<p>@SockherMom wow. That would be really hard to deal with. All I can say is, he’s dead. At least they don’t have to worry that he is still out there. All the same, my heart goes out to your daughter and all of the students there.</p>
<p>Why’d they detail his enrollment history?</p>
<p>Probably because they were trying to defuse ‘SBCC student goes on death rampage’ type stories. Nobody wants to be associated with this guy. </p>
<p>I wondered that too, Niquii. Also, why does his identity matter in a letter attempting to comfort families? They could have just said “sadly, authorities believe this heinous acts were committed by a former SBCC student.” Or left that out entirely.</p>
<p>Sockhermom, I cannot imagine how rattling this must be for your family. Your daughter must be a very strong person to get up and go to work today. I would be a complete wreck.</p>
<p>@collegevetting </p>
<p>Why are you dragging probable cause into this. There is no police action in this process. </p>
<p>Are you saying for instance, that a State government can’t share private tax information with the IRS?</p>
<p>Federal agencies share information all the time. All. The. Time.</p>
<p>Secondly, this is not even about turning over private records. It is about notifying the FBI if there is someone is not mentally fit.</p>
<p>How are you defining that; “Mentally fit”? Not today, but yesterday. </p>
<p>@ sockhermom </p>
<p>Good luck to your daughter and family.</p>
<p>Interesting to see that they decided to share specifics of the killer’s school records. I would have thought that was not to be shared with the public under government privacy information laws.</p>
<p>What the problem with identifying him to students? It’s not a secret. He was being called a student. Apparently, he wasn’t. Facts.</p>
<p>^^^ how many courses he took, his attending then not completing them</p>
<p>Yes, I wish they focused more on comforting the families affected by this event rather than showing their hands were clean. </p>
<p>
It may not be a secret, but it’s not something I would feel the need to discuss in such depth. There was a higher priority in that email than how many classes Elliot took in 2011. Say he was a former student. Done and done. Now, onto addressing the needs of your current students and families. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Hypersensitivity to insults (real or imagined), criticism, or defeat, possibly reacting with rage, shame, and humiliation”</p>
<p>I think reacting with rage is what he did.
That would be considered a propensity toward violence</p>
<p>What Niquii said. Is it really the most important thing right now to go into detail about the killer’s enrollment history? How about just focusing on the trauma caused by his actions, and offering support for the victims and others affected? Just seems like a strange (and premature) CYA move.</p>
<p>They’re trying to distance themselves from the madman as much as possible. Understandably.</p>
<p>@fluffy2017 sometimes what they share is overturned in court as well, but usually it only ever comes to light with a criminal action. Innocent people have little recourse for the invasions of privacy. And it would depend on the information if I think a state agency can give information to the IRS. Private information should not be ‘shared’ without permission, or without probable cause.</p>
<p>That the government does or does not do it All The Time, is irrelevant to me, except in that they should NOT do it if it violates due process. I don’t know why you wouldn’t think due process applies to the FBI, though.</p>
<p>^^^ And how does listing how many courses he took and that he dropped some of them accomplish that?</p>
<p>“He was a student in 2011 and hasn’t been since then.” is all they needed to say.</p>
<p>I bet if I called my DS’s college and asked how many courses he was taking this quarter, I would be told that they can’t release that information.</p>
<p>Are you really concerned with the privacy rights of a dead mass murderer? Really?</p>
<p>@collegevetting </p>
<p>You may want to read up about due process and the fourth amendment and what it actually covers.</p>
<p>Pay particular attention to the what the “process” is that “due process” is referring to. </p>
<p>@Flossy, he’s a dead mass murderer. I’m concerned with the privacy rights of everyone whose privacy would be violated in the future if the standard were globally applied to all who someone decides is somehow ‘unfit’ without court action or ability to confront witnesses and bring ones own evidence. This guy is dead, so he wouldn’t be affected by it. </p>
<p>Bad facts make bad law. Overreaction and civil liberties violation follow heinous crimes as well, and that is where my concern lies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s dead.</p>
<p>The privacy laws only apply to protect the living. </p>
<p>See <a href=“http://www.onu.edu/administration/registrars_office/ferpa_faq”>http://www.onu.edu/administration/registrars_office/ferpa_faq</a> (under who is covered by FERPA)</p>
<p>@fluffy2017 The process is a warrant supported by probable cause. That is mitigated if a law enforcement officer develops probable cause in some other fashion in some cases. Even FISA courts, which I think unconstitutional since they rely on reasonable, not probable, cause, require process. What process were you referring to?</p>
<p>–
nvm. We are drifting from the topic. I’d just say we disagree on this point.</p>