officer (or designee) must explain the process and the relevant avenues of redress to the complainant and the accused. A formal investigation can be terminated with the mutual consent of the parties involved. A formal complaint must be filed in writing within six months of the act of alleged harassment, unless extenuating circumstances require an extension, and must be filed with the Affirmative Action Office. The Affirmative Action Officer (or designee) will notify the president of the union (if the alleged harasser is a bargaining unit member) and the relevant division head as soon as possible after receiving the complaint. The Affirmative Action Officer will provide the accused, the complainant, the union president (when appropriate) or the relevant division head (if the accused does not belong to a bargaining unit), and the Dean of Students (when a student is involved) with a copy of the complaint and this policy. The Affirmative Action Officer (or designee) will investigate the complaint and report the results to the president. The president will initiate disciplinary action, when in his/her judgment it is appropriate, and will inform the accused, the complainant, the union president (when appropriate), the relevant division head, and the Dean of Students (when appropriate) of his decision. Implementation and challenge of any disciplinary action will be according to applicabletive bargaining agreement (up to and including arbitration) or non-bargaining unit disciplinary procedures. Following a determination, records of the formal proceedings will be maintained in the Affirmative Action Office for four years. The Affirmative Action Office shall maintain a confidential index of dated complaints cross-referenced by name of the accused and the complainant. The Affirmative Action Officer shall have the authority to take all reasonable and prudent steps to protect both parties pending the formal investigation and/or hearing.

Student to Student Harassment, Discrimination, Hazing, and Violence: A Primer

By Jim Castagnera

For most organizations, customer-to-customer crime is not a serious loss-prevention concern. Two brawlers in a bar will probably find themselves arrested or at least evicted. Two shoppers struggling over the latest version of Play Station will likely suffer a similar fate. While the American common law may entertain a theory or two of liability, such interactions simply are not high on the list of litigation risks of most corporate counsels.
Need we say that institutions of higher learning are different in this regard? Our “customers” are our concerns in ways that only K-12 schools (and perhaps some landlords) can appreciate. When a student poses a threat to his classmates… when a fraternity harasses gays or blacks or Asians on your campus… or when new pledges are induced to binge drink… the university faces serious liability problems.
Students themselves can be held liable for the personal injuries they cause. In days of yore this statement was less solid than it is now, when 18 --- the age of most freshmen --- is deemed to be the age of majority for most purposes. However, this chapter, as all the others, will focus on the institution’s liability for student misdeeds.

