A judge will decide today whether Barrett will be released on bail pending his trial, but other than being accused of videotaping a famous sportscaster with a cell phone camera pressed to the peephole of her hotel room, Barret is apparently a totally average dude. His lawyer Rick Beuke, who has known Barrett for 10 years, says,

I don't think he's even had a traffic ticket. He's as regular a guy as you'll ever meet - a great friend. I must have calls from 30 people wanting to know what they could do to help.

Barrett's neighbor David Wayne adds, "I'm totally shocked. He looked absolutely normal - nothing distinguishing." Apparently Barrett did not have a large "stalker" sign pinned to his clothing at all times, nor did he have prehensile eyeballs or a long forked tongue that flicked in and out involuntarily. Other evidence of his normalcy, according to the AP: "Barrett kept his yard manicured, played golf and enjoyed cooking on a gas grill on a patio behind his $300,000 suburban Chicago town house." He lived in "Westmont, a leafy, middle-class suburb about 20 miles west of Chicago lined with quaint, gas-lamp replica street lights." He also, like so many criminals whose neighbors are shocked that they could have done anything wrong, "kept to himself."

Two related misconceptions are at play in almost every story of this kind, in which journalists happily quote a variety of friends and acquaintances on a criminal suspect's supposed normalcy. One is the idea that stalkers (or murderers, or rapists) actually look and act totally creepy all the time, and it's a complete shock when one of them also has a job or a house. The other seems opposite but is actually related — the idea (handily dismantled in Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear) that crimes like Erin Andrews's stalking cannot be prevented. If we assume that all stalkers are raving lunatics who foam at the mouth every time they see a woman (or, relatedly, that they are all poor, or homeless, or people of color, or otherwise outside the white middle-class norm), then of course we'll be surprised when a mild-mannered insurance company employee like Barrett is accused. But we're also likely to miss the real warning signs of stalking and violence against women.

Barrett is accused of taking seven videos of Andrews without her consent while she stayed in a Tennessee hotel, and may have made an eighth video of her in a Milwaukee hotel. It's not clear how well he covered his tracks during this time, but what is clear is that stalkers often exhibit traits — like paranoia and grandiosity — that may be visible to people close to them, if they actually know what to look for. These traits may not be enough to warrant arrest, but they are enough for a loved one to recommend therapy before obsession turns to stalking, or potentially for someone to warn the stalking victim. Michael Barrett may well have "kept to himself" to such an extent that neither of these steps were possible in his case. But if we focus on the idea of the stalker as someone who "looks different" or is so deranged he can't hold a job, then we essentially give actual stalkers camouflage. And we ignore the fact that outwardly "normal guys" are capable of abnormal things.

Judge Considers Bail For Accused Andrews Stalker [AP]
Judge To Decide Monday On Bail In Erin Andrews Video Case [AP, via USA Today]

According to True/Slant's Kashmir Hill, about 5-6% of Americans have been victims of stalking. But a third of the 934 professors at Indiana universities who responded to a 2007 survey said they had been stalked at some point in their careers. Almost half — 46% — of respondents who had been stalked were male. Dr. Robin Morgan, the clinical psychologist who conducted the survey, says professors face a disproportionate risk of stalking, often "with no previous sexual relationship, unlike the stalking that tends to occur in the general population." Morgan says the most common type of campus stalker is "the delusional stalker," who believes, "This faculty member really cares about me, wants to be in a relationship with me."

A big caveat: as Hill notes, people who respond to a survey on stalking are more likely to have been stalked, and it doesn't seem as though Morgan controlled for this. So Hill's warning — "Professors, be scared. Some of those students might be stalkers" — seems a little alarmist. At the same time, professors, like celebrities, have a larger "audience" than the average person. And by the nature of their job, they are often more important in the lives of their individual students than their students are in theirs (since a student has only a few professors per term, but a professor can have hundreds of students). As a result, it seems plausible that they would be vulnerable to people who imagine their relationship is closer than it really is.

Morgan says, "There's a tendency at universities to take the student's side. Many of the professors felt they had no rights in the process." That "tendency" may be due to a very real power differential that has long existed between student and teacher. Students still need to be protected against harassment and inappropriate behavior from people who have control over their grades and futures. But, as Morgan notes, students now have more control than ever over their professors' futures, through online professor-rating sites and course evaluations. One bad course evaluation probably won't derail a career, but a false allegation of a relationship might — and Internet rumors could harm professors both professionally and personally. Morgan cautions professors to avoid releasing personal information online: "Don't post photos of children, phone numbers, or personal e-mail addresses," she says. But it might be worthwhile to caution universities too, reminding them that teachers, as well as students, need to be protected.

