DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth

Nutcase kid-killer Adam Lanza attended regionally accredited Western Connecticut State University.


Solid!

Quote:At [regionally accredited] Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, where he enrolled at about 16 in 2008, there was never any indication of trouble, the university said in a statement Sunday.

Lanza took six classes — including website production, data modeling, Philosophy 101 and ethical theory — and compiled a solid 3.26 grade-point average.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/...e-say?lite


Solid Gold!

Quote:December 16, 2012, 2:36 PM
Shooting Suspect Attended Local College
By Anton Troianovski

DANBURY, CONN. – Details emerged Sunday about suspected Newtown school shooter Adam Lanza‘s time at a local university here, a few miles from Sandy Hook.

In summer 2008, when he was 16 years old, Adam Lanza took two computer science classes at [regionally accredited] Western Connecticut State University and got an A in visual basic and an A-minus in website production, university spokesman Paul Steinmetz said.

In the fall, he took “Philosophy 101: Introduction to Ethical Theory” and received a C.

Mr. Lanza would take three more classes, including “American History Since 1877″ in spring 2009, where he earned an A-minus. His last class was an introductory macroeconomics course, in summer 2009, when he earned a B.

Mr. Steinmetz said the school had no record of any disciplinary issues with Mr. Lanza, who studied as a part-time student and wasn’t pursuing a degree. His final grade point average was 3.26.

Mr. Lanza also dropped out of an introductory German course in spring 2009. Renate Ludanyi, his professor, didn’t remember him, but after checking her records said he had gotten a “D” on one test. One of his classmates in that course, Dot Stasny, remembers Mr. Lanza sitting alone in the back of the classroom.

“We tried to say ‘Hi’ to him every so often, and he just seemed nervous,” Ms. Stasny said. “He didn’t have anybody to connect with because we were all older.”

---

Quote:At [regionally accredited] Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, where he enrolled at about 16 in 2008, there was never any indication of trouble, the university said in a statement Sunday.

So in high school the kid is a cause for "concern," "officials assigned a permanent psychologist" to him, and he was "carefully monitored" by the campus cops. But in a regionally accredited college a 16-year old nutcase just fits right in?

Quote:December 16, 2012, 9:38 p.m. ET
Shooter's Persona Drew Concern at School
By TAMARA AUDI, ANTON TROIANOVSKI and JOSH DAWSEY

Not long into his freshman year, Adam Lanza caught the attention of Newtown High School staff members, who assigned him a high-school psychologist, while teachers, counselors and security officers helped monitor the skinny, socially awkward teen, according to a former school official.

Their fear wasn't that he was dangerous. "It was completely the opposite," said Richard J. Novia, the director of security at Newtown School District at the time in 2007. "At that point in his life, he posed no threat to anyone else. We were worried about him being the victim or that he could hurt himself."

Long before Mr. Lanza allegedly killed his mother and then blasted his way into a Connecticut elementary school on a rampage that left 27 dead, authorities were concerned about a young man who was unusually withdrawn and socially maladroit. The scrawny teenager with a mop of brown hair evoked feelings of sympathy, not fear, from teachers and the few classmates who even noticed him.

Authorities have declined to discuss a motive for the shootings, and those who knew Mr. Lanza, 20 years old, said they are at a loss to even speculate. Marsha Moskowitz, a retired school-bus driver, said Mr. Lanza stood out simply because he never smiled. "He was so quiet," she said.

Much remained unknown about Mr. Lanza on Sunday, including whether he had ever been diagnosed with a mental-health illness or if he had graduated with classmates at Newtown High School.

Few remember him well, though he showed some academic promise, making the honor roll as a freshman, joining a technology club and taking college-level courses at age 16.

Friends and acquaintances of his mother, Nancy Lanza, a gun enthusiast who grew up in rural New Hampshire and took her kids to target practice, said she rarely spoke about Adam, her younger son. But when she did, there were indications their relationship was fraught.