The leading Supreme Court cases spring from the K-12 environment, they are deemed to apply with equal force to high education. Furthermore, individual state laws may serve to extend the reach of Title IX’s protections to classes, such as gay and lesbian students, not necessarily protected by federal law at the present time.
A recent example, again drawn from the K-12 environment but pertinent to higher education is L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Regional Schools Bd.,
189 N.J. 381, 915 A.2d 535 (2007). In this case, as early as the fourth grade, classmates began taunting plaintiff L.W. with homosexual epithets such as “gay,” “homo,” and “fag.” The harassment increased in regularity and severity as L.W. advanced through school. In seventh grade, the bullying occurred daily and escalated to physical aggression and molestation. Within days of entering high school, the abuse culminated with a pair of physical attacks. Ultimately, L.W.'s unease prompted him to withdraw from his local high school and enroll elsewhere, at the expense of his school district.
The harassment escalated in 1998 when L.W. enrolled at Intermediate West for seventh grade, a school with an enrollment of 1,400 students. “Almost every single day” classmates directed slurs at L.W. loudly in the halls “so everyone could hear.” When asked about his day, L.W. would occasionally reply, “Nobody called me anything today. I had a good day.” But, on entering the seventh grade, the maltreatment was no longer limited to verbal disparagement. In the fall, L.W. discovered a piece of construction paper attached to his locker that read, “You're a dancer, you're gay, you're a faggot, you don't belong in our school, get out.” L.W. did not immediately report the incident to school officials.
The first reported incident occurred in late January. While in the school cafeteria, a group of ten to fifteen students surrounded L.W. One of those students, R.C., then struck L.W. on the back of the head and taunted him with “the usual” homosexual epithets. L.W. went to the office and called his mother. When she arrived to pick L.W. up, eighth-grade Assistant Principal Raymond McCusker informed her that he would report the incident to seventh-grade Assistant Principal Irene Benn. The next day, L.W. remained home from school, still upset from the previous day's events. His mother called Benn four times that day to determine what action was taken in response. Benn advised L.W.'s mother that McCusker had briefed her on the incident, but because “something had come up,” she “did not have time to speak to the children involved.” The following day, Benn informed L.W.'s mother that she had spoken with the main participants and determined that R.C., after being called a “whore” by L.W., retaliated against him. Benn counseled both students regarding the inappropriateness of their behavior and warned them of the consequences of future actions. Benn did not punish or reprimand any of the other students involved.
Also in late January, a student approached L.W. in the locker room and, with a crowd of students looking on, said, “If you had a p* * * *, I'd f* * * you up and down.” L.W. was “[e]mbarrassed, vulnerable, [and] ashamed.” L.W. and his mother reported the incident to Benn, but because L.W. did not want any problems performing in the upcoming school play, his mother asked Benn to wait until after the performance to speak with the offending student. However, L.W.'s mother did not follow up with Benn, and no action was taken.
Even the school play was not free of harassment. At every practice, an eighth grade student, R.G., insulted L.W. with derogatory comments. L.W. reported the harassment, and R.G. apologized. Further, as part of a school function, L.W. went to Toms River High School North to watch a dress rehearsal of a school play. There, D.M. mocked L.W. and smacked him on the head with his playbill. L.W. reported the incident. Benn counseled D.M., advising him that further inappropriate conduct would result in more significant consequences. D.M.'s mother was advised of the incident. She apologized to L.W.'s mother and insisted that D.M. write a letter apologizing to L.W.
The insults such as “butt boy, fruit cake, [and] fudge [p]acker” did not abate. The remarks were so frequent in seventh grade that L.W. testified that “[i]f I ma[d]e it through a day without comments, I was lucky.” For example, various students pestered L.W. during physical education. When L.W. informed Benn of the badgering, she discouraged the heckling students from using such language and warned them of future consequences if their behavior continued. In addition to reporting the incidents to Benn, L.W. sought the help of his guidance counselor who urged L.W. to “toughen up and turn the other cheek.” L.W.'s mother complained to Benn about the guidance counselor's advice.
The harassment at Intermediate West peaked in mid-March. While standing in the lunch line, M.S., along with two friends, J.A. and C.C., approached L.W., calling him “gay” and “faggot.” M.S. then grabbed L.W.'s “private area” and “humped” him, taunting, “Do you like it, do you like it like this?” L.W. escaped, but M.S. followed him and repeated the molestation as classmates watched. L.W. then fled to the school's main office. Benn spoke with all three attackers, told them that their conduct was “inappropriate” and that, if repeated, “it would be dealt with more severely.” The assaulting students then returned to class.
L.W.'s mother arrived at school shortly thereafter to pick up her son, who waited in the school's main office while his mother and Benn spoke. Even in the main office, students teased L.W. Following the cafeteria incident, L.W. did not attend school for several days. When he did return, Mark Regan, Principal of Intermediate West, Anne Baldi, the school's affirmative action officer, Benn, and McCusker met with L.W.'s mother and aunt. At that meeting, held less than two months after the first reported incident of harassment, Regan informed L.W.'s mother that an “open door policy” would be imposed, permitting her son to leave class and report problems directly to him or Benn any time anyone bothered him. Further, Regan assured L.W.'s mother that her son's teachers would be informed of the situation and L.W.'s special permission to leave class. Finally, Regan stated that harassing students would be dealt with immediately. According to Regan, first-time offenders would be counseled and more drastic action would be taken against repeat offenders.
On his first day back to school, L.W. faced homosexual taunts from his schoolmates, namely, C.C., B.E., and T.L. School officials reacted. Because C.C. was a repeat offender, his family was contacted and he received detention, while Benn and McCusker counseled the first-time offenders on the consequences of their behavior. Later that same day, R.B., P.D., J.P., and T.S. told L.W. that he should “be in a girls['] locker room.” As a repeat offender, P.D. was punished with detention, his parents were contacted, and he was warned that he would be suspended if he offended again. The others, all first-time offenders, were counseled. L.W.'s gym locker was also moved closer to the physical education office.
The next month, in April of his seventh grade year, L.W. slapped a female student's buttocks on her dare. Thereafter, the female student's brother, D.R., accompanied by W.K., confronted L.W. in the locker room and said, “I heard [you] smacked my sister on her a* *, I don't want you to do that, you're a fag, you don't belong doing that.” D.R. then slapped L.W. across his face, ordering him “never to touch his sister again.” Laughing and saying “Faggot ... get out of here, we don't want you here,” W.K. then “whipped” L.W. over the back of his neck with a silver chain. L.W. reported the incident before going home that day. When his mother arrived, L.W. was crying. He had “welts” on his neck, and his cheek was “all red” from the attack. School officials suspended D.R. and W.K. five days each. L.W. did not return to school for over a week.
Although unreported, the verbal abuse persisted through the end of the seventh grade, but was of a lesser degree. Eighth grade was a better year for L.W. Although the verbal harassment continued, it was more sporadic. No physical abuse was reported, and, at L.W.'s graduation, L.W. and his mother thanked Regan for “giving L.[W.] a good year.” Concerning the lack of physical confrontation during his eighth grade year, L.W. testified that a security guard monitored him between classes approximately eighty percent of the time. However, the guard, a former police officer, testified that he was assigned to the intermediate school generally and that he was not assigned specifically to monitor L.W. Although the security guard was transferred to Toms River High School South when L.W. entered that school as a freshman, the guard stated that the transfer was unrelated to L.W.'s academic progression.
Throughout L.W.'s time at Intermediate West, a school-wide non-discrimination policy was in effect, one that the District characterized as a “zero tolerance” policy. The District provided students and parents with a handbook of rules, regulations, and policies stating that the District does not discriminate on the basis of numerous characteristics including race, sex, and religion. However, the handbook did not enumerate affectional or sexual orientation. Additionally, the District, which oversees roughly 18,000 students, maintained a second nondiscrimination policy, an affirmative action overview. That policy was not generally distributed to students and parents; rather, it was maintained by the District's superintendent, principals, and affirmative action office. The affirmative action overview enumerated “affectional or sexual orientation” as a prohibited basis for discrimination.
Benn testified that she explained the school's non-discrimination policies to students in a class period at the beginning of the academic year. However, E.C., a classmate of L.W.'s, testified that the assembly addressed mostly “fighting” and “yelling in the hall.” To the extent harassment was discussed, according to Benn, no specific reference was made to sexual orientation. The District did not reinforce the discrimination policy through assemblies, letters to parents, or any other widespread communication.
The District employed “progressive discipline” when addressing peer discrimination and harassment. School officials counseled first-time offenders regarding their inappropriate conduct and advised them that more serious consequences would result if the conduct recurred. For a second transgression, the offender earned disciplinary “points.” A third offense could result in suspension. By way of comparison, if a student was more than one minute late for class, the student received three “points” and a detention. Overall, the progressive discipline was student-specific, predicated on the offender's prior record, not the victim's identity or history.
On entering High School South, the epithets resurfaced. To avoid the derision he encountered on the school bus, L.W. decided to walk home after school. However, while walking home from school in early September and off school grounds, a car approached L.W. and three students, L.B., J.F., and M.F., exited. M.F. said, “I heard you have a crush on L.B., and that [his] family doesn't like faggots, [he doesn't] like faggots.” J.F. pressed L.W., “Well, are you a faggot?” M.F. chimed in, “We don't like faggots, our whole family doesn't like faggots.” L.W. yelled, “It's none of your damn business.” M.F. then punched L.W. in the face, knocking him down. L.W. ran away, crying hysterically, but M.F. chased after him threatening, “If I hear that you said anything about this I'm going to knife you.” L.W. subsequently missed a day or two of school.
In the wake of the attack, L.W.'s mother informed high school officials of the mistreatment her son endured in middle school. According to L.W.'s mother, the educators seemed unaware of L.W.'s past. The District suspended M.F. for ten days, and he later pled guilty to a charge of assault. School officials advised L.W. to take the bus home in the future.
The final incident occurred in mid-September when L.W. went to downtown Toms River for lunch, as many students did. L.T. approached L.W., who was sitting on a curb outside a 7-Eleven convenience store. Unprovoked, L.T. pushed L.W. to the ground and grabbed L.W.'s shirt. L.T. warned L.W. that if he ever heard that L.W. had a crush on him or his friends again that he'd “kick [L.W.'s] a* *.” The aggressor then “completely covered” L.W. with dirt. The District suspended L.T. for ten days.
On her son's behalf, L.W.'s mother filed a complaint under the LAD, alleging that the Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education (District) failed to take corrective action in response to the harassment L.W. endured because of his perceived sexual orientation. The Director of the Division on Civil Rights (Director) held that the District was liable for the student-on-student harassment that L.W. repeatedly endured. The Appellate Division affirmed the Director's decision.
On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., which forbids among other things sexual-preference discrimination, could be extended to the plaintiff’s situation. The judges held. “Because the Act's broad statutory language is clear, we hold that the LAD recognizes a cause of action against a school district for student-on-student affectional or sexual orientation harassment. We also hold that a school district is liable for such harassment when the school district knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take actions reasonably calculated to end the mistreatment and offensive conduct. Our conclusion furthers the legislative intent of eradicating the scourge of discrimination not only from society, but also from our schools, thus encouraging school districts to take proactive steps to protect the children in their charge.”

