Editorial: UMass acted quickly, responsibly in ‘friends club’ incident

Last week, a saddening controversy stirred the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. Last week, a saddening controversy stirred the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus.

It all started with junior Tyler Molander sliding letters under doors of dorm rooms on campus. The five-paragraph messages were signed with his name and stamped with smiley faces. Molander said he wanted to start a “friends club” out of loneliness and asked anyone interested to meet him at a campus dining hall.

But what alarmed students was how he ended his letter. “Please don’t come if you are acquainted with me, I apologize, but just trust me,” he wrote.

Students circulated the letter and contacted campus police.

The Daily Collegian, UMass’ student newspaper, reports that — according to Molander — he was deemed a non-threat by the university but was asked to withdraw after a five-hour psychological examination.

Considering the private nature of the situation and subsequent information left out of the public sphere, we will comment based on what has been reported.

We think Pitt students can relate to this situation, as UMass is of comparable size and academic ranking to our University. Such a large population of students offers many opportunities to make new friends, but it’s also easy to get lost in the crowd. It seems like Molander just wanted to make friends and couldn’t find the right way to do it.

The university’s administration is under fire for what it did. Commenters sympathize with Molander, pointing out that his message wasn’t explicitly threatening. The Collegian’s editorial board goes further, arguing that, despite his unconventional way of trying to bring together a community and make friends, Molander did not deserve to be alienated by the administration, if that was the case.

But even if Molander was subjected to a thorough psychological evaluation that resulted in the administration deciding to ask him to withdraw, we don’t think that decision can necessarily be negatively criticized. Here’s why.

First of all, it is the university’s job to educate, not rehabilitate.

This individual seems to have been overwhelmingly isolated and alone, but perhaps what he needs most is comfort, stability, time and space to recover. Being enrolled in classes wouldn’t necessarily be a positive experience for someone under this much distress, and his class work wouldn’t likely be reflective of his abilities.

The role of the university has changed in this regard, though. Some resident assistants take on the role of counselor, and here at Pitt we have a Counseling Center that serves as a valuable resource for students. But we must remember that not all cases are treatable while in school, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

It’s easy to get fed up with a university, especially when it comes to a high-profile incident like this. But we need to trust that the university is doing what is best for all of its students.

With the greater good in mind, we can’t scrutinize an institution for erring on the preventative side. With hundreds of students alarmed, UMass had to act quickly. The language Molander used in his letter wasn’t necessarily threatening, but it was vague enough that it was open to interpretation.

With that said, the administration took care of the situation effectively and quickly. We can only hope that if Pitt were in a similar situation, University officials would respond immediately.

We wish Molander the best, and we hope he finds the support he needs. But we think it’s unfair to chastise UMass for making a timely and thoughtful decision.

And that final decision — with so few facts divulged for privacy reasons — was the right one if it was made in the best interest of the university and the student body as a whole.