Rampage Violence

The article, “Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings,” written by Katherine S. Newman, starts off with a story of a school on any ordinary day.  The story, staring off from the students just going about their day as your everyday students shifts quickly into something nobody could have expected.  The peace that the story started off with was quickly interrupted by a student firing rounds at his peers.  Sadly, the unexpectedness of this happening is a reality that is hard to grasp.  At any moment, something tragic like this can occur in a place where you should expect to be safe and free of harm. 

            The article then goes into asking the question many people would like to find an answer to:  How could something like this happen?  Communities are left with many questions that cannot be easily answered, such as, who is to blame, how can this be prevented, and will it happen again.  I do not think that there is one exact answer to any of these questions.  There are far too many factors to consider.  Some feel that this instances occur because the perpetrator has some sort of psychological issues.  Others blame the media, feeling that violent video games, movies, and music cause people to act out.  Many also think that this happens because the culprit does not feel socially accepted at school, or emotionally accepted at home. 

            Although these all may play a part in why rampage violence happens, it may also have to do with the committers seeing how much attention is brought forward from previous cases of rampage violence.   Acts of violence, such as rampage violence, get exposed all over the internet and news stations, attracting attention from all over to the tragedy that had occurred.  Maybe those seeking attention are aware that these acts of violence are capable of attracting such wide schemes of attention, even though it is so negative. 

            The article, “Mass murder, shooting sprees and rampage violence: Research roundup”, written by John Wihbey, discusses the sad reality that is, much knowledge is not known about why rampage violence occurs.  The article stated, “Though much speculation is offered in the media immediately afterward, scholars often note the limits of existing knowledge”.  Because not much is known, it is extremely hard to find patterns.  I think that this is a good reason to start going into schools and teaching administrations and staff what to do when an incident like this occurs, since it is not something that can easily be prevented.

Resources:

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/mass-murder-shooting-sprees-and-rampage-violence-research-roundup#

Whibey, John.  “Mass murder, shooting sprees and rampage violence: Research roundup”.  2014.  Web.

Newman, Katherine. “Rampage: The Social Roots Of School Shootings”. New York. 2004.  Pages 3-73.  Web.   

Cultural Flexibility

In Stubborn Roots: Race, Culture, and Inequality in U.S. and South African Schools, Prudence Carter evaluates the ways in which students develop a sense of “cultural flexibility,” which she defines as a “social and psychological process” (116) that describes a student’s tendency to navigate across peer groups belonging to different cultural or social settings.  Carter contends that schools play a principal role in this development because they provide a site for the creation of social organizations, or peer relations, and mixing of cultures.  After collecting data from four schools, Carter states that schools effectively encourage a student’s cultural flexibility through individual, social, and outside factors. 

Similarly, James Coleman’s outside-in approach, with which the context of the situation and social organizations are first examined, showed that peer cliques in schools provide students with social support through a subculture (a collection of practices and beliefs that differ from the mainstream adult culture).  Coleman concludes that the achievement gap, which refers to the discrepancy of standardized test scores between different classes and races, cannot be explained only by a school’s resources, but must be understood by taking into account differences in culture, such as a student’s parents’ academic backgrounds.  In fact, “even if a segregated school provides a solid education, studies suggest, students are at a disadvantage” (New York Times).  This is partially due to a lack of diversity that would allow for cultural diffusion, the spreading of practices from one social group to another.  Furthermore, Carter finds that “1) the context of feeling personally and collectively secure, 2) social relationships influenced by academic course placement… and 3) societal norms and enduring practices regarding intergroup contact, specifically racial and ethnic interactions” (105) are the most important factors that must be considered.  Therefore, if schools are the settings in which students become comfortable with their identity, create friendships, and interact with students of different backgrounds, then they prove to be an essential component to the extent in which its student are culturally flexible, regardless of resource or economical differences.

After dividing the four schools into either majority-white or majority-minority, Carter finds that the Black students who were most prone to cultural flexibility were those in the majority-minority schools, in which these students had a higher self-esteem and confidence due to their exposure to the cultures of other minority groups when forming social relationships.  As a result, a student with a high self-esteem and who is socially confident in a diverse school will be most likely to be culturally flexible.  Carter’s concept of cultural flexibility is reminiscent of “multicultural navigation,” another term she helped to conceptualize, which implies that youth are more likely to be successful if they are able to navigate across both youth-centered and adult-centered cultures as well as across different cultures.

Resources

Carter, Prudence L. "Cultural Flexibility: The (Un)Making of Multicultural Navigators."

Stubborn Roots: Race, Culture, and Inequality in U.S. and South African Schools. New

York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.