SEVIS training in NYC

Colleagues:

There is still time to register for our upcoming programs!  Fax in your registration form today to reserve your spot and follow-up with payment later.

J-1 SEVIS ESSENTIALS
March 19-20; New York City, NY; Registration Fee: $700

F-1 SEVIS ESSENTIALS:
Level II: New York City, NY; March 26-27
Level III: New York City, NY; April 16-17
Registration Fee: Per level: $650; Daily: $400

F-1 SEVIS PRACTICE ISSUES - PART I
April 9; New York City, NY; Registration Fee: $299

J-1 SEVIS PRACTICE ISSUES
April 11; New York City, NY; Registration Fee: $350

F-1 SEVIS ISSUES AT PREPARATORY SCHOOLS
(Please forward this info to your secondary school admission offices!)
April 22; New York City, NY; Registration Fee: $350

DEVELOPING A FUN AND EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ORIENTATION (New!)
May 14; New York City, NY; Registration Fee: $299

Please contact iets with any questions.  To register or to learn more about International Education Training Services - iets or about any of our programs please visit our website at www.ietstraining.com

If you wish to be removed from this email or our snail mailing list, please let us know.

International Education Training Services (iets)
42-24 158th Street
New York, NY 11358
http://www.ietstraining.com/
Ph: 718-445-9744
Fax: 718-445-1803

A Turkish Study-Abroad Magazine on offer

Turkish Student - the Turkish magazine for study abroad!

         

Turkish Student is the magazine for Turkish students seeking relevant information about studying abroad.

         

It is published by Akarmedia, whose team has worked in international education for years: It is a knowledge-based, neutral forum from which readers learn how to prepare for a successful and memorable experience abroad.

         

Published in the Turkish language twice a year, each edition of Turkish Student contains editorials from education providers, interviews with education-related government officials, feature destination and program offering descriptions, as well as up-beat student testimonials. With the targetted range of distribution throughout Turkey and Northern Cyprus, Turkish Student is read by your future students.

         

Turkish Student is distributed for free to all Turkish high schools, univeristies, key education fairs, job information centres, education counselling agents and embassies.

         

Upwards of 30,000 Turkish students go abroad annually to study. Now you can reach this prolific market by advertising in, and contributing your editorial content to, the popular Turkish Student magazine.

         

The final deadline for ad bookings, copy and artwork is March 15, 2008, to ensure timely distribution of the Spring 2008 issue of Turkish Student; for the Fall issue, we request your bookings by September 5th. For more details, contact us on info@turkishstudent.net, visit our website on www.turkishstudent.net or view the full Media Kit below.

         

Akarmedia
            Istanbul, Turkey

         

         

Upcoming Events in Turkey:

         

Come & join us at the a2 Fairs in 2008!

         

         

Turkish Student Magazine is pleased to announce that it will be distributing the Spring 2008 issue at the upcoming a2 Fair circuit. We are pleased to invite you to the a2 Spring 2008 Fairs in Kazakhstan March 29-30^th and the recruitment events in Cyprus & Turkey, April 3-12^th. Join this great exhibition circuit and meet thousands of qualified students who are seeking studying abroad options. For more information about a2 Turkey, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Morocco Fairs:
          www.aafair.com

                                 

TURKISH STUDENT International Education Magazine
          Dikilitas Mah. Emirhan Cad. Tugrul Sok. Sonmez Apt. No:9/12 Besiktas, ISTANBUL / TURKEY info@turkishstudent.net   -   www.turkishstudent.net

USLaw.com update

Law Blogs Updated on March 7th, 2008

Academic Blog Posts

A Must Read
From Civil Procedure Prof Blog on March 06 at 15:14
If you haven't read this order yet from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, do it now.--Counseller

The Putative ?Differences? Between Patents & Trade Secrets Supposedly Determining the Choice Between Them Are Not There: Patent/Trade Secret Complementariness No. 16
From Jorda on Trade Secrets on March 06 at 13:41
In the past — and even today — if trade secrecy was contemplated at all, for example for manufacturing process technology, which can be secreted unlike gadgets or machinery, which can be reverse-engineered, the question always was phrased in the al...

