Search News


Browse Archives

News

Terrorism or Stupidity?

March 29, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Grinnell College, a respected liberal arts college in rural Iowa, might not seem a prime target for a terrorist attack. But a Grinnell student is in jail -- facing felony charges of threatening a terrorist act of violence at the college.

Those who know him say that the student isn't a terrorist or even someone capable of a violent act. Experts on higher education liability say that's beside the point. These days, a student who posts a violent comment in a chat room needs to assume that the comment will make its way to the police, and that the student could end up behind bars.

Paul Wainright, the student at Grinnell, apparently posted the message on Plans, an online discussion area frequented by students at the college. Prior to spring break, some students on the site were complaining about recent drug arrests on the campus. A message attributed to Wainwright urged students as follows (punctuation and capitalization per the posting):

"Please come back to school armed with whatever lethal weapon you have access too. If we can't depend upon the administration to protect the bubble we were promised and that they are selling us for 34,000 goddamn dollars a year, then we will have to take matters in our own hands. That means violence and bloodshed. That means warfare. That means KILL THE MOTHERFUCKING POLICE THAT YOU SEE ON CAMPUS AND KILL THE MOTHERFUCKING NARCS WHO ARE GETTING YOUR FRIENDS ARRESTED. RUBY RIDGE MOTHER FUCKERS. LET THE STREETS RUN RED."

Jody Matherly, chief of police for the town of Grinnell, Iowa, said that his department received several complaints from people about a "threatening communication" in which others were urged to join the author in acts of violence against the college and police officers. An investigation led to Wainright, who was on spring break at his home in Wisconsin, and was arrested there. Matherly did not release the posting, but Grinnell students provided it.

The charge Wainright faces carries a possible sentence of five years in prison.

Matherly said that he had advised the college to heighten security on the campus.

Mickey Munley, vice president for communications at Grinnell, emphasized that the site where the posting was made "is not a site that the college owns or operates or manages," but he said that the posting "came to the attention of the college, and the police took the investigation from there."

He stressed that police officials made the judgment on what to do. "Hindsight is always 20/20," he said, but even if some think that there was no real threat at Grinnell, people who have not acted on clues abut possible violence have been "a contributing factor to a lot of tragic circumstances in our country in the last few years, very horrific and sad situations."

One Grinnell student, who said that he knows Wainright but doesn't consider himself a close friend, said that in online discussions, some students said they were upset by Wainright's posting, but many others "knew it was in jest" and are now more angry about his arrest. "It would be hard to know from the outside looking in at the site what you are seeing, and I assume the person who flagged this was an administrator," said the student.

The student let Inside Higher Ed look at the site with his password, and indeed the site is hard to make sense of as an outsider. Because Grinnell is a small college, it's clear that many students make postings that assume a lot of knowledge on the part of readers, and the postings range from serious to silly -- with many appearing to be the kind of thing a college student might write after a beer or three.

Another Grinnell student sent an e-mail message saying: "The post looks very bad when read out of context, but it was all written with tongue firmly -- very firmly -- in cheek, and no one who knew him at all well doubted that it was a joke. Unfortunately, someone with no sense of proportion or context (probably an administrator, although no one has claimed responsibility for the atrocity) contacted the police about it, and Paul was arrested. Apparently at no point during the process did anyone step back and consider, for instance, whether a student at left-liberal Grinnell would ever refer to 'Ruby Ridge' any way but ironically. From many Grinnell students' perspectives the matter is not about our physical security, but about the threat posed to our civil liberties by overzealous and unreflective administrators and police."

Chief Matherly, however, said it would be irresponsible for authorities to dismiss any violent statement as campus hijinks. "Any threat of terrorism is a serious threat of terrorism," he said. "There are no pranks. There are no jokes. It's one thing to stand out in a field when no one is around and talk about things, but once you put it into an arena when people fear for their lives and safety, that's different."

While some students are criticizing the college and the police for acting, a post on Plans (that could not be independently verified) from Wainright's mother was understanding.

"Of course we who know and love Paul, know that what was posted was said tongue-in-cheek with no malicious intent," she wrote. "Unfortunately, in the current climate such sleep-deprived rants will be taken seriously by some. It is totally appropriate for authorities to check it out. As a parent I would want to be assured that this was being looked into. If I were an administrator, I may be terrified that someone might actually carry out any violence toward me."

Sheldon E. Steinbach, general counsel and vice president of the American Council on Education, said "Grinnell had no choice but to act" upon reading the post. "Once a post is out there in such a visible way, it requires the college to act."

