.
Last fall, irhezdetdt
a man who was driving his van around Susquehanna University looking for his lost dog was mistaken for a predator.
a man who was driving his van around Susquehanna University looking for his lost dog was mistaken for a predator.
 .
Why? Probably because he was…a man. Driving a van. Looking for a “lost dog.” Never mind all the “LOST DOG” posters the family had put up. Never mind the fact that his teenage nephew was in the passenger seat and his wife in the seat behind them. Man + van  is all it takes. As the Orange Street News reported — exclusively!
Susquehanna University has banned a Selinsgrove father from his own son’s preschool graduation after mistakenly accusing him of being a creeper after he was spotted driving around campus in a van while looking for his lost dog. .“We are not going to stand for this. We are very upset,†Candice Peterson told the Orange Street News. .The trouble began last September after Peterson and her family lost their beloved family dog. The family drove all around Selinsgrove in their van in search of their beloved family pet, including the University where they believed their dog may have wandered..But when students saw the van instead of helping the family find the missing canine they instead became upset and reported Peterson to the campus police, who put out an alert.  Soon everyone was looking for the van, including police and many local news outlets ran with the story.
A “story” despite the fact no one had been molested or abducted. But since, you know, a van…
.When Peterson saw all the trouble she came forward thinking she could clear up the mix-up, but instead of apologizing to her husband for getting the story wrong they banned him from the University and threatened to press charges. .Days later, the beloved family dog was found dead on Route 15..Peterson was hoping it would all blow over, until last week when she found her son’s pre-school graduation is going to be held at the University and that her husband still isn’t allowed back.
At that point, the Petersons decided to go to the press. And which journalist did he trust with this story?
 .
Hilde Kate Lysiak ! The 9-year-old who was getting such blow-back just a few weeks ago for being too young and cute to report on a murder. She’s the Orange Street News!
 .
I followed up on Lysiak’s story to see if the Petersons had made any headway, and the email answer from Candice began with a recap of what had happened in the fall:
“We called the director of public saftey David Gardner at SU [Susquehanna University] ….We told him that we felt terrible about this misunderstanding hoping that he would retract the alert. Instead he...said for my husband to stay away from the school and he would be contacting us again. So we went to the Selinsgrove PD Chief Garlok who said he would talk to him. A few days passed and we went back to speak to the chief ( chief Garlok) who handed us a ” no trespass order.”
She added that Garlok indicated the problem would eventually just blog over. But when she found out her son’s graduation was to be held on campus, she spoke to Gardner again. And as she wrote in a note to me:
He said ““we have sufficient evidence against your husband and he’s not allowed on this campus as per our attorneys.” I was in shock. I said wait he was never questioned by police, or charged with anything. You never investigated anything you just wrote the no trespass order.
That’s exactly where things stood until yesterday when I wrote to Gardner myself, as a reporter. And suddenly Angela Burrows, the Susquehanna University communications director wrote back:
“The University strives to keep its private campus safe for all students, faculty, staff and visitors. While privacy considerations dictate that we cannot share more information at this time, the University stands by its decision to issue a no-trespass order to Mr. Petersen.  We will provide a one-time exception for Mr. Petersen to come to campus for preschool graduation.  The no trespass order will otherwise remain in effect.â€
 Woo-hoo! So for one single day, the menacing dog-searcher himself will be allowed to set foot on campus. But after that, still for no reasons disclosed, Peterson will be considered a trespasser if he steps foot on campus again. Because a man…a van… – L
.
Really! The guy was looking for someone like me, not a victim!
.
I hope Hilde Kate Lysiak does a follow up. I’d love to see a 9 year old make this administration look stupid.
Don’t those silly people know yet that suspicion is guilt?
This infuriates me.
If it had been a woman driving the van, no one would have thought or done anything. A complete non-issue.
I hope someone tells those preschoolers they’re already too mature to attend Susquehanna U.
Clearly, this calls for a “van-in” protest. Round up every van that can be found nearby, and have people who have not yet been issued a no-trespass order drive around campus. And when they chase off those drivers, recruit a new batch.
“We have sufficient evidence against your husband”???????????????????? I wish they had asked what that evidence consists of.
As it seems to be happening on most campuses today (and yes, I know I am probably exaggerating), all a student has to do is report a feeling, using a buzzword such as “unsafe”, and the administration falls all over themselves trying to fix it, without any sort of critical thought or application of common sense.
I wonder whether there’s some kind of defamation claim which could be used against the University. They’re calling this guy some very bad names, at least by implication.
