|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Students arrested in Wisconsin: why the desperation among
young people in the US?
By David Walsh
27 November 1998
Three boys, ages 15 and 16, remain in custody in Racine County
juvenile detention center in Wisconsin, charged with conspiracy
to murder a dozen or more of their classmates, as well as school
officials. The three were among five Burlington, Wisconsin high
school students detained by police November 15.
Two of the five allegedly dropped out of the plot and were
released after questioning. One of these teenagers has insisted
in interviews that the conspiring was not for real.
The five youth dress in a distinctive style, call themselves
"Goths" (short for "Gothics") and are devotees
of music groups like Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson. They
apparently felt they were picked on because of their looks and
tastes in the small town of 9,500, some 30 miles southwest of
Milwaukee.
One of the youth told reporters that the plotting was simply
a means of getting revenge through fantasy. According to the account
he gave USA Today, the scheme was fed by "one boy's
anger that he was being sent to a foster home in northern Wisconsin
... The others participated in the discussions 'mostly to make
him feel good.'"
Burlington police maintain that the group of boys had planned
to cut telephone lines, take the assistant principal hostage and
then look up the records of their intended victims and track them
down. According to the town's police chief, some of the suspects
said they planned to remain at the school after the killings and
"force a shootout with police or commit suicide." Prosecutor
Richard Barta also said the teenagers described their plot as
a suicide mission.
How real was this alleged conspiracy? It's impossible to say.
Given the record of police departments and prosecutors in the
US, there is good reason to be skeptical of the police version.
One might also make the point that for adolescents as unhappy
as these five apparently were, the boundary between fantasy and
reality is somewhat tenuous.
Whether or not the plot was genuine, however, the Burlington
incident raises many questions, the first being: in what sort
of society is such a grisly act not only possible, but, to a certain
extent, anticipated?
Let us recall the events of the past year or so: last October
a 17-year-old student shot and killed two classmates and wounded
seven others in Pearl, Mississippi; in December 1997 another high
school student opened fire on a prayer circle in West Paducah,
Kentucky, killing three girls; in March 1998, four students and
a teacher died in an ambush, allegedly carried out by two young
boys in a suburb of Jonesboro, Arkansas. Two students were shot
to death in May at a school in Springfield, Oregon. There were
two more attacks at schools in California. In all, sixteen people
died and dozens were wounded in attacks by youngsters on fellow
students and teachers in the US during the 1997-98 school year.
Each tragedy was followed by a good deal of breast-beating
on the part of politicians, newspaper editors and other establishment
figures. The most dire pronouncements come from Christian fundamentalists,
who attribute the killings to a turn away from God and a general
moral decline. The more traditional right-wing ideologues blame
several decades of supposed liberal "permissiveness"
and the absence of individual responsibility. Liberal-minded commentators
may point to the prevalence of guns, or to some broader, but inexplicable
social process. Oddly, the latter group is often the most complacent,
inclined to believe that society as a whole is essentially healthy.
This is the position of Bill Clinton and the Democrats. On
August 27 Clinton devoted a speech to the issue and unveiled a
national guide on school violence, entitled Early Warning--Timely
Response: A Guide to Safe Schools. (It was on this occasion
that Richard W. Riley, Clinton's Secretary of Education, made
the remarkable statement that "Schools remain among the safest
places for young people." It didn't occur to Riley that in
a healthy society no one would feel the need to make such an assertion.)
In October the President addressed a day-long conference at the
White House on the subject. At the latter function, basing himself
on a study his administration had commissioned, he asserted that
the problem might be smaller than last year's outbreak had led
people to believe.
Nonetheless, Clinton told an audience of school administrators
and law enforcement officials, "We know that there are still
some schools where children are afraid to go to school. ... What
is at the bottom of this and what can we do?" The answer,
he suggested, was a better understanding of social problems in
the US, not punishment.
In quintessential Clinton fashion, after offering this relatively
civilized appraisal, he went on to explain that "security
has to be the top priority" and outlined a $65 million plan
to "help schools hire and train 2,000 new community police
and school resource officers" to develop anti-violence and
anti-drug programs.
This is the general approach currently taken to school violence:
platitudes, followed by more police measures.