"In another day, someone would have called the kid, and the kid would have said, 'I wrote that when I was drunk,' and it would never have gone this far," Steinbach said. "But college students need to remember that after 9/11, they just need to exercise better judgment."

Steinbach said it was beside the point that the student is viewed by many as nonviolent, especially since the posting urged others to join in violence. "What if a student had taken him seriously and an incident had occurred? The institution would have had a tragedy and been subject to ridicule and lawsuits."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Terrorism or Stupidity?

  • Posted by Mitch at University of Oklahoma on October 3, 2005 at 1:46pm EDT
  • The actions taken by the police and by the administration are proof that the terrorists have won.

    The local police are much more a threat to my safety than these "phantom menace" terrorists will ever be. What occured here was obviously a joke, not "terrorism", the buzzword selected by police.

    What we have here is a case of little-men complexes, not terrorism.

  • Posted by Bill Baar on November 18, 2005 at 4:32pm EST
  • Can't do the time,
    Don't do the crime.

    Bill Baar, Grineell Class of 76
    PS He should have gotten some time for this one.

  • Plans is indeed a unique community. hands off.
  • Posted by Paul Bendich at Duke University (formerly Grinnell) on March 29, 2005 at 9:44pm EST
  • I've been on Plans since 2002. I believe it was started earlier that year on the college server. Later, it was kicked off at the orders of President Osgood. We never found out why (perhaps to avoid liability for this sort of incident?).

    It's a great deal of fun. We Grinnellians are rather odd, but we generally enjoy each other's company. We enjoy a space where we may interact with each other as we see fit. I was under the impression that Plans was distinct from an airport: I wouldn't joke about these matters at JFK.

    That's what makes a decent culture, you know: different sorts of people with different sorts of places to feel comfortable. If that goes away, you won't like the result.

    "Recent events" seem to have convinced various authorities that this can't happen anymore. They point to 9/11 or Columbine or whatever. I point to the hysterical reaction of many and the calculated and ill-intentioned reaction of a few at the top. If you can't see echoes of Bush's war on liberty in this, then you're a sucker.

    This entire incident, from the original posting (which I found funny. sue me), to the college's ill-advised reporting, to the police's understandable but savage reaction, may indeed reflect American reality as we are being forced to know it. I think that's a shame. Sooner or later, this has to change. Don't think for a second that it's going to get better by itself.

    If you've made it through my little rant, I appreciate your time.

    Sincerely,
    Paul Bendich
    Mathematics Department
    Duke University

  • "no choice"?
  • Posted by Mark Gardiner , student at Grinnell on March 30, 2005 at 4:30am EST
  • I have a hard time accepting Mr. Steinbach's claim that "Grinnell had no choice but to act". There is always a choice, and in this case the administrators chose to seriously endanger a student's future instead of actually looking at the context of the supposed threat and reacting in a more appropriate manner. I realize that in our litigious and paranoid society college administrators--and, for that matter, police--feel an urge to set an absurdly low threshold for action on these matters. That urge needs to be resisted.

    If this is setting any sort of precedent for how colleges are going to view ironic student speech in semi-private forums, then I think students have a lot more important things to worry about than the miniscule threat of a student actually carrying out violent threats.

    I'm with Mr. Bendich: the reaction to Mr. Wainright's post--and the claim that there are no jokes or pranks after 9/11--may indeed be understandable in today's world. That is no reason to find them acceptable.

  • Posted by Claire Patterson at Grinnell College on March 30, 2005 at 4:31am EST
  • I acknowledge that Paul Wainright’s comments are inappropriate in a nation where violence has become all too common. However, I, like many other students, saw the humor in Paul’s posting on Plans. Out of context the posting certainly seems violent, but the tongue in cheek reference to the proverbial “Grinnell bubble” and obviously ironic comparisons to Ruby Ridge signal satire. It is distressing that we are so fearful of violence and “terrorism” that Paul’s comments would be treated as actual specific threats without any investigation into Paul’s character or whether he was actually stockpiling weapons. I, like the previous commentor, found Paul’s comments funny when I read them on Plans. I am frightened more by the reaction to Paul Wainright’s comments than the actual comments. This is not a small event and I fear that this will not be the last time such an out of proportion reaction occurs.

  • Plans...
  • Posted by Brad Quellhorst at Grinnell on March 30, 2005 at 4:31am EST
  • actually, Plans started around 1998-99 as a pre-ubiquitous-Internet pseudodiary. Students altered a single assigned text file on a central server, usually using them to list long-term goals, hence "Plans". In 2002, they upgraded to v2, which meant someone could load a page in under an hour. After admin threatened the page, students (who wrote the code in the first place) shifted everything to a TX based server. Plans content is mostly just joking (or drunken) intercourse between friends--stuff like this but less direct gets posted constantly.