Pre-K graduation? That’s a little much, isn’t it?
This is blatant discrimination based on sex and age. His wife was also in the van. Why wasn’t she banned? His teenage nephew was in the van too. He’s not a predator??? Are they saying only adult men can be predators? Are they saying predators don’t work in packs? Either they have to ban all of them or none of them. Let him sue the University for discrimination and see how fast they want to settle. I bet he can make a stronger case for that then for being labeled a predator.
Again, I’m so glad this family is standing up to this absurdity that banning a father from it’s campus, even though a pre-k graduation on a college campus sounds absurd as well.
Quick search of crime statistics for Susquehanna University came up with a very bad rating:
http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/susquehanna-university/student-life/crime/#
So instead of inventing van/kidnapping scenarios and banning drivers who were never charged with a crime, how about the University and Police tackle the burglaries, rapes, and aggravated assaults that seem to plague students here?
And why would a preschool bring students to such a dangerous campus???
THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
Why bring them to this F+ safety rated school for a graduation ceremony and put them in harm’s way on this terrible campus? Aren’t there parks or churches that don’t have F+ safety ratings that can hold groups and don’t White Van profile parents unfairly?
“I wonder whether there’s some kind of defamation claim which could be used against the University. ”
One of the things you have to prove in a defamation case is actual money damages.
—
“though a pre-k graduation on a college campus sounds absurd as well.”
This just means that the college has a hall that it rents out.
It doesn’t sound like there was a false statement as required for a defamation claim. It’s just that “man” and “van” is assumed to be threatening. A potential discrimination claim would be more interesting since it doesn’t appear they establish a legitimate basis for permitting women and teenagers in vans, but not men in vans.
This smells like rules that have become too extreme. I imagine that nobody that’s unauthorized can be on the premises. NO EXCEPTIONS. This is true even for people looking for a lost dog. Even if they prove their dog was lost, it’s still an unforgivable sin.
Rules have become stringent and must be followed otherwise the insurance company will raise their rates for being ‘wishy washy’ on security.
“It doesn’t sound like there was a false statement as required for a defamation claim.”
It’s textbook “opinion based on undisclosed facts”, which would be actionable… if the other elements were met.
To be actionable an opinion based on undisclosed facts has to suggest untrue facts. Here, it does not appear that anything more than man and van was asserted. As those facts are true, though the perception of threat so many people connect to those words is not, it would not be actionable. Similarly, a statement that they investigated and determined he would not be permitted on the property does not suggest any particular fact unless they have some policy that would limit such a determination to those about whom particular facts are known. That’s unlikely, since most private institutions do not so limit themselves.
Seeing as the pore dawg died (such a damned shame) it’s too bad the tragedy didn’t happen on campus – AFTER they shooed away the van and occupants. (a real legal crapstorm could have ensued.)
But what everyone is missing here…..
” But when students saw the van instead of helping the family find the missing canine they instead became upset and reported Peterson to the campus police, who put out an alert. ”
This part.
Apparently all the students attending this campus are made out of porcelain and candy floss, liable to melt and vanish into helpless manic terror, and just melt away like morning dew?
“To be actionable an opinion based on undisclosed facts has to suggest untrue facts.”
“He said “’we have sufficient evidence against your husband and he’s not allowed on this campus as per our attorneys.'”
Textbook.
‘“though a pre-k graduation on a college campus sounds absurd as well.â€
This just means that the college has a hall that it rents out.’
Well, no – it also means the pre-k saw fit to rent a hall for “graduation.” Which is pretty absurd, if you ask me.
James, but Man in a van have become sufficient evidence and those facts are true. There is no indication that the evidence they reference is evidence of actual criminal activity.
Ok, so, I live in this general area. The issue isn’t that the campus is unsafe, (whoever linked the f+ rating website gave me a good laugh) the issue is that it’s TOO safe. The safety officers get bored. The “crime” statistics that are listed are generally perpetrated by their own students (drunken brawls, date rape, petty theft, occasional drug charges, etc). When they can latch on to an outsider that’s a “threat” they are all over it, it gives them something to do.
It’s ridiculous, but I don’t think it has anything to do with student safety (although they will swear up and down that it does!) it has more to do with a whole bunch of people with a tiny bit of power trying to make the most of it. Going to the police isn’t going to help their case at all, unfortunately, because it’s private property and they can allow or ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want. Pretty much the only way to resolve this is to get a hold of a high-profile donor, or a trustee or two who may be sympathetic to their case.
“The ‘crime’ statistics that are listed are generally perpetrated by their own students (drunken brawls, date rape, petty theft, occasional drug charges, etc).”
