AR-15 Incident at Portland State U Continues to Spark More Controversy on Gun Control

An editorial this week in the school's newspaper has defended Professor Hall's actions. Here is a link to it:

http://www.dailyvanguard.com/allegations-101-1.2189699

And here is what it says: ( NOTE: I added the highlights in RED )


Allegations 101

Professor Hall acted with real concern for his students


By Will Blackford

Vanguard staff
|

Published: Friday, March 12, 2010


Jan. 14, 2010—a day that will live in Portland State infamy, Professor John Hall accused student Zachary Bucharest of being a government informant at the end of an economics lecture. Whether or not what Hall did was the right thing at the right time, it seems he had some solid grounds for suspicion.

Professor Hall used a portion of his economics class to denounce Bucharest as an informant for the FBI, and accused him of trying to incite students to violence. Hall claims to have spoken out based largely on concerns brought to him by students.

Bucharest, a student leader in ASPSU, has since denied the allegations and hired a civil lawyer to defend him in what could easily become a heated legal battle.

The incident caused a stir of media as the story was picked up by the Vanguard, The Oregonian and the Associated Press. It has also caused a bit of controversy and a strange atmosphere of fear surrounding not only the idea of students wielding weapons at school, but also the implications—assuming there is any truth to the allegations—of having an agent provocateur at a public university.

There really is no way to know whether or not Bucharest is a government agent. Not to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, but the FBI would never admit such a thing even if it really existed. This isn't an argument for proving that he is an informant, merely a statement proving how impossible it would be to do so. All we can do now is try and understand why Professor Hall did what he did.

The claims surrounding Bucharest's activities—the very activities that led Hall to confront him in front of his fellow students—are many and they come from many different sources. A recent Associated Press article quotes student Daniel Dreier as saying that Bucharest showed him a gun that he carried on campus on a number of occasions, though it should be noted that Dreier has since voiced concern that Bucharest has been misunderstood in the situation. Other stories, such as reported in The Oregonian, describe Bucharest bringing a disassembled AR-15 rifle to class for a presentation on its inferiority to the AK-47.

Regardless of the he-said-she-said nature of most evidence (Hall says he didn't give Bucharest permission to bring the rifle, Bucharest said he did), it seems very unlikely that Hall would have gone to such great lengths to accuse Bucharest had he not believed there was a real danger.

Professor Hall is a tenured professor who has been teaching at Portland State for almost 25 years. He has lectured in Zambia and eastern Germany, where he claims to have had similar experiences with government informants. It is unlikely that a man of Hall's experience and standing at the university would have put on the display he did without good reason.

Hall's good intentions were influenced not only by Bucharest's bringing a rifle to class, but also by the concerns of a fair number of students. According to an Associated Press article, Bucharest, a former Israeli military sniper, talked openly about his exploits with guns and explosives, including an incident in which he destroyed a textbook with detonating cord and videotaped it after getting angry with a professor.

Even forgetting for a moment the question of whether or not Bucharest is involved in government affairs, a man who takes out his aggressions by destroying books with explosives is clearly unstable. Unstable people who allegedly carry firearms around campus are certainly cause for concern.

It is also difficult not to raise a suspicious eyebrow at the way the university is handling the incident. The university has placed Professor Hall on leave until the resolution of the matter, and for that I can't blame them.

But what has the university done to the man who has brought rifles to campus, and has been accused by multiple students, not just Professor Hall, of trying to incite violence and sell guns to students? Nothing. This could be an unimportant detail or a bureaucratic matter, but it's certainly worth consideration.

Adding up the facts, little there may be, and the concerns and testimony of a number of students close to the matter, leads to a reasonable cause for alarm. Could Professor Hall have dealt with the matter differently or privately? Absolutely. But the fact remains that he acted out of a real interest in protecting his students and campus safety and integrity.

Professor Hall may have acted wrongly in bringing such a matter into class time, but he had real and compelling reasons for doing so.


.
 
Professor Hall may have acted wrongly in bringing such a matter into class time, but he had real and compelling reasons for doing so.

The is no real and compelling reason to bring up the matter during a class. Basically, the professor slandered the student, plain and simple. Unless the class was full of administrative officials and campus police, then there is no way that the professor was acting in the interest of the students or university.
 
So is the professor publicly claiming to have attempted to subvert the FBI. Isn't interfering with an FBI investigation illegal.
As others stated, both might be a little off their rocker. One has a decent excuse.
 
It is unbelievable theatre. The editorial acumen of school newspapers is not that impressive - more the impulse of the young.

I still find bringing the gun to campus as amazing. Dis-assembled - baloney. Anyone can put it together in a few seconds.

The school is pooping their pants over managing these two.
 
There is one thing that is a bit compelling about this whole charade.

If the student brought the firearm to school, without permission, and/or against school policy, then the Professor was duty bound to report this immediately. He didn't. In fact, 2 months pass before anything is said about it.

This lends a great deal of credibility to the students own account that he had permission.

This also tells me that something transpired in that time frame (between the student and the professor? possibly) that we know nothing about. It could be a culmination of many "little things" that set off the professor. However, the letter to the FBI indicates that something else is going on here, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with the student.... Other than being used as the scape goat.
 
Antipitas said:
"This also tells me that something transpired in that time frame (between the student and the professor? possibly) that we know nothing about. It could be a culmination of many "little things" that set off the professor. However, the letter to the FBI indicates that something else is going on here, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with the student...."
It would certainly seem from the professor's own hand (to the FBI) that one issue which he found particularly provocative was the fact that the student presented the professor with information from the professor's past that was negative to some extent. Certainly the professor appeared to be taken aback that the student (a) possessed the information; and (b) brought it up with the professor during office hours.

Whether he thought it was threatening, or merely embarrassing, it was clearly information that the professor thought was either sealed or otherwise not available to the public - which led to the accusation that the student had access to LEO files (in this case federal LEO files).

Whether he did or didn't is unclear - however, for anyone who has enough time to search, an appalling amount of private information is available through various means on the internet - and nothing that happens in the LEO field is ever truly inaccessible. The student could have acquired the information in any number of different ways.

It would seem, to me at least, that being presented with this information was a act that tipped the professor over the edge from "being annoyed" to "being alarmed". Alternately, it was certainly one particular action that escalated the disagreement.

FWIW...

(IMHO the professor was still way out of line, regardless. No amount of concern for one's students excuses having an emotional meltdown in the middle of an undergraduate economics class. There are simply too many other options that the professor could have chosen to take that would have produced a far more effective and less melodramatic outcome.)
 
BTW, I don't think a professor can grant permission to bring a gun to class if PSA is like other schools. Most codes allow firearms for some educational purpose but permission is from some higher up than the professor.

The president, a VP or Director of the security service - or the like.

I guess we will have to wait for the sex tape? ;)
 
Back
Top