  • Posted by Grinnell Student on March 30, 2005 at 12:27pm EST
  • Steinbach's 9/11 reference is totally out of context. This isn't an open-closed case as he would like to believe, and in pinning 9/11 onto what is an issue of whether Paul Wainright did something wrong or if the authorities overstepped, he is showing ignorance and insensitivity unbecoming of the "general counsel and vice president of the American Council on Education."

    It was heartening, however, to know that, in the event that a tragedy did occur, he would be in the midst of it all, protecting the school from ridicule and lawsuit.

  • Jonathan Swift
  • Posted by Concerned Citizen on March 31, 2005 at 9:38am EST
  • In his 1729 essay "A Modest Proposal: For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Becoming a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Benefical to the Public" Jonathan Swift said ”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

    Would it been have been appropriate for British authorities to arrest Mr. Swift for inciting cannibalism?

  • Wainright's "terrorism"
  • Posted by Chuck Johnson at Grinnell Alum on March 31, 2005 at 1:23pm EST
  • The solution here is obvious. Wainright will have to be sent to Gitmo and tortured until he confesses eternal love for The NeoCons, and pledges to join eternal war against all Arabic peoples until they relinquish all their territory to Israel. Wainright will learn to love Big Brother. Or else.

  • Posted by Adam Lake , Student at Grinnell College on April 1, 2005 at 4:35am EST
  • I've known Paul since the day he came to Grinnell and his humor has always been of this same sort. His first year his room was decorated with much trashy decor all with an american flag theme. He was doing this because he thought it was ironic, as he didn't agree with any of it.

    Posting this on Plans, I'm sure Paul did not intend people who weren't familiar with him (or his plan, which always had something hilariously ironic on it) to read it. There are 2500 users on plans, not everyone automatically reads everyone else's plan. If he had been yelling this outside a dorm or was distributing pamphlets or saying this in a more public and formalized way, then I would have expected action to be taken.

    My fear is that Paul will spend way too long in jail and miss a semester of college because he'll be held as long as possible. I have heard too many stories about terror law these days where this is the case.

    I just hope that this does not rob Grinnell of its quality sense of humor.

  • Posted by der uebermensch on April 1, 2005 at 4:35am EST
  • in response to the title of the article: STUPIDITY!

    but, welcome to grinnell college...home of the kneejerk reaction!

    so it goes.

  • Posted by Sequoia Nagamatsu, Alumni 04 , Plans Responses on April 1, 2005 at 4:36am EST
  • I found out about what happened concerning Paul Wainright through Plans and in the following weeks have seen more mass discourse on plans than I have seen in a while . . . people ranging from law students and future philanthropists to activists and anarchists. One thing seems to be a common theme . . . people are outraged by the reactions of the police and college and are advocating for action. I like many feel that something needs to be done to protect the rights of students and preserve the kind of college Grinnell has been since its founding but what should be the first steps? I know as an alumni that I am now thinking twice before giving money (in the event that I have any to spare) back to the college unless changes are made.

  • Heck, might as well arrest them all!
  • Posted by Sarah Parker , Grinnell Sophomore at Grinnell College on April 1, 2005 at 3:05pm EST
  • Where does freedom of speech end? As far as I know, the US constitution did not put a limit on the content of free speech. "Freedom of speech except when you say something that scares people" seems to be the new way of things... so lets amend the constitution, shall we? It has always troubled me a bit that you can't say anything you want to in an airport, but I have always overlooked that because I could understand why certain things were off-limits there. A previous comment is very appropriate in comparing the statement by Paul Wainwright on plans to an airport situation. I do not walk through a metal detector without my shoes on every morning on my way to class, and I shouldn't have to screen my opinions so that they are non-offensive.
    College is about dialogue, it is about learning to express what you think in a way that gets people to listen. Apparently, Paul did so too well, and now his life will be seriously different because of it. Although I would not have written anything so violent on my own plan, I respect the fact that Paul could express his views on the college's new policies in a powerful way. If you want to arrest him on the basis of inciting others to violence, maybe you should arrest some professors and authors of textbooks that we study as well. In my very own history course I have heard my professor incite us to a revolution, to march down to Nollen house and overthrow President Osgood. Why should this threat be taken less seriously than Paul's, with the precedent that this event sets? Ah, it must be because of trust. There is enough trust for a professor to find out his intentions, but not enough trust for a student. With the school's emphasis on learning to communicate, the administration could maybe pick up a telephone to call Paul, don't you think?