Why is the word “crime” in that sentence denoted with scare quotes? Those things are, in fact, crimes.
“it’s private property and they can allow or ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want.”
Not since 1964. There’s a list of reasons that you cannot discriminate against. Guess what? Sex is one of them.
—
“James, but Man in a van have become sufficient evidence”
You have a case if, but only if, they exclude ALL men in vans. Produce some evidence that supports this. Until then, you have an opinion that this particular man is sufficiently dangerous as to require exclusion, which is based on facts which are not disclosed.
(For reasons previously discussed, defamation is not a good cause of action. However, he might well have a nice civil rights lawsuit, since he appears to be a victim of discrimination, under color of law, because of his gender. That’s usually hard to prove, but in this case, there’s pretty good evidence… as his wife was never excluded, despite being in the same van at the same time. Alas, he’d have to spend a few bucks with a locally-licensed attorney to discover if there really is a case worth pursuing.
James, they didn’t claim to have evidence that he was dangerous as far as I could see. They just claim to have sufficient evidence to determine to exclude him, and that their attorneys are okay with that decision. As the school may exclude people from its property for any lawful reason (unless it has some very unusual limitations on such decisions), the claim that they have sufficient evidence to exclude him does not disclose any defamatory facts–it may just disclose that they have evidence that he breached their rules by wearing a Snoopy t-shirt on campus on Mickey Mouse day. In the same way, I can assert freely and publicly that I have barred someone from my property and further assert that this decision was based on information which I am unwilling to share. Unless I suggest some specific facts which, if stated, would constitute defamation, there is no action.
@Bob
” it has more to do with a whole bunch of people with a tiny bit of power trying to make the most of it. ”
Sounds like this isn’t the only case of that as SU:
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/04/susquehanna_students_accuse_un.html
“She added that Garlok indicated the problem would eventually just blog [sic] over.” I don’t know if that’s a typo or not but I like the term. “To blog over” – When the alternative media writes so much about a subject the mainstream media has to pay attention.
Indeed, Donald!
And this sort of thing is ideal for the yhoung lady reporter to be talking about. The murder- too much to muddle up, to have anyone being a Nancy Drew about it. Other things that are happening, and *reporting* on them? Great idea!
This man had the misfortune to meet two of the ‘predator’ cliches. (I wish I knew how to put that little mark above the e, lol, but I don’t.
He was a ‘man in a van’ and he was a ‘man looking for a lost dog’. Here’s my question…those are the cliches for pervs who abduct little kids. Has an ‘normal’ adult ever fallen for it? Just what were these ‘adult’ students so afraid of? If the crimes mentioned by the other posters are student on student, then they should fear each other…not a guy in a van looking for a dog.
This is the rare occasion when I’m glad I don’t have kids. If my son or daughter had called/come home and told me that they’d panicked in this way, I would cry myself to sleep as a failure. I wouldn’t do it in front of them, but it probably happen.
Of course, social justice, microaggressions and ‘safe spaces’ have really become the norm for college kids (at least it seems so).
Granted, as a female, that wouldn’t have happened to me. But…in my former job, we often had meetings at the local college. If I were to be banned, it actually would have monetary consequences as I wouldn’t have been able to do my job.
Last fall, someone opened a car door into another car at my kid’s homeschool partnership school. There were about 40 cars in the lot. The announcement was made “Will the owners of the white van please report to the office.” About 7 of us parents showed up….and two teachers. White vans are common.
And lastly, my teenage daughter wants to paint a sign on the side of our white van. “The Not So Creepy White Van. We are nice. Ask for candy inside.” Yeah…I am sure that will work well!
In all snarky fairness, he was cruising the streets looking for a young runaway, and if he’d found one he’d planned to tie them up and make them wear nothing but a leather collar all day long.
Proving that in this case, like most cases, context is key.
“The “crime†statistics that are listed are generally perpetrated by their own students (drunken brawls, date rape, petty theft, occasional drug charges, etc).â€
So crimes perpetrated by college students aren’t real “crimes�
So what is it- rape lite? Please don’t tell that to the victims of these crimes and minimize consequences for *kids* who perpetrate violent crimes on or off campus. Sounds to me like these college kids are the danger on campus, not dads looking for lost dogs.
@BL- That link and the stories about campus police tactics and invasions of privacy- no better way to kill enrollment at a school than to have stories like these online. This place sounds like the last place I would want to be or have my kids attend.