"It got to the point where she did not have a close relationship with her son," said Dan Holmes, a local landscaper who worked on her property and who would see her from time to time at a local bar in town called My Place.

But another friend of Ms. Lanza's, Tom Phillips, said she was a devoted mother who doted on her youngest son, Adam. "She said he was special, that he required a little extra attention," Mr. Phillips said.

Others who knew the family said Mr. Lanza wasn't close with his older brother, Ryan, 24, who lives in Hoboken, N.J., and works for Ernst & Young. Mr. Lanza's parents divorced in 2009 after a long separation, according to public records and family members. Adam Lanza's father, Peter, who lives in Stamford, is a tax director and vice president for GE Financial Services.

In a statement released Saturday night, Peter Lanza said the family is "heartbroken" and "in a state of disbelief," the Associated Press reported.

After the divorce, Adam Lanza remained with his mother in their upscale Newtown home.

His high school classmates took little notice of Mr. Lanza, but school officials did. Newtown school officials assigned a permanent psychologist to Mr. Lanza in his freshman year of high school in 2007, and flagged him to the school's security chief when he was still in middle school, a former school official said. "He was very withdrawn and meek," said Mr. Novia, who left the district in 2008. He said Mr. Lanza "was one of those freshmen coming in very much in need of watching."

Mr. Novia said it wasn't unusual for school officials to meet about troubled students, but Mr. Lanza's problems were more severe than most. He said he told the school's three security staffers who reported to him to carefully monitor Mr. Lanza, concerning "where he was, who he was with, and what he was doing."

To help Mr. Lanza become more socially adept, school officials directed him to a "tech club," a broadcast class that filmed school events for a public access channel in town. While many students thrived there, Mr. Novia said Mr. Lanza didn't—even though his older brother, Ryan, had done well in the same group.

At Western Connecticut State University, in nearby Danbury, Mr. Lanza took classes, but he was also an outsider there. In an introductory German course in spring 2009, two classmates recalled him sitting alone, towards the back of the class, often in a hooded sweatshirt. It was an evening course, and Mr. Lanza was the youngest person there.

"We tried to say 'hi' to him every so often, and he just seemed nervous," classmate Dot Stasny said. "He didn't have anybody to connect with because we were all older."

At one point, a friend of Ms. Stasny and another classmate, Gretchen Olson, invited Mr. Lanza to join them at a bar after class, Ms. Olson said.

"No, I can't, I'm 17," Mr. Lanza responded, according to Ms. Olson. "We were like, 'Oh, OK,' and then he went home."

Mr. Lanza dropped out of that class, and the professor, Renate Ludanyi, didn't remember him when asked by a reporter, but found his name in her records. He received a D on one test, she said.

Mr. Lanza excelled in computer science, with an A and an A-minus in two courses in summer 2008, when he was just 16, according to Paul Steinmetz, a university spokesman. During the following term, in "Philosophy 101: Introduction to Ethical Theory," Mr. Lanza got a C.

John J. Blom, whom university records show taught that course, said he had no recollection of Mr. Lanza.

Mr. Steinmetz said the university had no record of any disciplinary issues with Mr. Lanza, who studied as a part-time student and wasn't pursuing a degree. The last classes he took in 2009 were "American History Since 1877," in which he received an A-minus, and an introductory macroeconomics course, in which he received a B. His final grade-point average was 3.26.

Mr. Lanza's history professor declined to speak, according to Burton Peretti, history department chairman. "They certainly were shocked" to realize Mr. Lanza had been in the class, Mr. Peretti said of the professor.

History classes have around 40 students, Mr. Peretti said. Other history professors said it would have been possible for Mr. Lanza to get a high grade without saying much of anything if his written work was strong.

Ms. Stasny also remembers Mr. Lanza as an occasional customer at a local branch of GameStop, the videogame retailer, where she worked.