Professors' Peril: Getting Stalked By Students [True/Slant]

In movies, a male protagonist is often gifted with the magical power of seeing directly into the soul of a woman with whom he's had virtually no contact. In the real world, however, when a guy purports to do this, words like "stalking" and "armchair psychoanalysis" come to mind. Which, of course, brings us to "Doug" and "Kate," who met in a 2-month training seminar. Doug, naturally, saw his soulmate in her breasts eyes, and asked her out repeatedly, finally inviting her to what she thought was a group event and what turned out to be a one-on-one of cheezy romantic gestures and overplanned scenarios. When she then declined further invitations, he showed up one night unannounced, begging for her to be his girlfriend, and then whining for sex. She turned him down on both counts, but then got her own, personalized psychological profile for free!

Dear Kate,

This is the only email you'll get from me unless you wish otherwise. My intent is not to harass you. I want to say some things.

First, I'd like us to stay in touch. I would like this to be "au revoir" and not "adieu." You've given me no signs you want this, but then communication is not your strong suit, either. I don't know what you think. I do know I enjoy your company and consider you "my kind" of person. This is a rarity and something I value. While I have friends, nearly all my close ones scattered with the four winds a few years ago. Now at grad schools across the country, they make it back home infrequently. Most of my co-workers, meanwhile, I have not forged close ties with. There is a disconnect between me and most people. So I extend the hand of friendship to satisfy a need for close relationships with people. That is my motivation, if you want to know it. You're returning soon, same as me. It would be nice to hang out. That annual hike I told you about will happen Wednesday or Thursday. I know you would love it,and I think you would like my friends as well. Let me know what you want.

Regardless, our afternoon will remain a fond memory, and I wish you all the best. I hope things do work out for the best. Professionally I foresee doors opening for you. You certainly made the right moves on this trip. Whether you will achieve fulfillment across the board is less sure to me. Yes, yes, you claim you’re happy, and perhaps you are. But the more I think about that one peculiar choice you made that sets you apart from, oh, the vast majority of humanity, the more I don’t buy your characterization of it. It bothers me, so I'll share my thoughts on this as well. It may be more self-indulgent for me than beneficial for you, and more personal than you want to get, but so be it.

It strikes me that your having dated jerks in the past is not the issue. Obviously such relationships are bad. More pertinent are the nice guys you claim to have dated but with whom it also didn't work. At the time of our discussion, I was thinking, "My God, what did they do to her?" I asked about that, but you wouldn't go there. Now I see other possibilities. Someone as intelligent and strong as you, Kate, seems unlikely to be unable to overcome the hurt others have caused. No, you should be able to triumph over that sort of thing. You should be able to tackle this problem as you would any other—instead of throwing in the towel, as you in effect have done. But it occurs to me that everyone among us is vulnerable to our own insecurities, our own weaknesses, our own deeply ingrained habits of thinking, feeling, and acting that can be the hardest circumstances to change of all. In short, I suspect that rather than your boyfriends being the "bad element" of your past relationships, in some way you were. You were the one constant factor. I can conceive of nothing more likely to cause you to despair. If in each relationship either you were the one rejected or you saw some aspect of your nature as otherwise the cause of things not working, nothing could more sap your resolve to get over it and try again. This, if true, really is sad, the word you used to describe how people feel when you tell them of your choice. The psychological consequences of such internal conflict would be the painful of all. If this is the case, I would just like to say I understand something of what you may be wrestling with. For what that is worth.

Maybe my hunch is wrong. Either way, for reasons of your own you have rejected what many rank most highly among the things that make life worth living. I am tempted now to give you arguments why your chosen alternative will not be sustainable in the long-run, but I will spare you. I recognize there is no point. I'll stop now. Reply if you want to.

Yours fondly,
Doug

"It's ridiculous that you should be afraid to call your friends when you're lonely." And that's when I realized I had, somewhere along the line, developed a fear of calling anyone I didn't know from high school or Philadelphia with whom I hadn't corresponded via IM in the preceding 5-10 days. It is actually a lot easier to simply commence corresponding via IM with someone I don't really know — but who is probably mutual Facebook friends with someone we both used to hang out with until 10 days ago or whatever — and go for drinks with that person, and then, either have sex, or use the meeting as an excuse to get back in touch with our mutual Facebook friend who's suddenly grown so disturbingly distant, maybe just because s/he has better things to do now.

Friends Indeed? [Washington Post]