"How Often Do You Interact With People of Another Race or Ethnicity?" The New York Times.

18 May 2012. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/

america-is-more-diverse-than-ever-but-is-your-life-integrated/>.

A Coleman Approach to Prevention

It is quite interesting that Katherine Newman, in her book “rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings,” suggests an approach to preventing mass school shootings that parallels James Coleman’s “Social Network Approach” to transforming youth educational values. Throughout her first three chapters, she weaves in examples to suggest that youth in their social context, particularly in schools and between their peers, is a major factor that must be studied in order to prevent mass-shootings. She suggests a deeper sociological scheme of using peer group knowledge to manipulate the chances that a rampage shooting might occur. Although this is not a central theme to her first three chapters, she still implies that these incidences can not be reduced to any risk-factor model. In doing so, she supports her claim that a more sociological, peer-context-based course of action makes sense. However, because her approach is at the same time adult-centered, it can unfortunately give credibility to high security systems which are already in place in American schools.

How can we relate Newman and Coleman? At the end of her first chapter, Newman informs the reader that she will “take a close look at the underside of adolescent life, at the pressures teenagers generate in one another to climb atop the social pecking order and stay there, policing the boundaries of popularity against “wannabes” (20-21). She further says that the exclusion and harassment maintained by a social pyramid is the reason why shooters must make a large statement like a rampage on school grounds (21). This is very similar to David Coleman’s stress on youth cliques within schools as an explanation for an individual student’s educational attainment and success. He places more emphasis on peer relationships than on parental guidance because he recognizes the fact that youth spend most of their time at school and with their peers, not at home and with their parents. In the same way, Newman uses the example of Michael Carneal to show that family dynamics at home may only be part of the explanation for a school shooting; parents can not be blamed entirely. In fact, it is at school where Michael is ridiculed, teased, bullied, measured up to his older sister Kelly, and constantly searching for a place to fit in, like with the “goths.” Ironically, his parents made conscious efforts  to treat both siblings equally. Although Newman describes an early schema he had developed which made him fearful of attack, it is apparent that throughout his time in school, his peers worked to aggravate this schema, while adults and administrators did not pay attention. Of a school gossip column which implied that Michael was gay, Newman writes solemnly, “Few people realized what the one-liner in the school paper cost Michael emotionally” (28). Newman highlights the fact that adults don’t know what goes on between youth at school, and I believe that it is suggestive for her prevention theory which relates to Coleman’s solution for improving education.

 
At the very end of her first chapter Newman explains that she will conclude her book with what she believes to be the “best bet” for prevention of rampage school shootings. Contrary to mainstream ideas, she claims that prediction can not be obtained solely  through prevention methods, such as mental health measures, but by “intercepting the flow of information when the threats fly” (21). She believes that is possible for adults to pierce into the “fiercely private world of adolescents” in order to extract the information adults need in order to predict a school shooting before its too late (21). This adult-centered view is just like Coleman in his argument that school administrators have the ability to study youth cliques in order to target opinion leaders who then have the  power to align peer views and values for education with those of adults. What came to mind immediately after this statement, is how today police officers are in schools not only as symbols of crime-fighters, but also to build relationships with youth and extract important information from them in order to prevent crime on (and off) campus.Perhaps this can be an example of what Newman suggests. We saw in Kupchik’s book how some officers genuinely made attempts to go into the adolescent world, either by acting like adolescent themselves or through personal advising. Nonetheless, we must still be wary of adult-centered perspectives such as these, for as the Rand Corporation reports: “the presence of uniformed officers can, in fact, breed a sense of mistrust among students and hence adversely affect school climate” (Jaana Juvonen).

 

Although is is important for administrators to monitor peer relationships, it is equally if not more important for them to respond to youth misbehavior in a way that searches for causes and solutions in order to effectively identify students with problems that could lead up to a mass shooting. Extracting information from peer groups should not necessarily be the end.

Sources:

Newman, Katherine. rampage: The Social Roots Of School Shootings. New York. 2004.  Pages 3-73.

Jaana Juvonen. “School Violence:Prevalence, Fears, and Prevention”. Rand Corporation. 16 April 2014. Web. http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP219/index2.html

Lecture notes on David Coleman 3/6

To Soft on Youth?