"He was one of those customers that came in, got his stuff and left," she said.

(12-17-2012, 01:21 PM)WilliamW Wrote: [ -> ]So in high school the kid is a cause for "concern," "officials assigned a permanent psychologist" to him, and he was "carefully monitored" by the campus cops. But in a regionally accredited college a 16-year old nutcase just fits right in?

Thats one messed up dude!

Quote:His high school classmates took little notice of Mr. Lanza, but school officials did. Newtown school officials assigned a permanent psychologist to Mr. Lanza in his freshman year of high school in 2007, and flagged him to the school's security chief when he was still in middle school, a former school official said. "He was very withdrawn and meek," said Mr. Novia, who left the district in 2008. He said Mr. Lanza "was one of those freshmen coming in very much in need of watching."

Mr. Novia said it wasn't unusual for school officials to meet about troubled students, but Mr. Lanza's problems were more severe than most. He said he told the school's three security staffers who reported to him to carefully monitor Mr. Lanza, concerning "where he was, who he was with, and what he was doing."

One of the criticisms of pre-911 intelligence is that although various agencies had some of the info on the hijackers they did not share across agency lines. This looks like a similar situation. In fact, it looks like somebody saw this mental case coming down Broadway and made what should have been a really nice catch.

Both the middle school and the high school had this guy pegged. But did anybody give WestConn a heads up? The guy had been to the grade school just the day before. They obviously didn't consider him a threat or potential problem either. It looks like the middle school was sharing loony tune info with the high school, so clearly they weren't keeping all the info strictly internal. Shouldn't the government college and the highly vulnerable government grade school have been in the loop?

Knowing he was under scrutiny by the high school, nut boy couldn't go there and cause trouble. He probably feared that if he tried anything at the grownups' school (WestConn) one of the big people might catch him. Somebody like Dot Stasny might have sat on him and suffocated him between her thighs. Same thing at a mall or similar public place. Only an unprotected grade school full of kids too small to fight back would be an acceptable target for a scrawny dork.

So if government agents considered Lanza dangerous enough to be "carefully monitored" at a high school, shouldn't all the other taxpaying citizens and their kids be allowed in on the news too?

(12-18-2012, 09:52 AM)Virtual Bison Wrote: [ -> ]Thats one messed up dude!

I'll say. That picture looks like the one you see in psych books next to "fetal alcohol syndrome." He's making with the bug eyes to try to hide his short palpebral fissures.

Why wasn't his old man putting a boot in this kid's ass to keep him in line? Because he had dumped the retard on his ex and moved up to a newer model. I bet George Gollin wished he was brave enough to do that, the way his old man did.

Death threats from a sociopathic marxist RA prof? Hmmm, sounds familiar.....where have we seen that act before?

Quote:December 18, 2012
Professor calls for murder of NRA president
Thomas Lifson

[Caution: contains obscene language, quoting a threat]

A professor at a [regionally accredited] taxpayer-supported state university has called for the murder of the president of the NRA. Apparently the carnage in Newtown, Connecticut was not enough slaughter to satisfy the blood lust of Erik Loomis, PhD, assistant professor of history at the [regionally accredited] University of Rhode Island. Oliver Darcy of Campus Reform reports:

Quote:A professor of history turned to Twitter over the weekend to call for the death of National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre, branding the gun rights group he heads as a terrorist organization.

"[I] want Wayne LaPierre's head on a stick," Erik Loomis, a professor at the University of Rhode Island (URI), tweeted.

It "looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children," he added."

Can [we] define NRA membership as dues contributing to a terrorist organization?" he asked in a separate tweet.

Loomis' comments come on the heels of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 young children and six faculty members dead.

The professor contended Democratic lawmakers should exploit the tragedy to force more restrictive gun control measures into law.

"You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy," Loomis tweeted. "[F]uck the NRA."

"Dear Republicans, do you know the definition of family values?" he continued. "It's not having our kids FUCKING SHOT AT SCHOOL! Fuck the NRA."

