Hazardous Students To the Edltoc
Safety in the chemistry laboratory is of prime concern at the educational and industrial levels. For the ~ s s few t years safety announcements and hazard alerts have been bombarding workers in this area. My concern, a t present, is not with rules for use with hazardous substances but more importantly for guidelines in dealing with students who may present a hazard to themselves or to others in the laboratory. Here I am not talking about the science fearful or the clumsy worker; science teachers are skilled in assisting neophytes to overcome initial trepidation. Twice within the past three years students exhibiting bizarre and inappropriate behavior have entered the introductory chemistry class I teach at a small outreach center of the community college. When concern about the enrollees' capabilities to handle the laboratory component of the course was expressed to both the students involved and to the school administrator,
the response given by all was that the community colleges are open to everyone and the instructor cannot restrict student attendance until documented incidents occurred. The more recent of these experiences regards the late entry of a student into chemistry class two weeks after official class starts; the course already had met for 14 h. Safety regulations and guidelines had already been covered at a previous 3-h laboratory session. Late entry up to the third week of the semester is legal, and no instructor permission is necessary if a seat is available. The computer regulates these registrations. The student appeared bewildered and blamed his inabilitv to focus on instructions and ~roceduresto his late entry.-~ewas given individualized &ety instruction and check-in euidance. and. while he declared comolete understanding, lhis behakor indicated much confusion. Because he was awaiting financial aid, he had no text or laboratory manual, though I supplied him with laboratory handouts. During lecture the student would suddenly and inappro-
Volume 68 Number 10 October 1991
883
priately erupt into laughter. When questioned, he would claim that something had struck him funny, and he would politely apologize. There appeared to he no malicious intent to his actions. Sporadically during each session he would talk to himself, sufficiently clearly for the adjacent students t o complain that the sounds interfered with their concentration and that his monologue had no connection with the suhject. When confronted with this annoying conduct, the student countered that this was his way of concentrating on the material and that he had worked out his own methods and not to interfere. While pursuing laboratory work, the student could not follow instructions, and his actions had to be constantly monitored. Directions were freauentlv misintemreted and he could always justify why he read instructions differently. After being sternly admonished the first time for pouring dry chemicals into his hands, the next time, when he inadvertently spilled some powder on his skin, he followed precautions by scrubbing &d washing his hands hut continued in an obsessive manner for 15 min. Laboratory sesnions were renrheduled because of possible accidents that I feared might result if this student were not individuallv sunewised. Durine team lahoratow e x ~ e r i ments, other member(s) of the pair or group expresseddiscomfort over their inability to communicate and their feelings of insecurity when working with this student. Further descriptions of the student's hehavior could he detailed; he appeared to be bound within a private world. During our discussions, the student would insist that he wanted handson chemist& and he had every right to expect this educational service. While facile with the terminolow of this science, his language knitting these words was incoherent. Because of my concern and responsibilitv for student safety in the laboratory, my appreh&ion was directly communicated to the Associate Dean and Director of our c a m ~ u s center with the assurance that the matter would he ex&ined. After a series of administrative and bureaucratic hurdles. I was informed that "Acts of danger or aggression must he exhibited. Students can not (sic) be denied access because of what they may or might do." The student finally stopped attending class, and only then. after a month into the session. the dean entered the classroom to observe the absent student. Communitv colleees trv to he and to do all thinw for all students. ~owever,judgmentmust he exercised toprevent potential dangers from erupting into hazardous situations. Community social services constantly refer patrons to community colleges for socialization, for education and vocational-prepaiation, but in physical science laboratories the professional must be aware of possible problems and allowed t o exercise some discretion. without support from administration, the teaching staff remains vulnerable, liable, and helpless. When bizarre hehavior produces discomfort in students and instructor, what guidelines can the teacher follow to insure safety. We are held accountable for teaching, preparing, encouraging, guiding, and for insuring safety within the science domain. We are also held accountable when problems arise. Does the ACS offer guidelines for administrative responsibility and instructor &hts versus student rights? How do other schools deal with similar ~roblemsesoeciallv when "documented" incidents may be disputed? This writer would nreatlv apvreciate hearing from others who have dealt with ;mila; p;dhlems successfhly. R. A. Hoots Yuba College 41605 Gibson Road Wwdland, CA 95695
884
Journal of Chemical Education
Chemlstry on Stamps: Organic Chemlstry In Postage Stamps To the Editor: In James Schreck's article on organic chemistry on postage stamps (1989, 66, 624-6291, which I found instructive and entertaining, I noted a minor error that is perhaps illustrative of a wider philosophical problem about the way in which experts in a particular field look a t the outside world. The error is in assuming that the pentagons in Stamp Number 26 represent the specific chemical formula of cyclopentane. They do not, or a t least they did not, have that meaning in the mind of the designer, Peter Murdoch, who was trying to illustrate "The Living Commonwealth" symbolically (1): THE STAMP. The gathering in the UK of the 36 Commonwealth Heads of State is symholised on this stamp by the use of shading and a five-sided figure, hoth representing the separate nature of the five continents and at the same time their unification of purpose. The wider point is that, as experts in our respective fields, we bring the baggage of chemical models and symbolism into interpreting symbols used elsewhere. We can sometimes he mistaken. Llterature Cited 1. Taken from insert in First Day Covers supplied by the British Philatelic Bureau. U.K.
W. Pltt Palmer Northern Territory University P.O. Bax 40146 Casuarina. NT. Australia 0811
Nobel Laureates on Stamps To the Editor:
In a letter commenting on my three-part article "Nobel Laureates in Chemistrv-A Philatelic Survev" (Kauffman. G. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1990,67,451,569,774),~etrZumanof Clarkson University, who worked with 1959 Nohel chemistry laureate Jaroslav Heyrovskj. for 18 years, kindly informed me that Heyrovsk$'s portrait has appeared on a postage stamp (Czechoslovakia, Jan. 9,1990,3 kcs., Scott Catalogue No. 2775). I t is indeed unfortunate that I limited myself to stamns issued throueh 1988 so that the stamn wasnot includid in my paper. Until reading the interestine and eniovahle - . article "Chomical Errors i n Chemical $tamps" (Heilhronner, E.; Kettler. S.: Miller.. F.:. RanDoDort. .. . Z. Philatelica Chim. Phvs. 1990,12(2j, 3), I was unaware of an error on a stamp in article. The eauation on st am^ 6 (J.Chem. Educ. 1990.67. F2 2 ~ ~ " , ' t h $ 452) honoringkenri ~ o i s s a n i e a d "HZ s reverse of the reaction for the ~revaraYonof fluorine. On the other hand, Heilhronner et-al.'s statement, "The Nobel Prize was given toMartin and Svnge for Daper chromatonraphy, not starch chromatograph; a; stated" (on stamp 34; J. Chem. Educ. 1990,67,775) is not true; the prize was awarded t o the two English biochemists "for their invention of partition chromatography", and they used potato starch and silica gel as well as paper to separate amino acids (Nobel Foundation, Nobel Lectures.. .-Chemistry 1942-1962; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1964; p p 353-389). As James Prescott Joule wrote to Lyon Playfair, "The way to make no errors is to write no papers."
-
+
-
my
George 6. Kauftman California State University, Fresno Fresno, CA 93740
