David Riehm’s sex- and violence-filled essay not only offended his teacher, it landed him in an adult psychiatric center.
By Lisa Sweetingham
Court TV
Minnesota high school student David Riehm bristled at his creative writing teacher’s stinging comments at the bottom of his assignment.
“David, I am offended by this piece. If this needs to be your subject matter, you’re going to have to find another teacher,” Ann Mershon’s critique began.
The 17-year-old’s satirical fable concerned a boy who awoke from a wet dream, slipped rear-end first onto a toy cone, and then had his head crushed “in a misty red explosion” under the tires of a school bus.
“I’m actually a little concerned about your obsessive focus on sex and potty language. Make a change — today!” Mershon warned.
David did not make a change. The poetry, scripts and songs he loved to write typically earned him praise from friends and family. Mershon’s rebuke only roused him to rebel against her in two more essays over the course of the term.
“Bowling for Cuntcheson,” a vivid dream-within-a-dream about a boy who finds a gun under a church pew and shoots his teacher, “Mrs. Cuntcheson,” so frightened Mershon that she alerted the school administration.
“I felt threatened and violated by this thinly veiled fictional account of revenge against me,” Mershon wrote in a statement to authorities. “I immediately had anxieties, which I have struggled with since reading the story. It scared me, it hurt me, and it also makes me very concerned for David.”
David was suspended on Jan. 24, 2005. The next night, three men — a Cook County deputy sheriff, a state trooper and a social worker — showed up at Colleen Riehm’s home on the Grand Portage Indian Reservation with a court order to seize her son and commit him to a psychiatric ward 150 miles away in Duluth. (David’s stepfather is Native American, but David is not enrolled in any tribe.)
With no room at the juvenile facility, David was temporarily placed in the adult unit.
“He was scared to death,” David’s attorney told Courttv.com. “He didn’t know what was going to happen from one minute to the next.”
A physician later determined David was neither mentally ill nor dangerous, and more than 100 letters of support, written by classmates, faculty and parents, were presented at a court hearing, his attorney said.
David was ordered released from the hospital 72 hours after he had been taken into custody. His mother received $6,000 in medical bills.
Colleen and David Riehm filed a civil suit last month against his former teacher, the principal, and other county officials alleging numerous violations of David’s constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, due process, and protection from unreasonable seizure, false imprisonment, and negligent confinement.
“Throwing a kid into a mental hospital for what he writes and not for what he does is unconscionable and unacceptable,” Riehm’s attorney Peter Nickitas told Courttv.com. “I would expect to see something like this in a book by George Orwell or Franz Kafka or an excerpt from the ‘Gulag Archipelago,’ but this happened in Minnesota in 2005.”
It has also happened in Texas, Kansas, Louisiana and public schools across the nation.
“I wish I could say that this is an isolated incident. I wish I could say this shocks me,” said David Hudson, a professor and First Amendment Center research attorney. “But the sad thing is, there have been similar incidents where students have been punished for creative writing.”
Hudson is the author of several books including “The Silencing of Student Voices: Preserving Free Speech in America’s Schools” and a September 2005 First Amendment Center report on “Student Expression in the Age of Columbine.”
Hudson’s report points to cases in Texas where a middle school student was held in juvenile detention for six days in 1999 for a Halloween essay for which he received an “A”; in Kansas, where an honors student was expelled in 2000 for her poem “Who Killed My Dog?” about seeking revenge against someone who killed her dog; and in Louisiana, where a student was punished in 2001 for a two-year-old drawing he created at home that pictured his school under attack.
“Certainly you have to keep students safe,” Hudson says. “You cannot sacrifice student safety, but there’s got to be a way to protect student speech in addition to protecting safety. I don’t think you should brand them as the next Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris.”
In David’s case, he had ” no history of mental illness, nor any history of mental health counseling,” according to his complaint.
“There is no accurate or useful profile of ‘the school shooter,’” says a 2002 U.S. Secret Service report on “Preventing School Shootings.”
The report cites a study of 37 school shootings involving 41 attackers in which rich, poor, failing and excelling students were among those who took arms against their classmates. All were boys, and few had been diagnosed with any mental disorder before the incident.
Cook County City Attorney William Hennessy stands by the county’s actions.
Three months lapsed between the time David turned in “Bowling for Cuntcheson” in October 2004 and the time his teacher read it in late January. During that period, David had not acted on any of his fictional revenge tales, nor was he ever in trouble at school.
