Wait a minute. There are a whole lot of factors here to consider. It's super easy to extract tiny little pieces of things and jump to full out assumptions of what happened or should have happened. Not to say that everyone doesn't have a full right to their own ideas and opinions and rights to say as much no matter how much one might disagree.
First off, our Constitution and Bill of Rights supposedly guarantees us the freedom of speech which includes freedom in written works. If my understanding is correct, this was some sort of creative writing class which is designed to offer instruction on how to write creatively. That's rather simple. The writer picks a topic; maybe instructor selected to suit an objective; and he then proceeds with his written project. If he was that bad, than it was up to the instructor to try to intervene with helping him improve his writing. If all attempts fail, then the guy should receive a failing grade. Subject matter and quality are two completely different issues.
Same, essentially, with the best of writers. Maybe Cho sucked at what he did but to our knowledge, he wasn't slandering anyone or breaking any kinds of laws via his written word. Neither Cho's nor his instructor's writings seem to suit my choice of reading material either but I will defend both's right to freedom of speech. I just won't bother to read their crap. Rather simple. If you want to go off on his or his instructor's subject matter, then you may as well throw in authors like Stephen King or Thomas Harris. Better yet, why not bring to life Farhenheit 451? It is generally understood that the instructor's intentions were to influence the students' writings, not their actions. Give me more proof in other forms to prove otherwise.
Another very important issue here is that there are many laws protecting one's rights to privacy though they are dwindling at an ever so rapid pace in this Police State mentality. From my understanding, Cho had a history of psychiatric problems. There are all kinds of HEPA(? - may have the letters wrong) laws, for your own personal protections, you better be glad are in place or you won't get some job or whatever because your genetic makeup predisposes you to cancer, or you are denied membership to some organization because they found you took some SSRI for a period of time while you were trying to deal with that messy divorce. Many of you are probably laughing right now but you better take this seriously because things like this are already happening in a few places! If you've read 1984, than you have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Oh, wait! By some people's thinking, Orwell should not have been allowed to publish that book. He should have been stopped because he was a crazy freethinker!
With that said, if and when a teacher/instructor notices something that indicates possible abuse or a potentially harmful situation, they are required by law to report such activity. With that said, this instructor had to make a judgement call as to whether this was (cheesey) artistic expression or indicative of something else. Keep in mind, we only know what has been released via the media, the odd personal connection or the rumor mill. For all we know, they may very well have made that report. Also, we don't know what the general assignments were for this class. He may have very well been following the guidelines.
Now, as a teacher myself, having many, many times come across situations of abuse or other noted concerns, I know full well how often nothing ever comes of such reports. Talk to any teacher in America or even many other countries these days. We are all loaded with these stories. We jump through all the hoops to document and report our observations only for the offices and powers that be to determine there is nothing they can or choose do. From there, rarely is there anything else the teacher can do. Back to privacy concerns, it must stay in house and personal issues not told to the public. Same exact kinds of laws when I worked in a nursing home though I've found the schools to be much worse regarding this matter.
Then we have the new fangled philosphy of 'the least restrictive environment' which reigns supreme in our society today. One could, and many probably have already done so, write a book on this alone. Basically, it involves the almost complete deinstitutionalization of everything. One of the very same reasons we have so many homeless. Getting right to the point, this theory and practice would have Cho as a (by their ideals) fully functioning member of society working on his degree and then off working full time somewhere. From what we know, prior to that fatefull day, he had committed no crimes and he hadn't been deemed dangerous enough to remove from society. They don't lock people up (yet) for bad writing or for their choice of subject matter. Same for his instructor and her choice of writing material regardless of what any of us think of it.
If you still don't get this, than don't bitch if Homeland Security gives you the extra search because you chose to take along a copy of In Cold Blood with you to pass the time during your flight out to some festival.
(Sorry about the length. Too many important issues involved.)
Btw, I once had to read an intructor written book for a class and it was fairly good and fit right in with our other reading material. It was for a class at Hopkins called something like Revolutions & Culture and the instructor was deeply involved with world politics outside of the classroom. In fact, so much so, one class had to be cancelled because the US government sent her over to Russia to help with some election. So, it happens and can be well placed.