  • Stupidity on all sides! Aaah!
  • Posted by Kathleen Salerno , Senior (Neuroscience) at Oberlin College on April 1, 2005 at 4:29pm EST
  • I'm a senior at Oberlin College, a small left-liberal college in the Midwest (much like Grinnell). This sort of thing is very upsetting to hear about.

    First, I'd like to say that I believe that the Grinnell administration, as well as the police departments involved in making this arrest, are entirely in the wrong here. While it may have been foolish for Wainright to publish that particular statement in a public forum, the fact remains that it was merely a statement of opinion, and a satirical statement at that. While times have changed since 9/11, as have laws, the Patriot Act and suchlike should never be allowed to overrule the Bill of Rights. With any luck, the charges against Wainright will be dropped and he will be left to face whatever institutional penalties, if any, Grinnell imposes in such cases.

    However, I feel that Wainright did make a serious error in judgement. Times have changed since we were all small, and in a post-Columbine, post 9/11 world, people are on edge about any perceived threat of violence. While everyone has a right to free speech, we have to be careful about how we use that right. We don't necessarily have the right to yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, joke about having a bomb in the airport security line, or threaten violence to a person next to you in a bar. And while almost any student would see Wainright's statement as a joke, a policeman or administrator might see it as a legitimate threat. And in some cases, people need to be shaken up and disconcerted by others' words - take, for example, Swift's "Modest Proposal," which has been cited elsewhere in the discussion. But I, personally, don't think that the benefits to Grinnell College and to Wainright are worth the risks Wainright unknowingly took in posting that message. I never thought that I would see the day when we would be wary of what we jokingly post to communities of online friends; sadly, everyone needs to take the current political climate into account when making a joke these days.

  • Hard to imagine?
  • Posted by Tom Torello on April 1, 2005 at 5:31pm EST
  • Ok, imagine if you will an alternative universe for a second. In this alternative universe Wainwright makes his post. Grinell administrators are notified and take no action. Wainwright returns to campus and shoots a couple of students and campus safety officials. Now, in this alternative universe, the title of this article is not "Terrorism of Stupidity", but "Grinell Ignores Violence Warning Signs. Students Pay the Price." Quotes from administrators explain that they can't take action every time some drunk student posts some rant about how they're going to kill everyone. Student quotes talk about how the administration didn't take action because they don't value their lives as much as they worry about bad press.

    I don't think this alternative universe is really all that hard to imagine.

  • Posted by Paul Bendich on April 1, 2005 at 8:38pm EST
  • Mr. Torello,

    I won't speculate on your imagination or what it signifies. If you'd like to write fiction involving Grinnell students, you will need to work out the copyright first.

    However, I enjoy the similarity between your remarks and the discourse concerning intelligence "failures" in Iraq. We are always invited to imagine the worst. And that's meant to excuse just about anything.
    Myself, I'm tired of authorities, on all levels, who screw up and then bully their critics into silence with scare tactics.

    Sincerely,
    Paul Bendich '01

  • Yes, quite
  • Posted by jessica eaton , French major at Grinnell College on April 1, 2005 at 8:39pm EST
  • Although school shootings are indeed terrifying and justify investigation into the causes, this is not enough alone to warrant an arrest for terrorism on the basis of a post on the internet. Perhaps there is evidence of the perpetrators of past school violence posting on the internet, however, these kids were not arrested at that point for a reason: the first amendment protected their freedom of speech in that forum. Not everyone who posts a violent comment will commit an atrocity, and the conception of each one of us potentially committing such an act is not justification enough.

  • War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!
  • Posted by Sarah Burghardt , Junior at Grinnell College on April 2, 2005 at 2:31pm EST
  • Paul clearwise thinked crimethink, thuswise he is joycamp bound. Possibilitywise Paul is unperson bound. His writewise undoubletalk only crimetalk.

  • "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -FDR
  • Posted by Evan Petrie , Grinnell College Sophomore at Grinnell College on April 2, 2005 at 2:31pm EST
  • Grinnell College is a small school where almost everyone knows everyone else. That anyone with access to the forum in which Paul posted his comments would interpret his post as anything even close to a serious threat of violence suggests that they are extremely out of touch with the student body. He did not "send" anything to the college, he did not post anything for "public" consumption; rather, he posted an ironic statement meant only for a small group of people that, for the most part, know him very well.

    All the "In this post 9/11 world" crap has too many people assuming the worst in each other and living in fear of "threats" that often do not exist at all. The result of which is the freedoms that make the United States great being taken away from us.