Professor Loomis, who received his PhD in history from the [regionally accredited] University of New Mexico in 2008, 12 years after graduating from the [regionally accredited alma mater of civil rights violator Anal Contreras] University of Oregon, has a history of violent rhetoric directed against conservatives. In March of this year, he called for a "decades-long fight to the death [against conservatives]. That's the nation's only hope." The questionable rhetoric appeared in an essay ironically titled, "Are Conservatives Any Crazier Today Than 50 Years Ago?" Clearly the professor, who has violent impulses is projecting his own character flaws onto conservatives, in my opinion.

Consider that this man has been given the trust of education young minds, and his history of intemperate and violent language. And to top it off, he is now playing a victim, because people have noticed and commented on his tweet. College Insurrection reports:

Quote:Read the Twitter feed for Loomis - he fancies himself a Twitter martyr of such huge proportions he may even write a magazine article about his ordeal of having people quote what he said:

Update: Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit comments:

Quote:The anti-NRA syllogism seems to work this way: (1) Something bad happened; (2) I hate you; so (3) It's your fault. This sort of reasoning has played out in all sorts of places over the past century, with poor results. One would expect a history professor to know better.

Update: Katie Pavlich of Townhall.com collects some tweeted death threats.

---

(12-18-2012, 10:11 AM)Herbert Spencer Wrote: [ -> ]Shouldn't the government college and the highly vulnerable government grade school have been in the loop? . . . Only an unprotected grade school full of kids too small to fight back would be an acceptable target for a scrawny dork.

So if government agents considered Lanza dangerous enough to be "carefully monitored" at a high school, shouldn't all the other taxpaying citizens and their kids be allowed in on the news too?

Right you are, Herbert. They should be, but the government doesn't want taxpayers to be anything more than docile and obedient servants of the state. Letting them know a wolf was loose among the sheep might cause a Klempner-ish Kerfuffle among the masses.

Quote:December 14th, 2012
The Federal Government is Guilty Accomplice in School Shooting in Newtown Connecticut

. . . This shooting is yet another tragic example of the failed, grotesque insistence on helpless victim zones where any crazed gunman can be assured of a large number of disarmed, undefended, helpless victims, all crammed into one place, where he can kill many children before an armed defender arrives from elsewhere. It is disturbing and sick that the federal government so hates the right of the American people to bear arms, and so hates their natural right to self defense, that the government insists on making them helpless, disarmed victims for anyone who cares to kill them. And in this case, all of the teachers and staff were willfully disarmed by the Federal Government, by force of law and threat of prison, to ensure that they would be disarmed and incapable of saving the lives of the children entrusted to their care.

That makes the Federal Government complicit in the deaths of these children, and in fact an accessory to their mass murder, by forcibly disarming (with the very real threat of prison) all the teachers, all the staff, and any parent who may have been on school property. That stupid law guaranteed the shooters would meet no immediate armed resistance, which is exactly what is needed to stop such an attack.

In such a shooting (as in every criminal attack), seconds count, and the people best positioned to stop the attack are the people on the scene – the intended victims and/or their care-takers. In this case, that would mean the teachers and staff of the school who were responsible for the well-being of those children, and also the parents, who should have the ability to save the lives of their own children as they take them to and from school.

The police cannot, and do not arrive in time to stop such shooters from killing large numbers of people. They are a slow reactive force compared to an armed citizen on the scene. This should be common sense, as it is obvious that in the immediacy of a criminal attack, it is the intended victims (or their immediate care-takers) who are there, in position to put a stop to the attack, if they are capable. And being capable means being armed, trained, willing, and able to use deadly force, right then, right there. Anything less leads to what we saw here.