According to Nickitas an effort should have been made to sit down with David, (why?) to get him counseling, (why?) or at least talk to his mother (why?).
Social Control, that’s why.
Get him on record as someone with head problems, which would have facilitated his psychiatric confinement without all the ensuing protest. What, he’s crazy? Ok, sorry, never mind.
David surmised in one of his essays that he wrote about “violence, language, sexual content” because it was ever present in the news, movies, and cartoons he watched. Now, as a freshman at the University of Wisconsin, majoring in film development, he may have the opportunity to broaden his world perspective while learning to express himself through film.
“Usually I am thinking about life in general,” David wrote, “and you know, life is not G-rated.”
David Riehm’s singular gift crime is an enhanced consciousness, period. Good luck with that kid, god knows you’ll need it.
What a chilling story, thank you so much for sharing it. Looks like a future Tarantino in the making, I hope he makes an excellent film one day about that surreal experience!
I have to say that had this boy been as bright and creative as he is touted to be, he’d have known better than to bait that teacher with either essay. Had I been in her situation, I would have alerted the proper channels as well. Freedom of expression is precious; however, seeking shock value and seeking to horrify will get one just exactly what this boy has endured. I hope he’s learned a valuable lesson, and I hope his case is tossed out of court.
Bright, creative people always play by the rules, just like Jean Genet!
So sexual harrasment and hating women is OK because someone said creative free speech.
No, but talking/writing about it is.
If you love your kids, get them OUT of the public schools.
Okay, who wants to revisit the above situation and say the boy’s teacher was wrong to be alarmed? In light of Monday’s horrific murders at VA Tech, watch and see blame flying about the instructor’s alarm bells going unheeded after reading that fucking loon’s play.
It’s what she did with her alarm. Being alarmed is not permission to act like an authoritative prick. You don’t kick alienated people out of the fold, you bring them back in or risk increasing what we’re trying to cure.
Bad things are prevented all the time with love and skill.
Carl Jung said,“The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it loves.”
The creative process is so intimately personal. David Riehm’s focus on sex and violence throughout his creative writing pieces would suggest to me that those things are somewhat of a preoccupation for him, things that are pressing at his consciousness and wanting expression.
There is a time and a place for everything . I think his teacher had a right to set a boundary as to what is acceptable subject matter for a class writing assignment.It’s important to keep in mind that some people find such subject matter offensive not merely for the morality concerns that often elicit a call for censorship. There are emotional boundary issues that come up for many people, especially for females, when sex and violence are presented to them . It’s can be a strong emotional trigger, and a classroom needs to be a safe place for everyone. David was not the only student in that class. His need or desire and his right to express himself creatively through speech does not override the rights of everyone else in the classroom/school/community to feel safe.
Ms. Mershon may have done a better job of not appearing to be so personally rejecting of David in her original comments, but I think she was speaking from true concern.I think David himself proved that Mershon’s concern was warranted by the very actions that he took in response to her clumsy attempts at boundary setting.His response was aggressive, passive-aggressive.
“Bowling for Cuntcheson” was clearly an attempt to provoke fear in his teacher. I don’t think anyone could deny the connection between the title and content of that story and “Bowling for Columbine”. And Cuntcheson ? Cunt- along with several of the letters from the teacher’s last name. He was threatening her.He was demeaning her. That’s an abuse of free speech. I would’ve felt exactly the way that she did. He was making suggestions in a very manipulative and really not-so-subtle way, because he was angry and felt judged on a very personal level. But to attempt to hide threats of violence behind the right to free speech, is not acceptable.
That teacher had a duty to ensure the safety and well-being
of herself and the students in her school, as well as for David.
She had every right to express her concerns to the authorities.
As for how law enforcement and the health care system handled it- that’s another story.It wasn’t in the hands of his teacher to order and carry out an MHA . It wasn’t in the hands of the arresting officials to hold him for observation. In most cases, two physicians have to sign off on a 72 hour hold.It seems there was no adequate training or protocol in place for addressing such concerns about a student’s behavior, and this all defaulted to the terrible system that is currently in place.
This whole chain of events was unfortunate for David, but ultimately his behavior is what triggered it all.It didn’t turn out the way he had hoped. He wanted attention, and he got it in one of the worst possible ways. As for social control, sure. This was about social control, but not as a way to set David up. He set himself up. He wasn’t tossed in the psych ward for creative writing. He was tossed in the psych ward for disguising threats as creative writing and attempting to protect the right to do so under free speech.I think he thought he knew exactly what he was doing and felt untouchable.He was wrong.