The Globe Offers A Digital Copyright Scorecard
From Michael Geist on March 06 at 04:40
With Canadian Music Week underway, the Globe covers the copyright issue. ...

Nuclear Power Makes Individualists See Green
From The Situationist on March 06 at 23:01
[This post was first published in October. It is being re-published this week because of its relevance to this Saturday?s conference at Harvard Law School, hosted by the Project on Law & Mind Sciences (for details, go to the conference webpage here).] A ...

NLRB Proposes Regulations Essentially Allowing Regional Directors To Act As Quasi-Arbitrators If The Parties Agree
From Adjunct Law Prof Blog on March 07 at 00:18
On Feb. 26, 2008, a new proposed NLRB regulation was published in the Federal Register, available here. Under this regulation the parties can jointly petition the NLRB for an election and the Regional Director will decide the case. However, there...

The AutoAdmit Saga: Ciolli Strikes Back
From Concurring Opinions on March 06 at 12:28
There's been a new development in the AutoAdmit saga, which has been discussed a lot on this blog. Anthony Ciolli is now firing back, suing the two Yale Law School students who originally sued him, their attorneys (including Professor Mark Lemley), and Reputa...

Employee Blogging and Legal Reform
From Adjunct Law Prof Blog on March 07 at 00:18
I just read a wonderful law review article by Professors Rafael Gely and Leonard Bierman entitled "Social Isolation and American Workers: Employee Blogging and Legal Reform", 20 Harv. J. of L. & Tech. (Spr. 2007). In this article, Professor Gely...

The latest on the Sudanese "Teddy Bear" Incident
From Higher Ed Law Prof Blog on March 06 at 11:59
From the LA Times

See all new posts.

In Ecuador it's the Columbian army that's doing the shooting

From the LA Times

And if they're not shooting and burning, they're bombing!

Scheduled activities resume after students safely return to residence halls at UC Davis

(Updated: 11:52 a.m. March 7, 2008)

All scheduled activities continued today at UC Davis after the events of the past two days, when 455 students were evacuated and explosives were safely removed from a campus residence hall.

Students returned to their rooms at midday on Thursday.

UC Davis freshman Mark Christopher Woods, 18, was released from the Yolo County Jail late Thursday after posting $100,000 bail.

Woods, who lived in the residence hall room where the explosives were found, faces two felony charges: possession of chemicals to make explosives and possession of explosive materials on school grounds.

The joint investigation continues, led by the UC Davis Police Department and including the Sacramento regional bomb team, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the FBI.

"The investigation will continue with additional analysis of the chemicals recovered in the student's residence hall room," which were taken Thursday to the ATF’s Walnut Creek forensic laboratory, said Lt. Nader Oweis of the UC Davis Police Department. "What made this a safe and productive law-enforcement operation was the collaborative effort involving local, state and federal agencies."

Because Woods was arrested on felony charges that threaten campus safety, he has been referred to the campus Office of Student Judicial Affairs.

Disciplinary policy dictates that a student facing such charges immediately be placed on interim suspension and not be allowed on campus until the conclusion of university, law enforcement and judicial proceedings.

A student's status will be evaluated depending on the outcome of the university investigation and any prosecution.

All campus activities continued as scheduled on Thursday with no disruption to classes or campus business.

"Campus police and fire officials evacuated one portion of our student housing complex as a precaution, and we commend those students for their cooperation with authorities throughout the evening," said Fred Wood, vice chancellor for student affairs.

"The evacuation went smoothly, as did their return back to their rooms. The campus is providing support to those students on a case-by-case, as-needed basis for any missed classes or exams."
The incident began at about 9 p.m. Wednesday, when UC Davis police received a call from a woman who said there might be explosive devices inside a residence hall.

Police went to a room on the third floor of one of the Tercero Residence Halls, a cluster of buildings each housing 65 students located on the west side of the main campus, near the junction of Interstate 80 and Highway 113.

Woods was in the room and was detained by UC Davis police shortly after they arrived. After finding suspicious materials, campus police and fire officials evacuated the Tercero complex as a precaution until the arrival of other law enforcement and fire agencies.

The officers determined that the situation was contained to the housing complex, and that there was no further threat to the safety or security of the campus community that required a campuswide activation of a new emergency notification system.
Woods had not made any threats to harm people on campus, and was cooperative with investigators in describing the materials in his residence-hall room, campus police said.

The evacuated students spent the night in the nearby Tercero Dining Commons. (The dining commons has lounge space in addition to dining areas, and meal service was not interrupted.)
Shortly after 8 a.m. Thursday, campus officials did use the notification system to send a campuswide e-mail to let students, faculty and staff members know that the campus was secure and that activities would continue as scheduled.

After waiting for a search warrant to be issued Thursday morning, the hazardous materials experts assessed the substances in the room. By noon, the Sacramento regional bomb team, together with the campus Office of Environmental Health and Safety, had catalogued and removed the materials from campus. Five plastic bins the size of milk crates, containing powders and chemicals, were taken away for further analysis and as evidence.

Tercero residents were then allowed to return to their rooms.

 

If they're not shooting, they're burning!

From the Seattle Times

Legal Liability for campus shooting #1

Legal liability for the Virginia Tech massacre: lessons of earlier mass shootings?

Jim Castagnera

April 2007

Part 1 in a series

The April 16^th Virginia Tech massacre sent editors and writers scurrying to their microfiche and video vaults, and lawyers to case law.

