09-08-2007, 01:08 PM
From USA news
fear cannot be an excuse for our actions
fear cannot be an excuse for our actions
Quote:
It’s wise to be cautious.
It’s smart to react strongly to a potential threat.
But when you realize there is no threat, then common sense, reason, and sometimes even compassion, should overtake your initial fears.
Unfortunately, Adirondack Community College officials don’t seem to understand that process when it comes to reinstating a developmentally disabled student who was initially charged with making a threat that turned out to be erroneous.
Advertisement
Back in April, the whole country was on alert for terrorist activities at colleges. Two days after the massacre at Virginia Tech, 20-year-old ACC student John Yasment repeatedly typed the words, “must die,” on a college computer and printed out five pages containing the phrase.
Police and college officials responded swiftly. The student was arrested on an aggravated harassment charge and suspended from the college for a year. That was absolutely the appropriate way for officials to react, given the limited information they had at the time.
But in the period that followed, officials learned details about the incident that revealed there really was no threat to the campus or the general public. There was no intent to harm anyone and no victim to claim harm.
Mr. Yasment suffers from Asperger Syndrome, a neurobiological disorder similar to autism, in which the person, while intelligent, has inadequate social and communications skills. The syndrome is marked by odd behavior, including taking things very literally and having trouble using language in a social setting. While sufferers sometimes get frustrated, they very rarely get violent. It’s not part of their makeup.
Mr. Yasment’s written comments, officials learned, were merely his way of coping with a distressing incident he witnessed that culminated with a fellow student calling him a “***.” It’s not an uncommon reaction for people with Asperger Syndrome. As for printing out five pages of the threat, he said he mistakenly hit the print button. It happens.
After hearing Mr. Yasment’s explanation and evaluating all the other pertinent facts in the case, a judge dismissed the aggravated harassment charge. In our fear-gripped culture following Sept. 11 and various shootings on school campuses, particularly right after Virginia Tech, there’s not a chance that any legal authority would dismiss a criminal charge in such a case if they had any doubt as to whether the suspect was a genuine threat. Not a chance.
Yet the college continues to punish Mr. Yasment by refusing to allow him back onto campus. State Supreme Court Justice David Krogmann temporarily upheld the suspension last week, but scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to hear more arguments in the case.
If the college was truly intent on protecting the campus and truly feared violence from this man, then why did administrators agree to let him back on campus at all? Why did they only seek a one-year suspension? Why were officials “very pleased” when the judge upheld a suspension, which the college had since reduced to one semester? If Mr. Yasment was truly a threat to campus security, then he could snap just as easily next semester as he could this semester, right?
Maybe in this world of flagrant litigation, the college is doing just enough to protect its assets from a parent or student who might sue claiming the college didn’t do enough to protect them. But at what point does rational thought enter this process? At what point does common sense and knowledge of facts override fear? At what point do fairness and compassion enter into a misunderstanding over an incident involving a developmentally disabled individual?
The college’s stance in this matter is not based on facts or rationality. It’s purely punitive.
And if ACC administrators fear a lawsuit, they should fear the one filed on behalf of this student for continuing to treat an innocent man like a guilty one.
The college should withdraw Mr. Yasment’s suspension and allow him back to class.
It’s smart to react strongly to a potential threat.
But when you realize there is no threat, then common sense, reason, and sometimes even compassion, should overtake your initial fears.
Unfortunately, Adirondack Community College officials don’t seem to understand that process when it comes to reinstating a developmentally disabled student who was initially charged with making a threat that turned out to be erroneous.
Advertisement
Back in April, the whole country was on alert for terrorist activities at colleges. Two days after the massacre at Virginia Tech, 20-year-old ACC student John Yasment repeatedly typed the words, “must die,” on a college computer and printed out five pages containing the phrase.
Police and college officials responded swiftly. The student was arrested on an aggravated harassment charge and suspended from the college for a year. That was absolutely the appropriate way for officials to react, given the limited information they had at the time.
But in the period that followed, officials learned details about the incident that revealed there really was no threat to the campus or the general public. There was no intent to harm anyone and no victim to claim harm.
Mr. Yasment suffers from Asperger Syndrome, a neurobiological disorder similar to autism, in which the person, while intelligent, has inadequate social and communications skills. The syndrome is marked by odd behavior, including taking things very literally and having trouble using language in a social setting. While sufferers sometimes get frustrated, they very rarely get violent. It’s not part of their makeup.
Mr. Yasment’s written comments, officials learned, were merely his way of coping with a distressing incident he witnessed that culminated with a fellow student calling him a “***.” It’s not an uncommon reaction for people with Asperger Syndrome. As for printing out five pages of the threat, he said he mistakenly hit the print button. It happens.
After hearing Mr. Yasment’s explanation and evaluating all the other pertinent facts in the case, a judge dismissed the aggravated harassment charge. In our fear-gripped culture following Sept. 11 and various shootings on school campuses, particularly right after Virginia Tech, there’s not a chance that any legal authority would dismiss a criminal charge in such a case if they had any doubt as to whether the suspect was a genuine threat. Not a chance.
Yet the college continues to punish Mr. Yasment by refusing to allow him back onto campus. State Supreme Court Justice David Krogmann temporarily upheld the suspension last week, but scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to hear more arguments in the case.
If the college was truly intent on protecting the campus and truly feared violence from this man, then why did administrators agree to let him back on campus at all? Why did they only seek a one-year suspension? Why were officials “very pleased” when the judge upheld a suspension, which the college had since reduced to one semester? If Mr. Yasment was truly a threat to campus security, then he could snap just as easily next semester as he could this semester, right?
Maybe in this world of flagrant litigation, the college is doing just enough to protect its assets from a parent or student who might sue claiming the college didn’t do enough to protect them. But at what point does rational thought enter this process? At what point does common sense and knowledge of facts override fear? At what point do fairness and compassion enter into a misunderstanding over an incident involving a developmentally disabled individual?
The college’s stance in this matter is not based on facts or rationality. It’s purely punitive.
And if ACC administrators fear a lawsuit, they should fear the one filed on behalf of this student for continuing to treat an innocent man like a guilty one.
The college should withdraw Mr. Yasment’s suspension and allow him back to class.