To the Editor:
Our condolences and thoughts are with our colleagues at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The importance of Ann Franke's commentary arguing for threat-assessment teams that reach faculty and staff concerns cannot be understated ("Guidance for Handling Tenure Denial," The Chronicle, February 15). Colleges and universities have developed student-focused teams, but it is past time to broaden the scope. Teams focused on faculty and staff members are something we need to pusher harder for, but some of the other suggestions of the commentary deserve deeper consideration.
Women are a rapidly growing violent demographic in our society, and have been for more than a decade. We should not be surprised by a female perpetrator. If we are, we're not paying enough attention. A female-perpetrated campus shooting has happened before, in Louisiana, and will happen again, with increasing frequency. Shootings by faculty members should not surprise us either, as there have been college-related shootings in Texas and most recently Georgia by faculty and staff members.
We also need to question the "tenure made me do it" media coverage, and the suggestion that softening the tenure-denial blow will help. We ought to cushion that blow for other reasons, but not because of the specter of violence—99.9 percent of those denied tenure don't kill people. Treating faculty members as "more special" than other employees only feeds the culture that makes it so politically untenable to direct campus behavioral-intervention and threat-assessment efforts to faculty and staff concerns on most college campuses.
If we subscribe to Ms. Franke's suggestion about making already overworked, understaffed counseling centers available to faculty members, we ought to provide counselors for every employee we fire. Why stop at faculty members? This idea could have merit for campuses with counseling centers, but could also perpetuate the "dump all our problems on the counseling center" mentality that has been so pervasive since Virginia Tech. It also feeds the incident-by-incident reaction model we use to address campus violence. Seung-Hui Cho brought us widespread mandated assessment. Steve Kazmierczak brought classroom and centralized door locking to the fore. Now we should revise tenure procedures because of Amy Bishop? We're reacting incident by incident rather than envisioning comprehensive prevention models that are driven by our campus culture, community, resources, and vulnerabilities, not every other campus's.
If there is anything about this shooting that is anomalous and interesting that has received no media coverage, it is that this shooting doesn't seem to fit a pattern common to almost all campus mass shootings, which is the murder-suicide pattern. Ms. Bishop called her husband after the shootings to get a ride home, did not mention the shootings, disposed of her weapon in a second-floor bathroom, and was apparently arrested coming out of the building without incident or reported resistance. Campus mass killers are usually their own last victims. Why Ms. Bishop walked out is worthy of some further exploration.
This shooting will lead to calls for criminal background checks and revised hiring practices, too. But campus shooters rarely have reportable criminal histories that would show up on a typical background screening. Criminal backgrounds are not predictive of mass shootings. Ms. Bishop's history, as reported so far, is of alleged and unproven crimes. It makes for media fodder, but may not be effective prevention.
This conversation ought to be about how we build and empower the cultures of reporting that are essential to getting red flags to those on behavioral-intervention and threat-assessment teams that can connect the dots, identify emerging patterns, and interdict them. In the coming weeks, more and more of those red flags will come out about Ms. Bishop. The disconnect on most campuses is getting that information from those who have it to those who need it.
Brett A. Sokolow
Managing Partner
National Center for Higher Education Risk Management
Malvern, Pa.
Comments
1. disaster_master - March 09, 2010 at 10:42 am
To suggest that faculty wouuld ever report or impugn the reputation of another faculty member is naive at best and absurd at least. Ms. Bishop was an arrogant, egomaniacle, leftist with radical views and I dare say mental and emotional instability. To say that counseling centers are now a dumping ground does a disservice to the vital services they provide. This is different from a stranger shooting or even an unstable student shooting. In the last month we have had students, faculty and today a staff shooting. So who watches the watchers? The bottom line is that this woman was protected by the academia she so desperately wanted to join as a full fledged member of the inner sanctum. You want to stop faculty shootings over tenure, then do away with tenure. This is a rediculous idea that if we simply provide an open avenue for reporting then everything will be fine. Anything to do with security is portrayed as intrusive and impinging on the free exchange of ideas and not facilitating an open and inviting campus. They are not mutually exclusive. Across the board training for all students, faculty and staff in how to recognize the warning signs of violence (and not ignore them because the individual is a "one of us" or other protected class), report them immediately and REMOVE them (regardless of their status or perceived "rights"), and at the very least how to protect ones self during a shooting incident are needed. Another piece is identifying behavior (including provoking speeches and gestures) that would indicate unbalance. To think that any faculty memeber would identify and report another faculty member is almost laughable, lest their own peculiar and eccentric behavior (what we expect from our faculty) be called into question. There are no easy answers but to try and paint this as simply a reporting problem doesn't identify the root causes. BY the way, try and get any faculty member to admit that they don't know everything about everything and see how far that gets you. Then try and get them to take ANY kind of training. That is why controlling people have problems accepting the uncontrollable. I have been fighting that mentality for quite a while and when you figure it out, let me know so I can stop worrying about all the students/faculty and staff that are endangered by a minute but deadly number of the unstable.
2. justme2010 - March 09, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Bishop is a nut and this had nothing to do with tenure, that was just the excuse. As a police professional with 30 years in the business, mostly out of academia, I assure you no set of procedures, screening, background investigation, etc. can stop a nut from doing what they will do.
However, there is a culture of denial and avoidance of potential problems in academia, and that does need to be addressed.
3. 22259152 - March 09, 2010 at 02:52 pm
A culture of denial contributed to this tragedy. It cannot happen here. Let's not talk about unpleasant subjects. Academia is not devoid of or immune from employee violence, spousal/dating violence, stranger violence. You cannot prepare for something that you do not acknowledge. If it does not exist, why plan? I think ivroy towers should be replaced by beaches of sand into which one can place their head. I am amazed daily by the lack of concern until something happens. Then it is an all out race to find the scapegoat. Who is responsible? Why did this happen? Just take a look around you to know that it does happen. Accept it, plan for it, remediate it. Maybe a proactive stance will save lives, becasue failure to do so just condems the rest of us to drift in the wind and to keep us vulnerable.
4. tridaddy - March 12, 2010 at 09:21 am
I wish simply reporting would work but it won't. Take for example, the numerous times a person has reported that he/she is being stalked, yet law enforcement cannot and will not do anything unless the stalker actually commits a crime. There are reasons for this inaction based in our laws. One of the problems we face now, is that we witness over reactions and a lack of sensibility because of the threat potential, i.e., a six year old is hauled into the principal's office or the police station for bring a fork or some silly like that to school. Having held administrative positions and having reported threatening behavior before, I can attest to the fact that reporting does not work, at least not as we hope it would.
5. francishamit - March 16, 2010 at 03:10 am
I spent more than 20 years in security industry "day jobs" and wrote a column for one of the trade magazines in the field for seven of them. I've done security consulting.
The best security measures are the simple ones and nosy neighbors are close to the top of the list. Better than alarm systems but not as good as outdoor lighting.
The over-reaction with six year olds is simply a form of teacher rebellion against poor parenting and being require to do things that have little to do with teaching.