                                    

Jim Castagnera

The very day of the tragedy, CBS News recalled the mother of all campus mass-murders – the

August 1, 1966

, slaughter of 16 by a sniper from the top deck of the

University

of

Texas Austin

’s landmark tower.

But arguably America’s most notorious campus killing spree was the May 4, 1970 shooting of 13 students in about as many seconds on Kent State’s campus.  It has retained the public eye into the new millennium, thanks chiefly to a 2001 Emmy-winning documentary and Reporter-Novelist Philip Caputo’s 2005 book.

In the lingo of American tort (that is, personal injury) law, Virginia Tech more closely resembles the

University

of

Texas

. Both campuses were victimized by an unexpected and entirely unwanted intruder. If either institution, its officials and safety forces are legally liable, then the basis must be negligence – some common-law sin of omission. University executives should nonetheless familiarize themselves with the range of civil liabilities they may face in such dire circumstances.

Kent

 

State

legally different than

Texas

or Virginia Tech

Kent

State

’s shootings implicated higher levels of legal liability … on both sides of the gun barrels. First, contrary to the clear innocence of the shooters’ victims at U.T. and V.T., an argument could be (and, in fact, was) made for student culpability in the tragedy of the K.S. Commons. Likewise, state officials from the governor of

Ohio

down to the president’s office at the university shared in the decisions that led to four dead and nine wounded students.

On

May 1, 1970

, students demonstrated against Nixon’s invasion of

Cambodia

. On May 2, a mob burned the Army ROTC barracks on campus. The following day, the Ohio Riot Act was read and tear gas fired, before the students abandoned the campus Commons. A day later, the Ohio National Guard fired into the reconstituted campus crowd.

Immediately after the shootings, officials attempted to blame the protesters. On May 15, the Portage County Prosecutor displayed a shotgun, a pistol, machetes, cap pistols, slingshots and BB guns confiscated from dorm rooms. The ACLU labeled the search illegal and its fruits “meager.”

On June 6, the

Ohio

legislature enacted a campus riot law, which took effect in the fall.

The legal tide seemed to turn on June 10, when the parent of a dead student filed suit in federal court, asking $6 million against the governor and the guard commanders for “intentionally and maliciously disregarding” students’ safety. On June 23, a U.S. Department of Justice report concluded the shootings “were not necessary and not in order.” Wrongful death suits followed from the other three decedents’ families.

Meanwhile, the pendulum took another swing, as a special grand jury indicted students and faculty for riot, assault and incitement. After unsuccessfully fighting the charges all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a number of these defendants were eventually fined and imprisoned.

All four of the wrongful-death actions were dismissed on the ground of

Ohio

’s sovereign immunity from suit. But in 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Scheuer v. Rhodes, an action by the family of one victim, that  Governor Rhodes and other individual state actors, including

Kent

State

’s president, could be sued.  State immunity, said the Supremes, is “no shield for a state official confronted by the claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under color of law.” Meanwhile, eight guardsmen were indicted on civil rights charges by a federal grand jury; all were eventually acquitted.

In 1975’s Krause v. Rhodes, which consolidated all four decedents’ wrongful death claims, a federal jury found the defendants not liable by a 9-3 vote, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial. As legal wrangling over campus construction that would obliterate the scene of the shootings dragged on, the parties settled for $675,000 in 1979. The four families had sought a grand total of $46 million.

While the settlement amount was relatively small, the cost to

Kent

State

was enormous in terms of legal costs, distraction from the core mission, faculty imprisonment and damage to the school’s reputation.

 

 

Jim Castagnera is a Philadelphia lawyer and writer, who is the Associate Provost and Associate Counsel for Academic Affairs at

Rider

University

.

PRIVACY STATEMENT: We have never sold, leased or otherwise transferred to any other person or organization any personal information that is in our possession.
We appreciate your trust and will continue to respect your privacy.
© 2008 THE GREENTREE GAZETTESubscribe here

Legal Liability for campus shooting #2

Legal liability for the Virginia Tech massacre: Have reforms birthed by the U of Texas tower shootings made a difference?

Jim Castagnera

May 2007

Part 2 in a series

In August 1981, just out of law school and fresh from a bar exam, I reported for duty as an assistant professor of business law at the University of Texas, Austin. Not long into the fall semester, I learned that when the Texas Longhorns won, the 307-foot tower dominating the campus glowed burnt-orange. As attractive as the tower was, I also soon learned that it was closed to visitors. By contrast, in 1966 the 28^th floor observation deck hosted some 20,000 tourists annually. Here's why.

 

                                    

Jim Castagnera

On August 1, 1966

, a 25-year-old ex-marine named Charles Joseph Whitman, having murdered wife and mother the night before, climbed the University of Texas tower and shot some 45 passers-by. He managed to kill 14, before being shot to death himself.

Addressing what went wrong before and during the tower massacre changed the way not only the

University

of

Texas,

but all of higher education, thinks about and tries to deal with dangerous people on our campuses.

Identifying and treating the mentally ill student

On

March 29, 1966

, Whitman - who was then a student at U.T. - was referred to Dr. M.D. Heatly on the university’s health center staff.  Dr. Heatly opened his report, “This massive , muscular youth seemed to be oozing with hostility.” Whitman admitted “that he had on two occasions assaulted his wife physically.” He told Heatly that in the marines he’d been court-martialed for fighting. Most remarkably, Heatly recorded, “Repeated inquiries attempting to analyze his exact experiences were not too successful with the exception of his vivid reference to ‘thinking about going up on the tower with a deer rifle and start shooting people.’” The good doctor’s solution? “No medication was given to this youth at this time and he was told to make an appointment for the same day next week; and should he feel that he needs to talk to this therapist, he could call me at any time during the interval.”

