The Dilemma of Handling a Difficult Student

Recent newspaper articles have brought to light the bizarre and disruptive of behavior of the college student Cho Seung-Hui, who went on a shooting rampage on April 16. He had been behaving strangely in classrooms since 2005. This case brings to stark light one of the most difficult situations in teaching for the college instructor and administration--how to handle a disruptive adult student in a college classroom.

A problem can arise because such a student's behavior must directly threaten the instructor or students or clearly interfere with classroom instruction. Only on evidence of such behavior can such a student be removed from the class; therefore, any behavior that falls short of meeting those criteria will allow such a student to remain in the class. Unfortunately, that leaves room for behavior which can cause considerable discomfort for the students and the instructor, as the recent case of Seung-Hui reveals. In one creative writing class, for example, most of the students dropped out of the class because of his presence. In this case, the disruption is implicit: students felt so disturbed by another student that they voluntarily left. In another class, Seung-Hui refused to speak, participate, and wore sunglasses and a baseball cap. Though he was an inscrutable, dark, brooding presence, he was not a disruptive one.

Repeatedly, Seung-Hui's professors brought the matter of his behavior up to their department, college administration and security, but as long this student did not verbally or physically threaten anyone in the classroom, as long as he did not impede teaching or learning in the classroom, there were no grounds for his removal from the classroom. In one instance, Seung-Hui would meet separately and privately with a professor outside the classroom.

The most incriminating evidence against Seung-Hui was his creative writing, which featured brutality and violence. Students and professors who read it were mortified by it. But again, as long as this writing did not name or implicate anyone in the class or university for that matter, it did not constitute grounds for dismissal from class.

Within the parameters they were able to work under, the professors, administration, and security seemed to have done what they could. They felt frustrated because they sensed something terrible was transpiring and could not intervene, constrained from doing so because of regulations that protect freedom of expression and speech. There seems to be no easily formulated resolution to this dilemma--how to handle a student that deeply troubles other students and instructors, yet who never crosses the line in threatening them. We clearly don't want the classroom to become authoritarian, which would stifle intellectual growth and freedom, but at the same time, we can't allow a troubled and potentially dangerous individual to abuse the freedom offered in a university classroom.

In effect, ever careful and obliged by law to respect one individual's freedom, a student was allowed to harbor and develop his violent delusions, which gradually compelled him to act on them. At some point the humanity of the student Sueng-Hui had been lost, taken over, eclipsed by a violent and inhumane spirit of destruction. This tragic case calls for a reconsideration of when and how university administration and security can and should intervene.

For exceptional cases, guidelines and provisions need to be formulated so the educational experience isn't allowed to deteriorate, as it clearly did for both students and instructors at Virginia Polytechnic. When one student's quest for freedom of expression goes awry that student needs to leave the class. For students and instructors deserve to learn and be taught in a setting where they feel safe and respected.

Note on the image: this is an imaginary portrait by Man Ray of the Marquise de Sade, an eighteenth century French writer, who advocated the right to pursue pleasure with absolute freedom in his writing, which in his life often led to repeated arrest and imprisonment. This image came to mind because Richard Wolin used it for the cover his book, The Terms of Cultural Criticism.