But no doubt the rabid anti-gun government supremacists will use this to further their agenda to disarm the American people, totally ignoring that obvious, plain-as-day truth. Anti-gun nuts trust the government with guns, but not the people, and insist that the lowly citizen must be disarmed and helpless in the face of murderous assault, and must wait on slow responding armed government employees, who will not be there when the attack starts, and most often can only really clean up the horrendous crime scene afterwards and maybe, just maybe apprehend a shooter who has chosen not to kill himself (as they usually do).

The bottom line is that these teachers and staff at the Sandy Hook Elementary School were incapable of keeping these children safe, and incapable of defending them. And one of the biggest reasons they were so incapable and unprepared to save the lives of the children entrusted to their care is because the anti-gun nuts and their fellow travelers in government insisted on disarming every adult in the vicinity, by threatening them with prison time – EXCEPT the gunmen, who don’t care about the law and thus were not disarmed. Laws against carrying weapons in schools don’t stop evil men with murderous intent. Such laws only disarm the law abiding and virtuous, who are now rendered incompetent to defend the precious children in their care.

This is disgusting. And yet another reason to home-school. Why would you want to leave your children helpless, in the hands of adults who are themselves helpless, and incapable of defending them, by government decree? For all we know, one of the teachers may have been a veteran, with the training and skill to use a firearm if one had been available. But all the teachers and staff, whatever their ability with firearms, were stripped of the choice and chance to save the lives of these kids.

There are more good guys than bad guys in the world. But the good guys need to be able to stop the bad guys, and that means they need to be armed so they can stop the bad guys on the spot, without having to wait for “official” government approved good guys to respond. Trust the teachers with arms so they can save the lives of their students.

Until the adults are allowed to actually act like adults, and defend themselves and their students, this kind of willful killing will continue to happen, and the federal government will in each case be a guilty party to the conspiracy by ensuring that the targets are disarmed.

Until this changes, you should refuse to give your children over to government schools lorded over by a Federal Government so callous and indifferent to their safety and lives.

Quote:We know how to stop school shootings
By: Ann Coulter
12/19/2012

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed — and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

Can we expect an apology from the University of Illness for George Gollin's unhinged behavior? All this Loomis douche did was make an ass of himself on Twitter. Is that worse than death threats, stalking, defamation, computer hacking, impersonations, extortion, and civil rights violations?

Or perhaps George Gollin's unhinged behavior really does reflect the views of the institution. Unlike the University of Rhode Island, perhaps the University of Illness condones such acts and threats of violence. Is UIUC not committed to fostering a safe, inclusive and equitable culture that aspires to promote positive change????


Will the University of Illinois be apologizing for George Gollin's unhinged behavior?

Quote:Professor Becomes Unhinged on Twitter, School President Apologizes
by John Sexton 19 Dec 2012



Assistant Professor Erik Loomis teaches history at the University of Rhode Island. In his spare time, he retweets death threats to conservatives on Twitter.

Loomis caught the attention of Twitchy Tuesday when he retweeted another user's message which read "First fucker to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death." Loomis also directed a stream of invective at the NRA, calling for Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick."

This latter comment was later clarified by Loomis "Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don't want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life." Of course this didn't really explain the comment about beating people to death, nor why a professor has to employ such violent terminology in the first place.

Eventually, the reaction to Loomis' unhinged tweeting became so much that he removed mention of his associations with the University of Rhode Island from his account. Apparently this wasn't enough as he later deleted his entire account, though not before a few of his verbal gems were collected for posterity.

Word of Loomis' behavior apparently reached his employer. Dr. David M. Dooley, the university president, issued a statement on the school's website.

Quote:The University of Rhode Island does not condone acts or threats of violence. These remarks do not reflect the views of the institution and Erik Loomis does not speak on behalf of the University. The University is committed to fostering a safe, inclusive and equitable culture that aspires to promote positive change.

Breitbart News contacted the University to inquire whether Professor Loomis would be subject to any disciplinary action for the incident. The person Breitbart News spoke to wasn't authorized to speak on the matter and refused to say even off the record what they knew about it.