Within days of the August 1 shootings, the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, founded decades earlier on the U.T. campus, ramped up efforts to improve availability of services for psychologically troubled members of the campus community. Student-counseling services were expanded, including services aimed specifically at patients in “crisis situations.”

The university closed the tower for two years, then closed it again in 1975 following a series of sporadic suicide jumps from its heights.

Today, every campus has its counseling center and its policies on threats of violence and suicide. Yet costly, high profile lawsuits involving students’ violence toward themselves and others abound. Universities still struggle with responsibility for campus safety and the individual rights of students, specifically whether to treat or expel such students.  And, as the VTU tragedy demonstrates, identification and prevention remain elusive goals.

From Keystone Kops to campus police departments

According to author Gary Lavergne, who wrote a book about the tower shootings, “The university (in 1966) had no real police department, only a few unarmed men who spent most of their time issuing parking permits.”  Today, the U.T. System Police website states, “Our official creation as a police agency occurred in 1967 and was largely the result of a sniping incident on

August 1, 1966

on the U.T. Austin campus. 

During the 1967 session of the Texas Legislature, authorized the

Lone

Star

State

’s public colleges and universities to commission their security personnel as “peace officers.”  Countless campuses across the country followed suit.  For example,

Philadelphia

’s

Temple

University

on the city’s dangerous north side boasts one of

Pennsylvania

’s largest police forces. Meanwhile, most

U.S.

cities similarly taking their lead from

Austin

,

Texas

have created SWAT teams.

Nonetheless, as the VTU tragedy bitterly attests, campus police and city SWAT teams are no magic shield, when pitted against a determined mass killer.

Texas

t

ower

redux

The U.T.

Tower

was once again reopened in late 1998, following $500,000-worth of renovations to prevent jumping. Tours today are sadly by appointment only.

 

To read Part 1 in the series, click here.

 

Jim Castagnera is a Philadelphia lawyer and writer, who is the Associate Provost and Associate Counsel for Academic Affairs at

Rider

University

.

PRIVACY STATEMENT: We have never sold, leased or otherwise transferred to any other person or organization any personal information that is in our possession.
We appreciate your trust and will continue to respect your privacy.
© 2008 THE GREENTREE GAZETTESubscribe here

Legal Liability for campus shooting #3

Legal Liability for the Virginia Tech massacre: Is profiling worth considering?

Jim Castagnera

May 2007

Part 3 in a series 

When the police use profiling, it’s condemned as racist. When the customs service does it, it’s similarly assailed as discriminatory and unconstitutional. Still, it’s being done. Travel & Leisure magazine reported in January, “The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently began rolling out a new security program, Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT), at dozens of airports around the country.” Time magazine explained, “TSA employees will be trained to identify suspicious individuals who raise red flags by exhibiting unusual or anxious behavior, which can be as simple as changes in mannerisms, excessive sweating on a cool day, or changes in the pitch of a person's voice.” Although such techniques invariably arouse the ACLU, should colleges and universities consider adopting them?

                                    

Jim Castagnera

Before you answer, consider the case of

Dawson

College

. On

September 13, 2006

, Kimveer Gill parked his car in downtown

Montreal

, removed a cache of weapons from the trunk, forced a passerby to carry his extra ammunition, and walked the short distance to the college’s campus. At the main building’s back entrance he opened fire on students standing on the steps. His hostage ran off with the extra ammunition as Gill entered the building and walked to the cafeteria, where he shot two students. Ordering the others in the room to lie on the floor, he fired randomly until police arrived. Taking two more hostages, he attempted to escape until, shot in the arm, he took his own life. The toll: one student dead, 19 more wounded.

Police later found Kimveer Gill’s profile posted on a website called VampireFreaks.com. In the accompanying photo he wears a black leather trench coat and sports a Beretta Cx4 Storm semi-automatic carbine, one of four guns he took to

Dawson

College

. Visit VampireFreaks.com today and you can purchase “cyber-gothic clothing” on a related link called clothing@F---TheMainstream, and read featured interviews with “Velvet Acid Christ,” “Zombie Girl,” and “Grendel.” Gill’s own VampireFreaks screen name was “fatality 666.” His last login was at

10:35 AM

on the day of the shootings.

In the aftermath of the

Dawson

College

shootings, the so-called “Goth” subculture came under sharp attack in the media. Hardly a high school or a college on the North American continent is without its clique of Goth enthusiasts in their leather, chains, piercings, tattoos and bizarre hairstyles. Operators of Goth shops and websites found themselves defending the lifestyle and adamantly disavowing violence. Some expressed shock at the 55 graphically violent pictures posted on Gill’s VampireFreaks web page.

Gill also turned out to be a big fan of the video game “Super Columbine Massacre RPG.”  Go to the game’s web site today and you’ll find this statement about the Virginia Tech massacre: “This week, the press is awash with stories about the shooting at Virginia Tech – the deadliest in recent history.  Will we remember this tragedy in a week?  In a month?  In the years to follow?  I certainly hope so. I hope we can learn from such sobering events as Virginia Tech, as

Dawson

College

, Ehrfurt, Columbine and all the other horrific shootings modern society has endured.  So often the potential for another shooting is just around the corner should we forget the lessons history has to offer us. This process of reevaluation, introspection, and a search for understanding is the value I believe my video game offers to those who play it.” The author, site owner Danny Ledonne is said to have vomited when he learned that Gill was a fan. Presumably Gill wasn’t participating for “reevaluation, introspection, and a search for understanding.”

VampireFreaks and Super Columbine Massacre persist on the web, despite their appeal to the Kimveer Gills out there. No one has definitively proven a clear cause-effect-relationship (albeit the Alabama Supreme Court last year reinstated a $600 million lawsuit against the makers of video game “Grand Theft Auto,” which the plaintiffs blame for the shooting deaths of two police officers and a dispatcher in 2003).