Since the Columbine tragedy , students do need to be much more thoughtful about how they exercise their freedom of speech when it comes to the expression of violence on campus.People are scared, and rightly so.What David did is, in my opinion, akin to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. In light of the massacre at Virginia Tech this week, it’s clear that students can easily fall through the cracks. Teachers and fellow students don’t always pay attention to the danger signs that might be there. The murders at VT this week are likely to shift the attention to such matters in a hyper-vigilant, almost paranoid direction.There will also likely be students, who like David , will see opportunities cropping up to take advantage of these fears to push people’s buttons. They might take a valuable lesson from what happened to David Riehm.
“Of course people mutilate and modify, but these are fallen powers, and to change something you do not understand is the true nature of evil.”
Eugene O’Neill
Long Days Journey Into Night
It took me years to get there, but that’s my favorite quote.
I don’t think this teacher knew what she was dealing with. She didn’t want to get involved, she wanted to exert power and control, which she did over his person, so bully for her, but I respect his refusal to renounce his soul. He understood the terms. I’m not saying I approve of his methods, but put in that dynamic I would do the same sort of thing and take my lumps. She tried to fix something and she made it worse, made him uglier and more deviant, well yes, that happens.
With all due respect Flawed, and I say so sincerely, I do not believe this boy would have been renouncing his “soul” by admitting that his essays were inappropriate, obscene garbage…and totally unacceptable for his age and for his assignment. That is not soul forfeiting stuff….just bratty crap to upset a woman teacher he did not like …and it bit him in the ass.
Very good post by the way, Memoryartist. You expanded and explained things quite the way I see them as well.
Flawedplan, you are a brilliant woman. I do not make that judgemnet based on some of your disturbing writings I’ve seen over a few years, but rather in spite of them. You are really, really moving forward and healing. It shows.
And now I have the feeling I must be doing something wrong. This is odious, spinnet, over-familiar and uninvited. I don’t know if we have history, I do know you’ve yet to say anything to make me remember your opinions, and I don’t give a damn what you make of mine.
I appologize, FP. No history or reason for you to note my comments, which have been few and only on this site. You have put out links to your writings for years, and it is no surprise that people you do not know will click in and read what you’ve publically shown. If observations or compliments are uninvited, I can and will refrain.
Hey, you’ve done nothing wrong Robin . You’ve presented a carefully thought out opinion on a subject that means a great deal to you , and that is always valuable even when others might not agree with the analysis.
I want to thank you for allowing me to share my view on this topic here.(I did not realize how long that post was going to be until I saw it posted).I hope you didn’t take it as a personal disapproval.I have nothing but respect for your opinions, and I must say that I am not one who finds your writing “disturbing” in the least. I don’t know how to describe what I feel when I read your posts, but it’s almost like a feeling of relief most of the time that someone out there is brave enough to say what needs to be said about important topics, no matter whose sensibilities are disturbed.I love your straightforwardness and the passionate conviction behind your writing.It’s what keeps me listening .
I simply have a different view on the meaning of what went on in David’s case. It is always interesting for me to be introduced to alternative views.We don’t all have to agree in order to be respectful of each other’s opinions. This is not about you being “right” or “wrong” or “disturbing”- and don’t let anyone try to make it about that for you. You don’t need to change.
The crack about “I must be doing something wrong” was in reference to spinnet’s telling me how much I’ve improved. I’m considering the source of the (fake, arrogant) flattery and going “oh my god.”
Spinnet is a concern troll. Objectionable content dripping with treacle, shove the knife in, without having to be accountable for shoving the knife in, “I was just trying to be nice!” Gah.
Memory, you think I’m on the right track, I think you’re on the right track, so we can disapprove of each other’s perspective without globalizing it and making it be about the whole person, yes? I don’t understand your attitude about what happened to this boy, considering your own brushes with the psychiatric establishment, I’d expect you to be outraged for what they did to him, and the stupidity of drawing conclusions about a person’s dangerousness based on their creative writing, the pearl clutching, the use of muscle for brains and the resulting fascism and shit. I don’t get why you shake your finger at “Cuntenshun”, which I see as the use of creativity as protest, an inherent good. He was cornered by authority and refusing to knuckle under; but he could play, he showed her that. She couldn’t take his creativity away from him, and he went all clever and satirical to tell her so. That’s what art is for, and why it’s considered dangerous. I praise him for using his faculties to yank the teacher’s chain, it’s not like she was just minding her own business and suddenly she finds that piece on her desk. There is a context, and it brought something out of him that looks to me like potential.
