I am going to do one more post for today. This one revisiting again the issue of school shootings. Why, you may ask? While, my last post labeled links to my other articles on school shootings, and that prompted me to blog search for school shootings. I briefly, glazed over articles on school shootings including the one below. It attempted to argue that a cause for these types of shootings resulted from an absolute zero tolerance policy by schools. At first, glance I rejected the argument mostly out of a gut-reaction…
I quickly then decided some extra thought; mostly because I am not a fan of zero tolerance policies because I have been a victim of them. There is nothing like being victimized three-times over: (1) originally by the aggressor, (2) by the institution/administration/teachers because of being blamed for the event—because it takes two too tango mentality, and (3) by the aggressor who then holds it over you that they got you in trouble and takes the attitude that if you report anything else in the future that you will get in trouble to.
I thought about it for awhile and decide that I agreed with one argument and disagreed with the author’s other argument. I disagreed with that there was a correlation between zero tolerance policies and school shootings: after all, lots of students put-up with those policies and never go on a school shooting.
Besides school shootings are often planned: do not get me wrong, I am not saying it takes a genius. What I am saying is those that do school shootings often target specific people or/and specific types of people (or at least this is the impression I get from news stories). The shooters often either stock-pile weapons or it appears (again it seems according to news) obtaining weapons close to the event; however, with what seems with enough time to consider what they are going to do. In other words, school shootings are not spontaneous events.
What then could the relationship between zero tolerance policies and school shootings? I believe the author was trying to also say that zero tolerance policies adds to the ‘load that breaks the camel’s back’: place a student in an environment where he or she is struggling, getting victimized, tell them they are to blame (for the situation—fight, etc.--which might mean to them that you are blaming them for being themselves), make them feel they are in competition for social approval by standards they cannot achieve (not just by their peers but by society i.e., athletic, perfect grades, etc.) and it does not seem so hard to see how this is a dangerous mix.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
School Shootings #2
On May 24, 2007, I wrote about school shootings. I have decided that this issue needs to be revisited. I argued in the May 24th posting that school shootings were the result of social alienation. To say, not feeling ones belongs to society or feeling that one is being pushed out. However, it has recently dawned on me that some individuals while getting treated in the same social environment and in the same manner, as those to become shooters, do not themselves become shooters. I have come to ask myself why this is?
The simplest and easiest out would be to say these individuals are biologically set for this course of action once the breaking point has been reached. However, if this were the case it would seem that a history of unjustifiable, violent behavior (which would also on the surface seem to be unexplainable violent behavior) would be found in the past of these individuals. This usually does not co-inside with the "loaner" personality of these individuals. To say, to be violent is to be violent against another person. Maybe it is society inability to accept differences that causes these shootings to arise. In the consistent pushing of society to have these individuals to confirm that creates these individuals to become violent/dangerous.
Lets for a moment still argue that society instead of working with those that seem to be strange elements within itself should continue to assimilate these individuals then instead of being pushy should not society be more gentle. Still if it is society’s pushy ness then why do some of these individuals become dangerous and others do not? Could it be the answer is to be found within the tolerance of these individuals for society’s pushy ness? Could it be that some have more tolerance for it than others? How is this tolerance created: we have already ruled out biology?
The simplest and easiest out would be to say these individuals are biologically set for this course of action once the breaking point has been reached. However, if this were the case it would seem that a history of unjustifiable, violent behavior (which would also on the surface seem to be unexplainable violent behavior) would be found in the past of these individuals. This usually does not co-inside with the "loaner" personality of these individuals. To say, to be violent is to be violent against another person. Maybe it is society inability to accept differences that causes these shootings to arise. In the consistent pushing of society to have these individuals to confirm that creates these individuals to become violent/dangerous.
Lets for a moment still argue that society instead of working with those that seem to be strange elements within itself should continue to assimilate these individuals then instead of being pushy should not society be more gentle. Still if it is society’s pushy ness then why do some of these individuals become dangerous and others do not? Could it be the answer is to be found within the tolerance of these individuals for society’s pushy ness? Could it be that some have more tolerance for it than others? How is this tolerance created: we have already ruled out biology?
School Shootings #1
The topic here is school shootings. The shooter usually facing alienation from society; after shootings like these the natural response seems to be “he was not one of us” meaning not normal, not American, or both. It is societies unwillingness to accept its role in failing to prevent these tragic moments that make them even more tragic. I mean to say that because these individuals get pushed to the outer skirts of society that nobody (as there is nobody or very few) can see the turmoil that is being built-up within these individuals. Often the issue of mental heath is brought up.
A large problem with the mental health system is not with the system itself, but with getting those that need the help in the system. To get access to the mental health system it is often the case that a person needs a referral from a professional. There are two issues here. The first being the professional becoming aware of the person, and the second is an accurate diagnosis. The problem is how someone behaves under professional observation and how they act in the community can be very to different things; as such, when society pushes these individuals to the edge of society then often the realization that intervention is needed goes unnoticed: similar to how people look away when they see something they know they should report, but do not want to get involved. These behavioral differences are often the result because the person faces different challenges than they would if they are in their community (as compared to the challenges they are faced when being observed) as well as because the person is fully aware that they are being observed (and just like the rest of us when under observation they are on their best behavior, so to speak). In short, it is in the best interest of communities to look after those with mental illness. Tied to this is how the public views those with mental illness.
We also need to realize that the media reports of school shootings are both sensational (including consisting of a misrepresentation of mental illness) as well as that school shootings are not a new phenomenon. What these media reports do not report is that most people with mental illness are not violent, that their is a whole spectrum of mental illnesses, and those with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violent acts than to be offenders of those acts.
A large problem with the mental health system is not with the system itself, but with getting those that need the help in the system. To get access to the mental health system it is often the case that a person needs a referral from a professional. There are two issues here. The first being the professional becoming aware of the person, and the second is an accurate diagnosis. The problem is how someone behaves under professional observation and how they act in the community can be very to different things; as such, when society pushes these individuals to the edge of society then often the realization that intervention is needed goes unnoticed: similar to how people look away when they see something they know they should report, but do not want to get involved. These behavioral differences are often the result because the person faces different challenges than they would if they are in their community (as compared to the challenges they are faced when being observed) as well as because the person is fully aware that they are being observed (and just like the rest of us when under observation they are on their best behavior, so to speak). In short, it is in the best interest of communities to look after those with mental illness. Tied to this is how the public views those with mental illness.
We also need to realize that the media reports of school shootings are both sensational (including consisting of a misrepresentation of mental illness) as well as that school shootings are not a new phenomenon. What these media reports do not report is that most people with mental illness are not violent, that their is a whole spectrum of mental illnesses, and those with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violent acts than to be offenders of those acts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
