#training liveblogging

[hellhound-wrangler]

slashmarks replied to your post:slashmarks replied to your post:Phone ate the last...

I’m thinking the actions they’re supposed to take after reporting probably violate the ADA — I know of a couple of ADA lawsuits against schools who had a habit of expelling students for self-harming or making suicide attempts

Hmm. I don't know exactly how far the intervention of the group (it includes both peer counselors and professional counselors) is supposed to go.  All the literature and promotional material and talking points go on about the merits of early reporting to "head off trouble", but no specifics on what happens if a heartwarming chat full of meaningful eye contact (and concluded with the presentation of a pamphlet of study and stress management tips to the troubled student) doesn't make everything better.

[hellhound-wrangler]

slashmarks replied to your post:Phone ate the last version of this of this I...

Could you point out that that violates the ADA or would that get you in trouble, you think?

Well, the group in question is meant to be a way for students and profs to report students who are suspected to be "at risk of harming themselves or others". So it's based on what observers see as "potentially harmful behavior" whether or not the student has been diagnosed with anything/is known by the reporters to have been diagnosed with anything.  So I think the policy/group is probably technically legal because its stated focus is behavior and not medical status.

In practice though, it's pretty much a "look, now you'll be safe from the crazies, just report them to us! It;s for their own good!"  I suspect it's going to result in a lot of cases of "student acts odd/looks depressed/anxious/stressed to a greater degree than the observer considers normal" ->"observer reports student as someone who may need intervention" -> "student is now branded as potentially dangerous crazy person for the rest of their academic career" with a bonus round of "student is clearly hiding something and up to no good if they get angry or offended about having the intervention team start hounding them, because everything they do will always be interpreted through the lens of them being crazy"

So the existence of the group probably manages to weasel around the ADA, particularly with the current climate of fear regarding people with mental health issues.  

[hellhound-wrangler]

Phone ate the last version of this of this I asked a question about post assault academic support, given high rates of ptsd and dropout among surviviors. Pointed out difficulty/stigma involved in official diagnosis. Response: good question, we need to think about it, no official policy answer at the moment. Which, OK, fair enough A few minutes later, someone asked how to report suspected mentally ill students so we could catch them before they raped people or committed a mass shooting. Response: Oh, you go to the newly formulated group in charge of coralling and scrutinizing crazy students! Aaaaaaand this is one of the reasons I dislike our administrative apparatus.

[hellhound-wrangler]

Wow, super creepy question about how much trouble you get into for dating a student you’re teaching.

[hellhound-wrangler]

Now that they’ve outlined all this to faculty (we have a short break before the second half of the training), I’m wondering how much of this info they’re conveying to students.

Like, what constitutes harassment, and the “grooming” process of escalating boundary violations meaning that reporting stuff early is OK.

[hellhound-wrangler]

OK, this is good - they specify that mocking or blaming victims of previous violence/harassment is *in itself* a form of further harassment

[hellhound-wrangler]

Aaaaaand now they're characterizing repeat offenders as having "serious psychological problems" They aren't like we sane people who would never intentionally harass people, you see.

[hellhound-wrangler]

Mandatory reporting in-house. Investigation based on preponderance of evidence, not "beyond reasonable doubt" OK, I do like the awareness of a need to investigate and deal with perpetrators even when victims don't want to deal with the criminal justice system. So assume victim is honest until proven otherwise. *If* it eventually goes to criminal justice system, law has to assume perp is innocent (and accuser is lying), but uni to assume vic is honest until proven otherwise. I'd hoped they'd make that explicit.