As Goth enthusiasts and video gamers alike point out, tens of thousands of adherents never commit a violent crime. In the absence of a clear causal connection between violence-glorifying cults and games on one hand and campus shooters on the other, academic freedom argues against profiling Goths and gamers as potential threats. And yet … as horrific incidents multiply down the decades, administrators might be forgiven for considering closer scrutiny of students who fall into these categories.

Even administrators who shy away from "profiling" might welcome increased sensitivity among their student bodies.  "Snitching" about suspect behavior may not be cool, but it could be crucial.  A live-and-let live attitude in residence halls is probably no longer appropriate in our post-VT world ... anymore than a laissez faire attitude at our airports would make any sense in this post-9/11 age of international terror.

 

To read Part 1 in the series, click here.

To read Part 2 in the series, click here.

 

Jim Castagnera is a Philadelphia lawyer and writer, who is the Associate Provost and Associate Counsel for Academic Affairs at

Rider

University

.

 

PRIVACY STATEMENT: We have never sold, leased or otherwise transferred to any other person or organization any personal information that is in our possession.
We appreciate your trust and will continue to respect your privacy.
© 2008 THE GREENTREE GAZETTESubscribe here

Legal Liability for campus shooting #4

Legal liability for the Virginia Tech massacre: Inquiry questions Cho’s mental-health care history

Jim Castagnera

May 2007

Part 4 in a series

The panel investigating the Virginia Tech massacre met for the first time on Thursday, May 10th. Present was no less a political light than Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who commented that “we owe it to the victims” to learn all there is to know about the tragedy. He charged the eight-member commission, chaired by retired State Police Superintendent W. Gerald Massengill, to learn all it can about, among other things, the killer’s mental state and mental-health treatment.

                                    

Jim Castagnera

In 1966, as we saw in this series’ second installment, U.T. Austin’s resident shrink conducted a session with the tower sniper some three months before the troubled ex-marine climbed to the 28th floor observation deck and shot 45 passers-by.   The doctor’s notes eerily reported the 25-year-old Whitman’s fantasy of shooting at people from the tower.

A decade later, in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (551 P.2d 334), the California Supreme Court enunciated a duty-to-warn rule, which has been adopted over the past 30 years by much of the American common law.   The decision established an obligation among mental-health professionals to warn the known, intended victim of a patient, doctor-patient privilege notwithstanding.   

In 1995, the Virginia Supreme Court had occasion to consider the Tarasoff rule. In Nasser v. Parker (455 S.E.2d 502), the Commonwealth’s high court stated that “we disagree with the holding of Tarasoff that a doctor-patient relationship or a hospital-patient relationship alone is sufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a ‘special relation’” with the patient sufficient to fix liability upon the doctor who declines to warn. Under this

Virginia

precedent, the mental-health caregiver must “take charge” of the mentally ill individual in order to implicate duty-to-warn liability.

In the Virginia Tech killer’s case, reports indicate that police first investigated the future mass-murderer in November 2005, following up on another student’s harassment complaint. Cho was directed to the university’s Office of Judicial Affairs. The complainant declined to press charges, saying that Cho’s unwelcome attentions were merely annoying, not truly harassing.

A month later another female student filed a complaint against Cho with the VTPD. This time, after the campus police interviewed Cho, another student called to claim that Cho appeared to be suicidal. This call resulted in issuance of a detention order.  The troubled young man was subsequently evaluated at Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health, an independent mental-health facility. Following this counseling intervention, say police, they received no more student complaints about Cho.

Also in the fall of 2005, a Tech poetry professor had Cho removed from her class. Nikki Giovanni told the media she found the young man’s poetry so intimidating and his presence so menacing that, when two students who shared her anxiety stopped attending class, she moved to remove Cho. Describing Cho as “mean,” she told CNN, “I knew when it happened that that’s probably who it was.”

These facts beg the questions: In the fall of ’05 should Cho have been removed from more than just Giovanni’s poetry class? Should he have been kept in custody -- even institutionalized -- when he was taken to the mental-health facility?

A May 8th editorial in the Roanoke Times complains of “No Teeth in Mental Health Laws in

Virginia

.” The piece goes on to contend that Cho’s fall ’05 release from custody was inappropriate because he was diagnosed as “depressed and imminently dangerous.” In eerie emulation of the Texas psychiatrist’s suggestion that tower-sniper Whitman make an appointment for the following week, Cho was ordered to pursue outpatient treatment and then released. As with Whitman, Cho’s next appearance on the radar screen was gun in hand.

The ultimate question is whether on these facts Tech assumed any legal liability vis-a-vis Cho’s victims and their families in terms of a future wrongful-death action. Though the young man’s meanness and intimidating behavior in Professor Giovanni’s poetry class fit a profile of a potential menace to the campus community, profiling alone cannot form the basis of legal liability for the university. Indeed, whether profiling has any future in campus security is a problematic issue at best. (See the third installment in this series.)

Under the

Virginia

Supreme Court’s variant of the Tarasoff rule, Tech may well be found to have “taken charge” of Cho in 2005. Although he named no specific victims, whom Judicial Affairs and campus police could have warned, the Commonwealth’s courts may prove to be sympathetic to injured survivors or the parents of the deceased victims, who choose to sue. As with

Ohio

law after the

Kent

State

shooting of 1970 (see this series’ first installment), the Commonwealth’s highest court ultimately may be called upon to determine whether such anticipated wrongful-death actions are capable of prevailing under

Virginia

common law.

 

To read Part 1 in the series, click here.

To read Part 2 in the series, click here.

To read Part 3 in the series, click here.

Jim Castagnera is a Philadelphia lawyer and writer, who is the Associate Provost and Associate Counsel for Academic Affairs at

Rider

University

.

PRIVACY STATEMENT: We have never sold, leased or otherwise transferred to any other person or organization any personal information that is in our possession.
We appreciate your trust and will continue to respect your privacy.
© 2008 THE GREENTREE GAZETTEsubscribe here

Blogger wonders if guns on campus are uniquely dangerous

Read blogger's thoughts here.