Here's the latest lunatic prof using his taxpayer-financed job to promote his bizarre personal hobbies.

Notice how FAU immediately came out with a disclaimer. They don't want Florida taxpayers to be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees when victims start suing.

When will U of I be "distancing itself" from Gollin's stalking, death threats, stalking, defamation, stalking, computer hacking, stalking, impersonations, stalking, extortion, stalking and civil rights violations? Don't any U of I students find his conduct to be disturbing?


James Tracy....................................................George Gollin.................. Erik Loomis

Quote:FAU prof stirs controversy by disputing Newtown massacre
By Mike Clary, Sun Sentinel
9:32 p.m. EST, January 7, 2013

A communication professor known for conspiracy theories has stirred controversary at [regionally accredited] Florida Atlantic University with claims that last month's Newtown, Conn., school shootings did not happen as reported — or may not have happened at all.

Moreover, James Tracy asserts in radio interviews and on his memoryholeblog.com. that trained "crisis actors" may have been employed by the Obama administration in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the event's true purpose: gun control.

"As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends," writes Tracy, a tenured associate professor of media history at FAU and a former union leader.

In another post, he says, "While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place — at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described."

FAU is distancing itself from Tracy's views.

"James Tracy does not speak for the university. The website on which his post appeared is not affiliated with FAU in any way," said media director Lisa Metcalf.

Tracy said he knows he has sparked controversy on campus. In one of his courses, called "Culture of Conspiracy," Tracy said some students have expressed skepticism about his views.

"But I encourage that," said Tracy, 47, a faculty member for 10 years. "I want to get students to look at events in a more critical way."

In the Internet age, "We see more and more professors getting into trouble for what they're posting on Facebook, or Tweeting," said Gregory Scholtz, director of the department of academic freedom at the Association of University Professors. "And administrations are sensitive to bad publicity; they don't like things that public might find obnoxious or reprehensible. But most reputable administrations stay above the fray and give latitude."

Robert Shibley, an official with the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said Tracy is well within his rights of free speech, especially when teaching a course on conspiracy theory.

"The only way that a university would have a right to tone it down, or insist he stop talking about it, is if students come to him and say they find it disturbing," said Shibley. "People are allowed to talk about things that are upsetting — for example, abortion."

On Monday, the website Global Research posted a timeline written by Tracy which purports to show how federal and local police agencies, abetted by "major media," conspired early in the Sandy Hook investigation to constuct a scenario pointing to Lanza as " the sole agent of the massacre" when others may have been involved.

In one of his blog posts, "The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information," Tracy cites several sources for his skepticism, including lack of surveillance video or still images from the scene, the halting performance of the medical examiner at a news conference, timeline confusion, and how the accused shooter was able to fire so many shots in just minutes.

In an interview Monday, Tracy said "while it appears that people lost their lives" at Sandy Hook Elementary on Dec. 14, he is not ready to buy that a lone gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, entered the school and methodically shot 20 children and six adults before killing himself.

Lanza is also suspected of killing his mother at their Newtown home before arriving at the school.

Asked if he has been accused of promoting fringe theories, Tracy said, "I do get that sense, from emails and otherwise."

Tracy said he believes the deaths at Sandy Hook may have resulted from a training exercise. "Was this to a certain degree constructed?" he said. "Was this a drill?

"Something most likely took place," he said. "One is left with the impression that a real tragedy took place."

But, he added, he has not seen bodies, or photos of bodies. "Overall, I'm saying the public needs more information to assess what took place. We don't have that. And when the media and the public don't have that, various sorts of ideas can arise."

Tracy said also has doubts about the official version of the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9-11 terror attacks and the Aurora, Colo., theater murders.

"I describe myself as a scholar and public intellectual," he said, "interested in going more deeply into controversial public events. Although some may see [my theories] as beyond the pale, I am doing what we should be doing as academics."