  • Posted by An older alum on April 2, 2005 at 6:08pm EST
  • It is unfortunate that a few Grinnell College students believe that "self-governance" requires no responsibility to the world and community around them. They want to have the impunity of free speech without the responsibility for how it is interpreted. The fact is that civilized society judges threats of blood, violence, and murder as worthy of investigation/action.

    Being in college is not living in a bubble nor is it carte' blanche' for imflammatory and menacing statements. Students are adults and it is time for them to take responsibility as adults and not hide behind the ivory tower of "college student." It seems the students want the privilege to say anything, but the protection not to be held accountable. You can't have it both ways.

  • Posted by Joe on April 2, 2005 at 6:09pm EST
  • How ironic.

    Five weeks ago a number of swastikas scrawled on a Grinnell College building and a dorm bathroom mirror resulted in several hundred Grinnell students mobilizing against hate and prejudicial speech.

    Nobody defended the swastikas as free speech.

    Now, students say that it is acceptable to call for armed violence and the murder of other human beings.

    Hmmm...

    Swastikas are symbols of hate speech; inciting murder is threatening speech. Society should strongly oppose both, which is not at all a threat to free speech.

    One hopes the future leaders of our country learn to comprehend that concept.

  • Don't speak for everyone
  • Posted by Evan Petrie , Grinnell College Sophomore on April 2, 2005 at 8:45pm EST
  • You are wrong to assume that the students participating in the march was a demonstration against free speech. The march was an exercise of free speech in itself to make it clear that most members of the student body do not agree with what those symbols represented.

    One person disagreeing with something another person says does not indicate that anyone is anti-free speech. No one defended the swastikas as free speech because free speech was not the issue, the issue was that an act of vandalism had occured in which they were used to deface school property. I would not hesitate to defend someone's constitutional right to display a swastika on the grounds of free speech. It is also worth noting that on the grounds of free speech the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of Nazi groups in America to demonstrate and display swastikas.

    Also, no one I know of is syaing that it is acceptable to to call for armed violence and the murder of other human beings. Most of the opinions that I have encountered merely express dismay that someone has been jailed on charges of making terrorist threats for a statement that seems obviously benign when read in context.

    Your argument that society should strongly oppose any type of speech is an argument against free speech. The concept I hope that you will learn to comprehend is that there is a difference between treating symptoms and treating causes.

  • Posted by Margaret Hanson , action vs. overreaction at Grinnell College on April 2, 2005 at 8:45pm EST
  • I agree that the adminstrators should have acted once they became aware of [wainrigh]'s posting. While it may have been clear to students that he wasn't serious, I can see how it would raise alarm. And, frankly, given that many tragic events in recents years have come after a similar statement went unheeded, I think the administration had an obligation to do something. However (and i'm not sure at whose feet the blame should be laid for this), charging him with a felony is absolutely out of order. That kind of charge affects the rest of someone's life. It determines what jobs they can and cannot apply for, any further higher education, their rights as a citizen to vote, etc. By immediately slapping this charge on Paul without a second thought, police and adminstrators showed a blatant disregard for him as a human being. Had an investigation turned up, say, a cache of guns or other materials that supported the notion that his words were not in jest, perhaps such a charge would have been understandable. But to willfully throw away a young man's future in such a manner is shameful, and shows how little respect the authorities have for Grinnell student. While his actions were not commendable, I do not believe that while Paul was writing on his Plan he was thinking, "Wow, this might be offensive, but now that's it's after 9/11 I shouldn't write it because people might take me more seriously than they would have before 9/11." (And since when did 9/11 have anything to do with a student writing something in a public forum, anyway?). His words are not to be applauded and, to be safe rather than sorry, warranted action by authorities. However, the action undertaken demonstrated an astonishing lack of caution, respect, and compassion on the part of college and local authorities. I sincerely hope that this event does not signal a return to the days of McCarthyism, with terrorists replacing Communists as the new "disease" hiding in every American household.

  • Posted by Ryan on April 2, 2005 at 8:51pm EST
  • this is ridiculous. it was a joke. do you know how many millions of people joke about things like this? It hasnt happened, and there is obviously an investigation going on about this. SO there is no need for it to go any farther. Let the guy go. its funny how it takes a national tragedy to bring out our patriotism or to take things seriously. 9/11 this 9/11 that. yes it was sad and horrible and i feel for the families, but why are you trying to group these two togethor. dont judge a man until youve walked a mile in his shoes.