Blogger ponders whether more guns are the solution

From his corner of the sky

Meet the gun dealer

He sold the guns used in two campus shootings; favors armed campuses.From the LA Times

March comes in like a lion

Story Updated: Mar 7, 2008

TWO DIE IN CAMPUS SHOOTINGS

For the second time in two days, a southern college campus is in shock & mourning over the death of a Georgia student. This time the campus is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Eve Carson, the UNC student body president, from Athens, Georgia, was shot & killed Wednesday night near the campus. Alabama police have good leads in the murder of Marietta's Lauren Burk, who was murdered at Auburn Tuesday night.

University bans game in wake of shootings

From the Chicago Sun Times

When will these classroom killings stop?

By
Jim Castagnera
On Monday a crazy gunman opened fire in a Virginia Tech residence hall and a little later in a classroom across campus, killing some 30 people in what is being labeled “the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history.” The gunman subsequently was killed, bringing the death toll to 31. As I wrote this column, no one knew the murder’s motive.
Virginia Tech’s president was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions. The university is shocked and indeed horrified."
In 21st century America we have almost come to accept these horrible mass murders as natural disasters. This community has been hit by a hurricane. That one has been torn up by a tornado. Oh, and that one over there has been blasted by a madman with a gun. The Tech student body no doubt will be afforded free access to “grief counselors.”
We used to say, "Everybody talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it." Should we now say, "Everybody talks about gun violence, but no one does anything about it?" Living here in suburban Philadelphia, I watched as the City of Brotherly Love averaged one homicide per day in 2006. Philly passed the 100-homicide mark during the first quarter of ’07, suggesting it well may be on its way to breaking last year’s record. Here, too, students are, often as not, counted among the innocent victims of gun violence gone out of control.
Yeh, I know… guns don't kill people, people kill people. But these killers are better armed than ever before. When I was a Franklin and Marshall College student a lifetime ago, I witnessed plenty of fights, often of the town v. gown variety. A group of fraternity punks, such as myself, might get a bit rowdy in a local tavern. The blue-collar crowd at the opposite end of the bar might take umbrage. The upshot might then be a quick exchange of fisticuffs. On a rare occasion a knife or a broken bottle could come into play.
      My point is: almost nobody carried a gun.
      By contrast today, if you are confronted by a belligerent bar fly, run for your car.
Odds are better than even the guy is packing. 
No need to look for trouble in a local bar, however. Virginia Tech is not the only school where guns have gotten into classrooms. Just last year a local high school student entered one of our county’s Catholic high schools, discharged his father’s AK-47, then shot himself. We could only be grateful that the troubled youth didn’t first kill his classmates, making Delaware County the scene of a new Columbine massacre.
The Canadian college professor, Marshall McLuhan - best known during my college days for saying "The medium is the message" - asserted that Americans live in "Bonanzaland," i.e., the Wild West of the 1880s. Well, folks, that time is long past. Our K-12 schools have rightly adopted zero-tolerance policies toward weapons in their halls and classrooms. Colleges, too, have clamped down on violence --- even the fisticuffs of my era.
      Obviously, this isn’t enough. 
      Neither are grief counselors enough.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution may give us all the right to bear arms… though some judges and scholars have questioned the Supreme Court’s reading of that bit of the Bill of Rights. Regardless of what rights we want to read into the Second Amendment, I say our daughters and sons have a higher right: to enjoy and benefit from their educations without looking over their shoulders and wondering whether today is the day their classroom is riddled with bullets.
I don’t have the answer, folks. I just know in my guts that, until we dispense with the grief counselors and the platitudes, and get mad as hell about travesties like this latest massacre at Virginia Tech, the killing is just going to continue.
Read more of my opinions at www.lulu.com.

Hot topics for Institutional Officials

Register now for another high-quality,
"can't miss" educational offering from PRIM&R!

Hot Topics for Institutional Officials
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Atlanta Marriott Marquis Hotel

Hot Topics for Institutional Officials is a one-day workshop focusing on the complex and often vexing issues facing institutional officials (IOs) and/or signatory officials (SOs), specifically their role in overseeing research protection programs. The range of IO responsibilities, including the "buck-stops-here" ones of ensuring the conduct of ethical research and maintaining an effective compliance program, will be covered.

Through a series of lectures and interactive discussions, this full-day course will provide strategies for understanding and discharging an IO's regulatory responsibilities.  Among the topics to be covered are:

• Roles of local IRBs and IACUCs in multi-site research projects;
• Legal obligations of an IO;
• Ways to manage and/or avoid conflicts of interest;
• Education and training programs;
• How to develop an effective structure of compliance;
• Ways to optimize communication and collaboration between the compliance office and other applied research ethics/regulation committees...

...and more!

Although all are welcome to attend, the target audience is IOs and/or SOs who work in academic research settings. In addition to this comprehensive curriculum, the day will include ample opportunities for networking and information sharing among participants.

 

---

 

Attendees had this to say about past offerings of
Hot Topics for Institutional Officials:

• "This program was thought provoking and informative... I am taking lots of "to do" items back to my facility as a result of this course."
• "Hot Topics for IOs permits the administration to validate their institution's current reaction to the topics covered and/or refocus their activities based on the new information gained during the session."
• "This course presented institutional experiences and made me more aware of places to look for potential problems."
  
  

  

 

---

Questions?

For more information on registration, hotel accommodations, and the event venue, please visit us online at www.primr.org, or contact Mariellen Diemand by phone at 617.423.4112, ext. 210, or via e-mail at mdiemand@primr.org.  

---

 We hope to see you in Atlanta, GA!

PRIM&R provides

 unparalleled access to educational programming, certification, networking, and professional development resources. Our membership is nearly 3,000 members strong,