Although rampage school shootings are statistically rare scholars, the media, and government have sought to understand the mystery of what causes these tragedies. Katherine S. Newman in her work “rampage: the social roots of school shootings” defines rampage school shootings as involving “multiple victims”, involving one or more shooters “who are students or former students”, and most importantly occurs on a “school-related public stage before an audience”. Additionally she argues, suburbs are more susceptible to foster such phenomenon  due it’s geographical isolation and excessive privatization of life. In essence, the very virtuous which made suburbs “the suburb” have ironically fostered an environment were troubled youth are less susceptible to be helped early on and more likely to have their threats go unnoticed due to the communities inability “...to communicate among themselves about the problems brewing in their midst” (276). From this outside-in perspective Newman challenges popular interpretations which contend children perpetrators “just snapped”.  

The stage of youth has historically been regarded as a vulnerable transition period in which youth are attempting to make sense of their role in society. As such adolescence is an important stage in which society seeks to align, or realign if necessary, youth’s character in the the name of society. Indeed, our current legal system is reflective of this as it deems youth as having diminished culpability and greater capacity to be reinstituted to society. Albeit, from an inside-out approach it makes sense to hold criminals like Michael Carney, Mitchell Johnson, and Andrew Golden less legally culpable for their actions on the basis of their suffering from bullying and heightened sensitivity to rejection. However, at the same time given the premeditated nature of these shooters acts one cannot help but ask if the law being too soft on youth criminals? Surely, at the general level one does not advocate for the strict implementation of zero-tolerance policies which have been proven to hurt more than benefit youth; yet, in instances of heightened violence it is inconceivable to allow youth to shirk the responsibility of their actions.   

Undoubtedly, the complexity of rampage school shootings cannot be understood  by simply looking at the cognitive development of youth perpetrators but rather must be understood in conjunction with the temporal context.  I agree with Newman’s analysis that peer support, whether genuine or not, can lead to youth violence. In this sense, it aligns with Coleman's idea that the best way to realign the youth subculture is through peer influence.

Rampage Shootings

In Katherine S. Newman’s Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, she researches two rampage shootings and details the accounts from witnesses and the young shooters themselves.  The reading also gives a background of who the shooters were and tries to figure out what were the reasons for the rampage.  Newman’s research delves back into the concept of youth-as-objects-of-saving-and-study and highlights the importance of paying more attention to signs of trouble within youth.

The reading details two different rampage school shootings as well as defines what is considered to be a rampage shooting.  According to Newman, a rampage shooting must, “take place on a school-related public stage before an audience; involve multiple victims, some of whom are shot simply for their symbolic significance or at random; and involve on or more shooters who are students or former students of the school (Newman, 2004).”  Acts of revenge are not considered rampage shootings according to Newman.  Her analysis in chapter 2 of the shooters reflects the first half of the semester where youth were considered as objects of saving and study.  Her findings show that though there was no way of really telling, if the parents, teachers, or faculty paid closer attention to the signs, then the shootings could have possibly been prevented.  This takes us back to the theory that youth are objects of saving and study because it shows us that if we study the youth more carefully, then we can save them from committing such violent acts.  Though rampage shootings are rare, it is still a threat to society that should be carefully observed.

In chapter 2, Newman lays out the signs of trouble within the youth and in chapter 3 she discusses all the potential reasons that lead youth to commit this type of crime.  Researchers observed that though there is a higher crime rate among inner city youth, most of these rampage shootings were done by white suburban boys who mostly grew up comfortably.  Newman also focuses on the fact that the shooters were subject to some sort of rejection from their peers or felt the need to impress them.  However, this is not always the case.  In an article posted by USA Today, Greg Toppo discusses the events of the Columbine shooting and described the two boys as the bullies, versus being bullied like in the accounts in Newman’s research.  These two completely different descriptions of personalities behind shooters reiterates the fact that youth need to be closely watched by adults. 

Rampage shootings at schools relight the fire in adults that youth need to be saved and in order to save them must study them and protect them at all cost. In light of these tragedies schools sought to increasing their security, seeing that as one of the best measures they could do to protect the youth.  However some researchers such as Kupchik would disagree with the concept of increasing security, arguing that schools are already one of the safest places youth can be.  Society today still struggles with the crippling question of what we should do with youth.

Newman, Katherine. 2004 Pp. 3-73 and 335-347 in Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. NY: Basic Books

Toppo, Greg. "10 Years Later, The Real Story Behind Columbine." USA Today 14 4 2009, n. pag. Print.

attention to "school- to- prison pipeline"

                  In Homeroom Security, Aaron Kupchik delineates the effects of contemporary school discipline. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2010, there were about 17 school associated violent deaths and 828,000 nonfatal violence at school among students between the age of twelve and eighteen. The statistics of school violence are staggering in which tightening school security should be beneficial for the safety of students. Yet, Kupchik argues that prevention measures are counterproductive because the security measures do not address the root cause of school violence. I agree with Kupchik that the punishment practices “ ignore real problems in an attempt to punish rather than correct misbehavior (5).” There is a strong emphasis on enforcing the rules, and teachers and administrators have systematically ignored why the students misbehave. It may not be intentional, but it is important to identify the risk-factors for youth violence. these are students- not criminals.