  • The Real Debate at Grinnell
  • Posted by Katherine Rochester , Junior, Grinnell College at Grinnell College on April 3, 2005 at 6:04am EDT
  • I believe that your title "Terrorism or Stupidity?" falls off the mark for students at Grinnell. The tite of your article questions only Paul Wainright's motives, which, for Grinnell students, do not appear to be under the least amount of scrutiny: The sentiment--without exception among those I have talked to at Grinnell--is that Paul's comments were satirical; that Paul would never willfully hurt another human being. At Grinnell, the point of contention is, rather, the role of the administration in this incident and the fact that it is widely felt that action was taken without discretion or regard to the context of the situation, or Wainright's intent with the posting. I matriculated to Grinnell College in order to obtain an excellent education, which entails the development of critical thinking skills. I find it tragically ironic that the institution at which I honed these skills has failed miserably when called upon to exercise them in so dire a matter as that of Paul Waingright's posting on plans.

  • Posted by Zeke Hausfather , Senior at Grinnell College on April 3, 2005 at 6:35pm EDT
  • A point of clarification: Plans is not a public forum. For that matter, it is not really even a semi-public forum. It is an internet bulletin board accessible only be an individual given a plan and a password, or by guests reading plans whose authors choose to make them readable by non-members. It is based on a web server is Texas, and has no formal association with the school. Generally, people reading your plan are your friends, and the humour tends to be quite tongue-in-cheek.
    For the Grinnell Administration to take something written by a student in this private forum and immediately contact the police without first taking the time to contact the student to discuss his comments is completely out of line. As Grinnell is a small school (~1,400 students) and the comments in question were made during spring break, taking an extra day or two to contact Paul before going to authorities would in no way endanger the student body, and would have done much to clarify and resolve the situation.
    As it currently stands, a student is in jail for a farcical remark, students are incredibly and almost unanimously angry at the actions of the school, and it seems that the administration deserves much of the blame.

  • Ill-advised comment
  • Posted by Dawn Arnold at University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh on April 4, 2005 at 9:57am EDT
  • As a self-identifying liberal, I feel the need to remind the Grinnell students of two basic concepts: 1) there is NOTHING even "semi-private" about the Internet, so if you wouldn't say it at JFK, don't say it on the Internet; and 2)liberal doctrine/government works ONLY when all individuals act responsibly and accept responsibility for their actions. Don't cry foul if your irresponsibility revokes your freedoms.

  • Discretion
  • Posted by J. Bergman on April 4, 2005 at 5:32pm EDT
  • I abandoned Plans last year in part because I was tired of receiving personal threats from other users, and agree entirely with the decision to refer Mr. Wainright's statements to the police. As events in Minnesota showed just recently -- where a young mass murderer is said to have frequented the website of the "National Socialist Libertarian Green Party" -- even seemingly satirical online material can have violent consequences. And citing Jonathan Swift in response doesn't really cut it. Nobody was ever inspired by Swift to actually eat Irish children.

    Several earlier comments were right on the mark: no website, not even one with a login requirement, is a private forum, so discretion needs to be the order of the day. Would Wainright have joked directly to a police officer about killing him? Then why post such a "joke" on a website where no one can guarantee who will, or will not, read it?

    Perhaps charging this student with terrorism will turn out to be unnecessary, but keep in mind that he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. If he's clearly innocent, then let a court figure that out.

  • How Things Should Be
  • Posted by Realist at Grinnell College on April 6, 2005 at 4:45am EDT
  • Idealism is great. It drives change and progress. Being blind to social norms is not great however, nor is it progressive or advisable.

    Students have mentioned "context;" that the college should take this in context, knowing Wainright and knowing the community. These students are hypocrites by championing such context, becuase Wainright himself failed to consider the context of his post.

    The school's job is not to play jury and judge. The police were notified, rightfully, and they will take care of it. If Wainright is innocent, he will go back to college with a slap on the wrist and a big lesson learned.

    That lesson? Idealism is great; being progressive is great, but no matter how great one's ideals are, they need to be expressed and supported within the norms and structures of society. Regardless of what you've read, change does not start at the bottom except inasmuch as those at the bottom are able to directly influence those at the top. A complete lapse of judgement and common sense is not an effective way to influence anything.

    It's easy to say that the college "should" do this and "should" do that, and it is easy for me to sit back and say that the world "should" work a certain way and that the wealth distribution of this country "should" be vastly different, etc. But, and this is important, one has to recognize how things really are, not how they should be. Wainright failed to do so. In typical Grinnell fashion, he put idealism above realism, and now he's paying for his mistake.

    He has nobody to blame but himself.

