by John C. Lemon
Five years prior to the Columbine High School massacre, an alternative school paraprofessional approached me touting his prowess as a classroom manager. He advised toughness and the willingness, when necessary, to collect on wolf tickets – a phrase used to describe measured physical response to defiant behavior. He recounted his years of service as though it were empirical data, surmising that when pressed, the threats of disorderly students would be proven non-substantive — simply the posturing of those hoping to impose their will. In his estimation, confrontation was the task that ran alongside education. It was how the sausage got made.
The tragic events occurring in spring of 1999 in Columbine, Colorado and more recently, the February 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, has, for the time being, arrested our attention. Without apparent explanation, we again, find ourselves in a disturbing debate accelerating us well beyond the bluffs of impetuous students. Against such a backdrop, in addition to the pre-existing herculean effort required to educate, is the present fear of a new normal. Both anecdotist and alarmist alike have homed in on the atrocity of mass shootings. And we cannot rationally underestimate its significance.
Our cohesion, at least in part, appears challenged by category. The July 2015 Congressional Research Service (CRS) defined a mass shooting as “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event in one or more locations of close proximity.” The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are injured or killed in one location, not including the suspect. Neither definition includes robbery or gang violence for the category. Based on the CRS standard of four or more fatalities, there have been 25 classified mass school shootings on U.S. soil dating back to 1840. These may not appear to be epidemic-like numbers. But they should not be dismissed.
There are moments that require us to set aside our claims, even when founded, for the sake of community.
Rampage shootings require consideration beyond numeric outcomes. Admittedly, a difficult task, but when discernable, we must wrestle with the intention of the shooter. Weapons malfunction, vital organs are narrowly missed, heroic actions hedge targets, urgent medical care is provided and against the odds the wounded have pulled through. In the history of U.S. school gun violence, 439 or 95% of those incidents did not meet the four fatalities threshold. However, that classification would quickly change in the absence of either one of the above listed intervening scenarios.
The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) definition provides a broader picture. By GVA’s metric there has been 78 classified mass shootings. Eighty-three percent of the 464 gun-related campus events did not reach the category’s threshold. Historically, an American student’s chances of escaping physically unscathed from a gun related event is a low B. The disturbing trend, signifying the escalating frequency and impact of these events, is made apparent when realizing 31 or 40% of the nation’s classified mass shootings have occurred within the past 20 years.
Great empathy and support has been poured out towards the survivors of campus violence. And it is that show of community that keeps us strong. However, there is another side, self-preservationist in nature, to this dynamic and that is the unnerving apparent randomness of these assaults. In previous eras, bad actors, almost exclusively, were engaged in interpersonal conflict. Typically, those confining relationships controlled outcomes. Attacks were not indiscriminate. To label recent events as domestic terror is fitting, regardless of an absent political agenda. Terror, in its essence, is an assault intent upon overwhelming systems and its participants with the end gain of affecting worldview.
It is the sensed inability to control the circumstances that govern our lives that leaves us feeling vulnerable. In defiance of that inclination, we seek a measured response that will move us back toward equilibrium. The dominant camps – an increasingly armed citizenry and gun law reform. I will not take this space to argue the merits of the two positions, but will offer this consideration. Taking the declinist perspective, we are living in a degenerating society – things are getting worse. The proof – mass shootings on school campuses.
Our nation has a 178-year history with campus gun violence. Conflict isn’t new. Historically, the school campus simply is not the sacred place we have revisioned it to be (though it ought to be). Conflict can escalate wherever there are competing interests. And to the declinist’s point, classified mass murder is a relatively recent and disturbing phenomenon. There have always been bad actors inadvertently empowered by the technology of the day. And there are times, perhaps this is one, when advancements in technology, such as those seen in high powered weapons, have outpaced our humanity.
Various disciplines have been mined to explain the triggers of sadisticism: physiology – chemical imbalance; psychology – nature v. nurture; sociology – systems; and theology – hidden forces. While we wait on consensus, new school teachers are opting to leave their profession at a rate exceeding veteran retirements. Among the top reasons for the exodus is student conflict and a lack of respect. Administrative staff members are close behind. Our social contract is in desperate need of repair.
Paul, a Cilician author, in 54 AD addresses a gathering in Corinth – a city state fixed between Athens and Sparta. His subject was perceived wrongs and infringed upon rights – this, among an audience repute for their willingness to manipulate circumstances for personal gain. In the effort to foster peace and mend the social contract, he asks the directive, “… Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?” What we can, by right, legally enforce is not always the way forward. There are moments that require us to set aside our claims, even when founded, for the sake of community.
The practice of educators collecting wolf tickets has always appeared sketchy. This is because any line will blur when undefined. Instructors have long frequented the space of the engaged and disengaged – the enforcer versus the educator — leaving many overwhelmed. The additional burden of fire arms expert appears to be the overreach of an unsustainable policy. We must examine our social contract.
As it is, to have legal disputes against one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? (I Corinthians 6:7, CSB)
JCLTalk.com 