Someone needs to tell these *kids* this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA
I don’t see any legal claim that has much of a chance. They are pursuing this through the media, which will likely be a lot more helpful. I wish I could say I was shocked at the University’s reaction, but many of them seem to be overreacting to all sorts of stuff.
Over reaction, yes, but my question is why is a PRESCHOOL graduation being held on a university campus, and when did Americans become nutty enough to hold graduation ceremonies for preschoolers? Used to be graduation ceremonies meant someone had actually achieved something.
OK, wait a minute…this is a college university? With 18-20something’s attending? These 18-20something’s were so freaked out by a guy in a van, with a kid and wife in tow, asking about a lost dog, that they called the police? Are you sure this isn’t satire like the article about CPS investigating the 38-year old living on his own?
Heaven have mercy.
The human race is doomed.
This is an example of the mental illness that is plaguing so much of society these days. That may be a strong term to describe it but this is really what it amounts to. An inability to use any rational faculty due to triggered emotions. People in these positions are not capable of doing their jobs as they can only see what they are afraid of, much like politicians. This staff of this university are likely all in the same triggered state, and find themselves righteous in their decision because they are all operating from triggered mob group-think.
I think about the only thing you can do is tell the story of these people far and wide. Publicly embarrass them. Discussing their idiocy in places like this is a good start, but…
What I was trying to get at by putting “Crime” in quotes is that those statistics aren’t reflective of the general population of the area, i.e. the dad in the van, they were reflective of the population of their own campus. Thus they have no excuse to declare this poor guy a threat, it’s not a high crime city. I didn’t mean to minimize actual crimes perpetrated by students, they are just as bad as anyone elses.
“OK, wait a minute…this is a college university? With 18-20something’s attending? These 18-20something’s were so freaked out by a guy in a van, with a kid and wife in tow, asking about a lost dog, that they called the police? Are you sure this isn’t satire like the article about CPS investigating the 38-year old living on his own?” — Coasterfreak
My thoughts exactly! More infantilization of college students.
@Ravana
“Used to be graduation ceremonies meant someone had actually achieved something.”
Achieving something is now considered a microaggression.
The statement “privacy considerations dictate that we cannot share more information at this time” sounds like college sexual harassment lingo to me.
I suspect that a hothouse flower on campus felt “triggered” and “unsafe” by the presence of a man in a van, and the school had to ban him for fear of a Title IX lawsuit.
Quote:
“all a student has to do is report a feeling, using a buzzword such as “unsafeâ€, and the administration falls all over themselves trying to fix it, without any sort of critical thought or application of common sense.”
@Beth
That’s the new buzz word on college campuses nowadays Beth, “micro aggressions”. Gotta provided a “Safe Space” for college kids now.
You’d think that a Governor or State Legislature could intervene and say enough is enough! State universities are getting tax payer money and these policies are NOT helping college students prepare for the future. Free speech has always been a staple of American society and universities are caving in to students who want to restrict that right because they are offended at what somebody says.
As a parent of two future university students I’ll be looking for universities that understand real risk from idiocy. We have one less university to visit – thanks for freeing up my schedule Susquehanna U !!
>He was a ‘man in a van’ and he was a ‘man looking for a lost dog’. Here’s my question…those are the cliches for >pervs who abduct little kids. Has an ‘normal’ adult ever fallen for it? Just what were these ‘adult’ students so afraid >of? If the crimes mentioned by the other posters are student on student, then they should fear each other…not a >guy in a van looking for a dog.
Are you suggesting that college students are adults, or, even worse, that they should be? That’s a micro-aggression.
Seriously, though, I remember being puzzled years ago by complaints about inadequate systems to warn college students of emergencies. Most cities and towns, at most, send out a text or something, and I didn’t know why students would demand colleges do more for their adult students. Now we have college students crying about chalk.
Don’t you just feel the deepest pity for people who have so little spunk, so little integrity?
My heart goes out to the family who lost their dear dog.
And I admire the journalist Hilde Kate who does not wimp out as the college population has.
What will those pathetic college kids do when they graduate from their kindergarten-like college and have to survive the real world? Oh, yeah! Move home to the family basement and be helicoptered forever.
Here’s an interesting piece by Hilde on SU’s overzealous campus police.
https://orangestreetnews.com/2016/04/18/su-students-terrorized-by-safety-officers/
It sounds like what happened to this man is part of a larger problem on this campus.
With all the vitriol directed at college students here, what makes anyone reading stories like this think that this fearful behavior is representative of the typical American college student today? It seems that overreaction is rampant if everyone who comments on blogs feels this way.