At-risk students face a greater risk to be punished in school. Kupchik points to the uneven distribution of punishments and states, “ low- income students and youth of color are more likely than middle- income and white youth to be punished in school (8).” The racial disparity in school discipline is apparent, and there should be new guidelines on school punishment and student- teacher relations.

             American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has called attention to “ school- to- prison pipeline” since it is pervasive throughout the entire educational system. Contemporary school practices disproportionately target students of color and those with disabilities; they are far too often suspended, expelled, or arrested for minor violations such as disrupting the class and school uniform violations. Education Secretary Arne Duncan wrote that data show black students were three times more likely than whites to be suspended or expelled (Bratu 2014).  These disadvantaged youth are most likely raised from poor and violent neighborhood, and these harmful practices increase the chances for those who are suspended or expelled to be involved with the juvenile and criminal justice system.  Youth are exceptionally susceptible to negative influences in their environment, and they could not afford to be denied of an education. In lecture, Professor Morrill mentioned that students who are academically at risk would become morally at risk by which it aligns with “ school- to prison pipeline”. Hence, the zealous policing efforts only worsen their problems and strip away their opportunities for a brighter future. Effective discipline is necessary; however, it is important to address the devastating affects of unfair school practices especially when they are depriving youth of opportunities for education.

Kupchik, Aaron. Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear. New York, NY: New York UP, 2010. Print.

Bratu, Becky Obama administration takes aim at cutting racial disparity in school discipline, NBC News, Jan 8th, 2014.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/08/22231509-obama-administration-takes-aim-at-cutting-racial-disparity-in-school-discipline?lite

Are the New Security Measures Decreasing the Number of In-School Shootings?

In recent years the traditional and trustful security system of schools in the US has been the topic of continuous discussions and debates. Following the rampage shootings of the late 1990s and early 2000s, many schools have adopted new and moderns security measures, such as the presence of law-enforcement officers on campus, requiring ID cards to enter the vicinity and high-tech security cameras installed at every corner. As the seemingly safer and stricter practices are put in broader use around the country, their effectiveness and usefulness are closely followed and scrutinized. While some agree with the government and believe that the new security system will decrease the use of weapons and violence in schools, others criticize its negligence in addressing the real problem—what causes students to turn to rampage shootings.

            Katherine Newman discusses the causes of rampage shootings in US schools in her book “rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings”. She believes that it is the convergence of many psychological and social factors that drive a troubled student to such an act. Newman believes that while the popular explanations of rampage shootings—mental illness, temporary insanity, family problems, bullying, peer support, gun availability, violent media, etc.—are all viable factors, none of them alone could affect a student enough to make him turn to mass shootings in his school. Considering Newman’s theory, it seems obvious that increased security measures are not the solution to the problem.

            In fact, PBS reports that despite the heightened security in US schools, the number of on campus shootings has not decreased. While policies, such as training law enforcers on campus to take down the “active shooter” in a timely manner, ensures a decrease in the number of injured students and teachers, it in no way tries to understand and prevent such acts.  With the new budget plan, Congress has set aside an increased amount of money to promote safer school environments. This will mainly be used to train law-enforcement officers to take posts on campuses and install security checkpoints. However, again the emotions and mental state of distressed students are placed as a secondary issue. Education Secretary Arne Duncan believes the new system to be successful in making schools more secure and safe. On the other hand, he believes that: “This is a societal problem, it’s not a school problem.”(PBS) Therefore, it is hard to solve a cultural problem with just an increase in security.

            Rampage shootings are not common. Yet, even the small number of incidents points to some shortcomings in our educational and social system. Though improving security measures is certainly essential and helpful, there is a necessity to examine and address the sources of the violent acts. Perhaps, paying closer attention to students’ mental shape would reduce the aggression. After all, as Newman points out, the shooter-students usually demonstrate early signs of trouble and psychological instability. Instead of focusing all forces towards security, benefitting the future of youth should be top priority.

Sources:

Newman, Katherine. rampage: The Social Roots Of School Shootings. New York. 2004.   Pages 3-73.

PBS. Hefling, Kimberly. “Despite increased security, school shootings continue.” Washington. February 2, 2014. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/despite-increased-security-school-shootings-continue/