  • Bewildering Logic
  • Posted by Richard Haines at Grinnell alum on April 6, 2005 at 9:12pm EDT
  • Nobody to blame but himself? Hello! First the Grinnell administration and then the Grinnell police could have made better choices. When one can pointm to entities other than the student that could have made better choices, there certainly is someone to blame other than the student.

    Your bewildering "logic" does illustrate one thing clearly: Certainly no change will come if we fail as a society to identify where better decisions could have been made.

  • Posted by Conor McGee , regarding an ill-advised comment at Grinnell College student on April 7, 2005 at 1:24pm EDT
  • How wonderful to see a comment, and one so correctly labeled, from my hometown. As an Oshkosh native, however, I'm slightly distressed at what they are teaching you there! Please, excuse a poor jest hazarded by the offspring of a local professor, but I do have issues to address with the two statements you have made on your post. But first, I direct those uninitiated with Plans ( you) to try doing a web search for statements made on Plans--you may find them, such as the one in question posted on [wainrigh]'s plan, but you won't find the source (I know; I tried). Next, try going to the plans website, shown as my URL. You won't be able to view any of the plans (Guest access has been disabled indefinitely). I have no more suggestions since your other options may involve illegal activity, something those who have not engaged in the baiting, badgering, boasting, and libel of Plans (the irony here, sadly, will only be evident to Plans users), in wishing to preserve your freedoms, might wish to avoid. So while there are ways to see what is posted, and ways of begging, borrowing, or hacking your way into plans, it is by no means a public forum, one that is, barring extreme circumstances, private. While I do not mean to imply your input is unwelcome, you are inexperienced and poorly informed in regards to this issue, and your comment might have been better received had your sources been other than the popular media, and this well-rounded, but slightly misdirected, article. This premise applies just as directly to your second statement. As a self-identifying liberal, having stated what you have stated, you need to either reinvestigate your identity or your rethink your stance. Such an assessment, along with a better understanding of liberal doctrine could have helped you construct something less resembling of an "ill-advised comment."

  • Terrorism or Stupidity
  • Posted by parent of a Grinnellian on April 7, 2005 at 7:00pm EDT
  • It's apparent that Paul Wainwright takes living 'in the bubble' too seriously. Virtually noone can say or write the things he posted on Plans without being suspect after the events of Columbine or 9/11. If he thinks he can he is either immature or deluded. Like it or not, Grinnell College is part of a larger world.

  • Another parent responds
  • Posted by Janet Alexander , another parent of a Grinnellian on April 10, 2005 at 8:00pm EDT
  • As a law professor, I'm deeply concerned when people write to the effect that after 9/11 and Columbine no one can expect to write or say words such as Paul Wainright posted on a non-public forum without expecting to be arrested, charged with a felony, and jailed for years. Freedom of speech means, in this context, the freedom to say anything that doesn't pose a clear and present danger of inciting immediate lawless action. Wainright's speech was clearly protected under the First Amendment. As others have noted, if the precious freedoms assured by the Bill of Rights can be overridden just by invoking fears engendered by 9/11, then the terrorists have succeeded. Our Constitution and our society are stronger than that. Terrorists can't destroy them; but we can.

    Perhaps Wainright's satirical post was offensive. That may not have mattered on the limited forum of Plans. If it did, the cure for bad speech is more speech -- responses by others. The cure for bad speech is not prosecution, except in totalitarian regimes.

    As a parent of a Grinnellian, I'm deeply concerned about the college administration's role in these events. First, I doubt that it's appropriate for the administration to monitor a forum such as Plans. If such a post came to administrators' attention, as a parent I'd want them to investigate internally for the sake of the student's, and potentially other students', welfare, to see if counseling, health services or, in an extreme case, protective action were needed. If, as seems likely, inquiries showed that the post was simply intended as a joke nothing need be done. If it turned out that the post was a symptom of a mental health problem it could be dealt with appropriately in that context. Only if there was an immediate danger to others that could not be prevented by removing the student with family cooperation should the police be involved. This isn't some fuzzy-headed nonsense divorced from the real world. It's what I expect as a parent from the college my child calls home for most of the year (and what my own university would do). Instead, it appears that the college's first action was not to investigate, but to notify the police. At that point the college lost the ability to protect Paul Wainright's interests as well as its own and other students' interest in a robust free speech environment.

  • Thank You.
  • Posted by Sarah Burghardt , Grinnell Student at Grinnell College on April 11, 2005 at 10:39am EDT
  • Thank you for your comment, Ms. Alexander. My main concern with this is not that the police didn't quite get the joke (I didn't quite get the joke) or that Paul made every right decision. My concern is that his making this comment is considered a felony.

