About thirteen years ago I began my exposure to a world not many people seek out or wish to understand. It wasn't too long after my exposure that I started living by an "it's not a matter of 'if' it's really only a matter of 'when,' mentality when it came to potential SHTF events. I've also been very aware that living in a Republic with Democratic values meant there would be a balance between safety and civil liberty (IMO there is an inverse relationship between these).
Fast forward to six years ago and I was giving a job talk at a large university on the matter of "if" and "when." I focused on the need for increased vigilance as well as good consequence management with specific regard to major catastrophes on campuses (e.g., large scale interpersonal violence). Very few in my line of work are on the vigilance and proactive threat reduction end of the equation so I spent a fair amount of time on consequence management. I spoke truth, freaked out my colleagues and didn't get the job. A year later the Virginia Tech shootings occurred. That message hit home. It's not a matter of "if" because it's is going to happen. And it can happen quickly. And many systems are not set up to manage the consequences let alone be proactive.
Now for today’s twist. There's more acknowledgment of the need for risk of violence assessment and management as well as consequence management. But the paranoia of litigation has the pendulum swinging in the direction of losses of civil liberties. For example, a large, west coast university system is currently investing in a consolidated medical records system for student health and mental health. These medical records will include mental health information (i.e., counseling session details, diagnoses, etc.). None of the aforementioned is overly troubling or out of the ordinary. But who has access to this information? It should only be people who have been authorized by the consumer. After all, the consumer is the "holder of the privilege" of the communication in healthcare and the provider is only a custodian of the record (Note: there are circumstances where healthcare providers are allowed or required to breech privileged communications). Ah well there's the potential rub. I can tell you that the centralized system at the aforementioned university system is being looked at as a resource by non-providers (e.g., university attorneys) for judging someone's appropriateness for being on campus to avoid risk (i.e., the risk of litigation). Oh, and this could possibly occur outside of the consumer's or provider's awareness. I spoke earlier of the relationship between safety and civil liberty. But let's be clear, that argument does not apply here. Oh sure, that's what will be said publicly. If it is said at all. But behind closed doors the administration and the attorneys are counting the money saved in litigation. And they saved that money by violating someone's civil liberties and reasonable expectations of privacy.
Am I saying we shouldn't look into people’s back grounds if there is concern over the potential for violence? No! I am absolutely supportive of proactive behavior. But then I also have the trainng, expertise and experience to do that work. What I am saying is that making the call to violate someone's civil liberties should be done only when the appropriate data is available and the data has been reviewed by someone who knows how to interpret it. And to my knowledge, attorneys and university administrators are not well versed in the assessment of dangerousness (e.g., leading to Tarasoff warnings) or the assessment of the risk for violence.
So here's a new "if/when" scenario for those considering making this kind of move. And there are many organizations moving in this direction. It's not a matter of "if" you'll lose your shirt in a court for violating someone's civil rights, it's only a matter of "when."
No comments:
Post a Comment