Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The UC Santa Barbara Massacre: A Simple and Modest Proposal
Elliot Rodger, the killer at UC Santa Barbara, was not just mentally disturbed, he was a grade-A jerk. He was envious of wealthy people, yet drove a BMW. He was inconsiderate of his roommates; this included playing loud music in the middle of the night. A neighbor tried to help him meet people by taking him to a party, but instead he acted “like a ghost” and “just stared at people.” He harbored a grudge against a girl who rejected him when she was in seventh grade. Despite all this, he considered himself polite and a gentleman.
A simple reform might have prevented this, or at least shifted the problem to a different school. In its admissions process, the University of California does not require letters of recommendation. It should start.
If it had, I suspect that Rodger would not have been able to persuade a teacher to write such a letter, or a least to write one that was complimentary. Under such a policy, I think the probability is high that Rodger would not have been admitted to UCSB.
Of course, this might have only shifted the problem—Rodger might have instead gone to a different university that does not ask for recommendation letters.
But maybe not. A few grade-A jerks whom I’ve taught have asked me for recommendation letters. Like most students who ask for a letter, they begin by buttering me up—explaining that they enjoyed my class and that I am one of their favorite teachers. My reply is often something like, “I’m sorry, I just don’t think very highly of your character. You’re probably better off asking another teacher.” Sometimes I even explain the behavior that caused me to turn them down. Imagine how you’d feel if you heard something like this from one of your favorite teachers.
If Rodger had experienced something like this from a high school teacher, it might have been a wake-up call that he really was not polite, nor a gentleman.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this. Perhaps such a policy really wouldn’t change behavior. Regardless, if you’re a high school student or a parent of a high school student, I advise that you think twice about any college that does not ask for recommendation letters. I suspect that many ill-mannered students self-select into such colleges.
(Correction: I’m guilty of a major oversight. Rodger did not attend UCSB; rather, he attended a local community college but dropped out. I still think recommendation letters are a good idea. But, as I now realize, the UCSB massacre and my proposal are orthogonal to one another.)
Published in General
This all assumes there is something unique about the university setting that links it to spree killings. You can point to other examples over the years (VT, UT — do they require letters?), but do we know nearly enough to think that this kid would not have gone off the deep end if he wasn’t in college (Aurora, Newtown)?
It’s tacky enough to jump on incidents like this to claim victory in arguments about gun rights. But using it to promote letters of recommendation?
I’m glad you are honest and don’t give out recommendations willy-nilly. However, I don’t think this kid was able to recieve any “wake-up” calls. In fact he’d probably turn on high school teachers for not giving him recommendations. In other words, you’d be the “blond girl”.
I can’t imagine there are enough teachers who would refuse to give letters of rec. Besides, as suggested, some college or another would accept him.
I hate to give the government any ideas, but do we want for lack of access to psych evaluations? Maybe these should be included along with physicals.
So, let me get this straight… Your idea is to shift his anger to his high school teachers? Instead of rampaging on a college campus he could have snapped in a high school building?
But, but, EDUCATION IS A RIGHT!
If you have a right to marriage, why not a right to a relationship? Once you have a right to happiness, I mean, really, how far of a leap is it to a right to be loved?
If you have a right to be free from being offended, or free from anyone thinking ill of you for any reason whatsoever, doesn’t that mean you have a right to be approved of? Don’t we owe you approval?
I’m feeling unloved today. Cause for a lawsuit. Or a defense for murder.
Rodgers had received copious psychiatric treatment.
Frightening. Any malpractice/negligence for failing to identify warning signs? Or is this simply the limits of what psychiatry can tell us?
But that’d be discriminatory!!!!
Oh, wait. Right.
By the accounts I’ve read, Elliot Rodgers was very good at persuading trained professionals, including psychiatrists and police officers, that he was not violent, and that his writings were merely art.
Should being fooled by a psychopath make a person liable for the actions of that psychopath?
Seems that’s what a psychiatrist is licensed to do. If the professional didn’t fail then the profession did. Perhaps it only exists to boost the sales of self-help books.
I don’t mean to be unfair to psychiatry. My question/critique is limited: Does it purport to be able to identify, with any reasonable degree of reliability, threats to public safety? Perhaps so and this kid is simply an outlier. Even so, it should initiate some scrutiny of psychiatry over whether this was truly the case and more public discussion of the limits of this area of medicine.
a) Even among psychopaths, only a minority ever become killers. Should every person diagnosed with psychopathy be incarcerated indefinitely? That is the only way to guarantee that they will not kill. If a psychiatrist is liable for the actions of their patients, they require the power to guarantee that criminal acts will not occur. (I do realize that there’s no evidence that Elliot Rodgers was ever diagnosed with psychopathy.)
b) If a psychiatrist were to examine the notebooks and scribblings that Stephen King jotted down when he was between the ages of 15 and 22, I wonder what the diagnosis would be. As far as I know, Stephen King has never murdered anybody.
c) The police are charged with preventing crime. Should the police be held liable whenever a crime occurs?
How can “psychiatry” purport the ability to accomplish any goal? “Psychiatry” is not a person.
Some people are not equipped with all the right hardware, and there are minimum requirements to be held culpable for their actions. It is among the aims of psychiatry to diagnose and treat those who find themselves missing certain minimum hardware. The physician who signs on to the task does become responsible for failing to reasonably discharge his duties in that regard.
I don’t think Reagan had cases like this in mind. Lawbreakers deserve all the blame they get, and you won’t find me offering excuses on this guy’s behalf. But there was something screwy with him that will haunt people more than the common and, by comparison, readily intelligible robbery or even gang violence.
Here’s a good article about the “therapy culture” that apparently did this guy, or his victims, any good: http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/27/could-therapy-culture-help-explain-ellio
To the extent the industry to which he submitted himself for help is populated by quacks, legal liability is certainly appropriate and necessary to ensure institutional checks and balances. That is how responsibility works: being held accountable for one’s actions means that if these therapists insisted on peddling nonsense to patients who expect qualified practitioners of science, they should be assigned their appropriate share of blame.
What Franco said.
Any idea that depends on someone like Rodger drawing rational conclusions from the things that happen to him, is an idea doomed to failure.
The armchair quarterback can tell you how if he were playing football, he never would be so stupid as to fumble a ball or throw an intercepted pass. The armchair psychiatrists are equally infallible in their diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.