@Jason, there have been many recent reports of college students (some on this very site!) of college students fighting Halloween costumes, graffiti (that says “Trump”) on the sidewalks, and campus speakers who have opinions that some students disagree with..to mention a few. Start here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/yale-lecturer-resigns-after-email-on-halloween-costumes.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/24/someone-wrote-trump-2016-on-emorys-campus-in-chalk-some-students-said-they-no-longer-feel-safe/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/new-report-the-push-again_b_5417664.html
I went on this Universities Facebook page with this story. I am also posting it on mine. I would think that Mr. Peterson would have a case for Slander by this University as they are calling him a predator with out any thing to back it up.
The family should sue Susquehanna University for defamation.
@Beth – Yes, I’ve seen those reports, and read about them here, and I find them generally outrageous. But, I wouldn’t extrapolate a relative handful of media reports into generalizations about millions of college students.
The media can make a few anecdotal incidents seem like a trend or a tsunami. One of the messages here is that a few horrific stories about child abductions does not mean that kids are being plucked off the streets in unprecedented numbers. That also means that CPS isn’t deploying armies of refrigerator inspectors, etc.
Jason, while it may be unfair to extrapolate these incidents and say that all college students are this way, but this is more than just a “handful” of occurrences. More than a few campuses have overreacted to non harmful things and we have seen the rise of hate speech codes and other similar mechanisms. Universities were once places where controversial topics could be debated. This seems less so these days.
I had an absolutely terrifying experience tonight. Around dusk, I’m walking the dog, the street lights are coming on, and a WHITE VAN pulls up a house away from me! And out jumps….a guy being dropped off home by his mate.
Lawdy, how did I escape the horrors that might have been? And how do people survive, blood pressure-wise, who are that scared of white vans? Is it time tradies painted their vans pink? Is that a ‘safe’ colour?
I just told this story to my friends over a cuppa… We were in hysterics, everything from academics with poor judgement to pre-school graduations (what the heck?) held at uni campuses (huh?).
What is wrong with this world??
JP Merzetti & Coasterfreak: Clearly they think students aged 18-20 can be lured into a van with a story about a missing dog…
Everyone posting here needs to grow up and educate themselves. First of all you need to realize that it’s the seriousness of the accusation, not the nature of the evidence that is important. The mere fact that a man was in a van looking for a lost dog has taken s back seat to the true evidence: The wife was in on it and the child was an adult, a dwarf; They were bait to trap an unsuspecting victim.
This family needs to stand up and take the only reasonable action: Include the school’s endowment in thier will. Only then will the administrators truly see the hard reality of the situation.
Of course, Planet Bizzaro will probably flip on its axis long before.
Ugh.
I can see this coming from any ‘stranger danger’ (or other such stuff warnings that I received as a child (born in 78, so grew up in the early 80s). The ‘creeper looking for a lost dog’ story actually sounds familiar, if (in hindsight unrealistic) – but we need to teach kids that “hey, I think my lost dog might have run this way, she’s a pretty small dog, with light (blonde) hair, did you see her (and can you tell me which way she ran?)” is very different than “I lost my dog, can you come with me to help look for her?”) (and as we all know, scenario a is the mostly likely scenario anyway, both because all numbers of after school specials have kept kids away from A, and the same prevents any would be predators from B)
People who complain about men(even if other men are complainants)should be photographed and fingerprinted.
They should be required to pay a financial dposit9meaning that if their complaints are unfounded, they will forfeit such deposit.
Given the way people’s lives can be ruined so easily by anonymous fearmongers these days, I’d love to see someone anonymously accuse SU’s David Gardner of some sort of molestation. Since his *job* requires him to be on a campus with students, I wonder how he’d like being “banned from campus for safety concerns”, I’m sure he’d be perfectly fine with having his reputation tarnished by some anonymous complaint, right?
I believe the male individual should do what @James Pollack says about a gender based civil rights case. If he can get a lawyer to initiate discussions about filing, etc, SU may be quick to settle to avoid the bad press OR follow through with the bad press and possibly be made to face their day in court with even a larger audience to hear how a lost family dog caused a man in a van to get banned from their campus as he was searching for it…with family in tow.
Heh, I’ve actually drove looking for my lost dog once, stopped & asked some kids playing & one of them ran away screaming. The other 2 standing there did see the dog & pointed me in the right direction but when the 1st kid ran away screaming I was feeling like doing the same thing myself! Sad we live in a world like this.
I think there should be a special provision if a child wh9(in good faith)goes “to bat” for an adult who is falsely accused.