But setting aside all the meta analysis, we know involuntary commitment will always be frowned upon around these here parts.
Okay, you asked (and I am long-winded)- so here goes:
I am outraged about what they did to him, certainly.There was no reason for it to happen that way. But I also disagree that there was no reason for concern.I am outraged by his behavior for many of the reasons that I’ve already stated. So, he found a creative way to call his teacher a cunt- that doesn’t impress me. I see no good in that.The responsible use of free speech does not involve demeaning one’s teacher with obscenities. I don’t consider that art.This was not a clever boy.I am sure you are right that David’s teacher did not know what she was dealing with – but I think she did have a responsibility to find out what she was dealing with due to the subject matter contained in “Bowling for Cuntcheson”.People almost always give clues before acting out in violent ways. Who was to know if his threatening story was or was not one of those clues ? Despite the difficulty in predicting violence, it would’ve been remiss not to investigate further.
I know the power of artistic expression, and that power is perverted when creativity is used in a way that is destructive. I think David’s actions were destructive to himself and to his teacher.I am an artist myself, a painter. My art sometimes shocks people too- but not in a destructive way that makes them fear for their safety and want to close their minds to what I am trying to express.It opens people to thinking in new ways and understanding things that they will never comprehend without experiencing those things personally.The dangerousness in art comes when it exposes truths that people don’t want to see. I don’t think David was exposing any truths in “Bowling for Cuntcheson”.
I have personal experience with a young family member who engages in creative writing as a way to voice his rage against women and society in general. Murder, torture, and rape are his favorite topics- and this is a 16 year old only child who was home-schooled by his mother. He has made death threats against family members- including a cousin his own age, a younger child, their friends and myself. He rarely speaks to anyone, unless behind his computer monitor. He has one friend who is also an angry loner obsessed with brutal violence,unless you count the “friends” on his MySpace page.None of us had any idea what was inside of this kid until around this time last year.He has been withdrawn and unreachable for years.Everyone chalked it up to shyness, but it turned out to be so much more. It all came out at first through his lyric writing and his posts on a forum which he no longer keeps. He’s using his creativity to create music, but nothing of social value unless one enjoys murder, violence, and rape.
You might look at his writing and hear his lyrics and not be worried, but you would also not know the rest of his story or any of the other facts that go along with it.Taken by itself, his work is merely disgusting, which is nothing but a preference issue. But taken in the context of the whole picture that you would not be able to see just by reading or hearing his work, it is cause for real alarm.
You can hear his music here:
http://www.myspace.com/psychpsycho
This kid is not just an angry Goth going through a phase. This is his whole life now.There isn’t any help for this boy, because no one who can help will help. Hopefully no one gets hurt.So , I guess all of this affects my thinking about the David Riehm story. Sorry for taking up so much space again.
It’s okay, and I get scared too but as a first amendment absolutist, I’m not budging. Kurt Cobain’s journals are a nightmare, but I wouldn’t draft legislation based on them.
Maybe that’s where I’m missing your point.I think his writing was obscene, and maybe I am mistaken, but I believe obscene speech enjoys no protection under the first amendment.
I wouldn’t draft legislation based on Kurt’s journals either. He blew his own head off, but it was his head so I guess he had a right.
Also , an good article on the topic of free speech in schools can be found in the article:
Student Threats and the First Amendment
by Anne Dunton Lam
How do school districts—and the courts—balance their duty to protect students with
their obligation to respect those students’ constitutional rights?
http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/slb/slbspr02/article1.pdf
FP, one last over and out from me. I am not a concern troll. You have no idea at all what I have had to overcome in life…and that is why I felt so well qualified to applaud your progress. I believe I understand why you are jaded…this is the internet afterall. I won’t take what you said personally, because I realize that you do not know me. I will always wish you well. I laughed out loud when you labelled me arrogant. Me? Anyway, I was emotional over the shootings because I’ve beeen shot at. I am sorry I said “fucking loon.” Peace out.
“my last thoughts were bitter and helpless”