    I am not a law professor, however, and I tend to talk in jokes (see above) that only carry my point accross to those who get them. So thank you for presenting such an important side to this discussion!

  • Grinnell Arrest
  • Posted by Jason Rathod , It's Complicated at Grinnell College on April 12, 2005 at 4:05am EDT
  • As the opinion editor of Grinnell's college newspaper, the Scarlet and Black, I agree with their recent editorial "It's Complicated" on the matter, which is reproduced below:

    Like most of the student body, nearly all of us at the S&B understood Sophomore Paul Wainright’s Plans entry as a joke, if in poor taste. Unlike some outspoken members of the student body, however, Wainright’s arrest did not foster in us a burning desire to lock arms against narcs and The Man. The issue contains layers of complexity that no singular response could effectively address.

    In our eyes, the initial arrest was unfortunate, but understandable on safety grounds. It was absurd, however, to hold Wainright on terrorist charges after it was apparent to the authorities that his posting was a joke. Finally, although we are somewhat perplexed by the connection between recent events and broader administrative policies, we laud the effort to empower students in decision-making for the college.

    Wainright’s arrest resulted from reasonable fears and justifiable administration policy. Read by someone who would choose to err on the side of safety, it is not irresponsible to wish to inform an authority. A number of Grinnell community members did see matters in this light, and informed Grinnell administrators. Some say that at this point, the administration should have attempted to resolve the matter internally by inquiring about Wainright’s intentions. Ordinarily, we would agree. After all, self-governance is predicated on open communication, which has been sorely lacking in recent years.

    However, people do have a right to know if they are threatened. College policy wisely recognizes this right, and requires informing those whom threats are made against. How could they not do so? In this incident, Wainright threatened the police, and they were therefore informed. It is unfortunate that this issue was not resolved with a few conversations with Wainright. It is also unfortunate that his humor was dark and ambiguous enough to be possibly taken seriously, especially after Columbine. Once the police were involved, the college administration had little leeway to shape the outcome of the case.          

    What happened once the matter was turned over to police was excessive. Wainright’s words did not warrant a week in jail with bail set at $25,000. Charges should have been dropped after the police searched his room and found no stockpiled arms; probed his hard drive and unearthed no evidence of conspiracy; and contacted his friends and discovered that he was a pacifist. Furthermore, even in a post-9/11 America, the First Amendment should still mean something. With that in mind, he should have been accorded better treatment for speech that had a high likelihood of being satirical from the start.

    Prevailing First Amendment jurisprudence supports this claim. According to the reigning constitutional test for prosecuting someone for speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), one can only be punished if speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” In other words, prosecutable speech hinges on both the speaker’s intent and the likelihood of achieving a lawless result. The Plans rant is far from meeting either prong of this test.

    Additionally, in Watts v. United States (1969), the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a defendant charged with willfully making a threat after considering the broader context of the speech. Watts reportedly stated at a public rally, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” The Supreme Court wisely reasoned that Watts’ speech, when taken in context, was protected under the First Amendment and was nothing more than “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.”

    Wainright’s Plan was clearly nothing more than a crude offensive method of stating opposition to another administration. Given the weakness of the case against Wainright, charges should be dropped immediately; prolonging this matter will only bring more unnecessary hardship for Wainright and his family.

    Wainright’s arrest has mushroomed into a student movement in response to the administration and its policies. Although we think the arrest is not necessarily an example of detrimental administrative policy, we agree with the underlying resentment and anger it has revealed. As policies such as the recent tuition increase made painfully apparent, an organized voice is needed if the interest of students is ever to be meaningfully considered. We only ask that students not sacrifice constructive dialogue in their calls to incite action.

  • terrorism or stupidity
  • Posted by prospective grinnellian parent on April 14, 2005 at 4:39am EDT
  • The whole world is in knee-jerk mode thanks to 9/11, Iraq etc. In this context, one cannot blame a small town / college to not panic i.e. get safe first (arrest) and then investigate. Would we walk up to an airport security guy today and joke that we have a bomb? Or joke about a person's handicaps? It is necessary to be sensitive at all times to the world around us and the feelings of those around us......

  • Posted by current student , keep your prospie at home on April 18, 2005 at 8:12pm EDT
  • I neither respect knee-jerk reactions (the school's included) nor find them understandable or excusable in this world or any other. Your child does not belong at Grinnell or most other universities, for that matter, if exposure to a variety of ideas and opinions is a problem. In such a case, maybe your child should stay in the suburbs. If you really insist on them getting a college education, perhaps a place like BYU would make a better fit. Have care though; even in such a restrictive environment, your child might still learn how to think critically, despite your best efforts.