Following the October gathering, Rep. Bill Goodling (R-Pennsylvania),
chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, criticized
the Democrats for allegedly holding up legislation that would
require harsher penalties for juveniles who commit violent crimes.
In this spirit the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, following
a shooting at a school dance in the town of Edinboro, unanimously
passed bills in October toughening penalties for assaulting teachers
and providing schools $80 million to step up security.
The various officially-sanctioned studies on school violence
tend to fall into one of these two categories--bromides and truisms,
on the one hand; repression and trampling on democratic rights,
on the other--or both. A brochure issued jointly by the American
Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics,
Raising Children to Resist Violence, observes sagely that
"Research has shown that violent or aggressive behavior is
often learned early in life." Its "Suggestions for Dealing
With Children," include "Give your children consistent
love and attention," "Show your children appropriate
behavior by the way you act," "Make sure your children
do not have access to guns" and "Try to keep your children
from seeing violence in the home or community." As "An
Extra Suggestion for Adults," it advises "Take care
of yourself and your community." This may be well-intentioned,
but it reminds one sadly of the old joke about the psychiatrist
who tells a patient suffering from anxiety that the solution is
to relax.
Along with its expressions of concern for the troubled child,
Early Warning--Timely Response, the guide issued by the
Clinton administration, devotes considerable space to the use
of undercover agents to combat drug use in schools. It includes
sections on "Proper Selection and Training of Agents,"
"Agent Enrollment in School," "The Bust" and
"After the Bust."
A document written jointly by the National Association of Attorneys
General and the National School Boards Association, "Legal
and Policy Issues in Curbing Violence in Schools," dispenses
in large part with liberal hand-wringing. The paper discusses
the legal and constitutional implications of a variety of intrusive
measures, including "Strip Searches," "Metal Detector
Searches," "Locker Searches," "'Sniff' [canine]
Searches" and "Use of Cameras."
The repressive character of the official response does not
mean the problem of violence in the schools is not a genuine one.
Teachers, school officials and parents have legitimate concerns
about their own safety and the safety of their students and children.
An estimated one million children, grades 6 through 12, bring
a gun to school each year; 29 percent of high school boys are
estimated to possess or have access to guns of some sort. In one
study, twenty percent of all high school students reported that
they had carried a weapon (gun, knife or club) during the thirty
days preceding the survey; during the twelve months preceding
the survey, 8.4 percent of all students had been threatened or
injured with a weapon on school property.
But the seriousness of the problem should impel any thinking
person to look beyond the superficial and sensational approach
of the media and consider its sources.
The atmosphere in the schools mirrors conditions within society
at large. Many inner-city public schools--neglected, physically
decaying, starved for funds, overcrowded--are in an advanced,
nearly terminal state of decline. Prison-like conditions already
prevail. Each student is treated like a potential criminal, walking
through metal detectors to enter school, passing by armed guards
once inside.
Most of the recent shootings, however, have taken place in
suburban or semi-rural communities. Pearl is a suburb of Jackson,
Mississippi; the Arkansas shooting took place in a suburb of Jonesboro.
One news piece on the Burlington, Wisconsin incident begins "Even
in this pleasant, out-of-the-way town..."
The implied question--how could such a thing happen here?--simply
underscores how distant the media and the upper echelons of society
are from the reality of American life. Millions live in a condition
of economic insecurity unprecedented in the post-Depression era.
The strong currents of anxiety and dissatisfaction are transmitted
to the young, the most sensitive layer of the population.
Beyond the economic realm, there is the psychological and moral
state of society. Whatever else it may have produced, the era
of free-market worship has had a significant impact on the social
climate in the US.
The attempt to make financial success the principal or sole
measure of human worth, and the concerted effort to purge society
of elemental feelings of solidarity, altruism and sympathy for
the sufferings of others have had their effect. Many accept the
degradation of human values, the coldness and estrangement in
human relations as the natural and inevitable state of affairs.
(However tentative their plans may have been, the five boys in
Burlington apparently did discuss those students they wanted to
eliminate. They were looking for a painless, fast-acting solution
to their difficulties. Is this so untypical of the approach taken
to any number of problems in America? Political parties, businesses
and media outlets all have their "hit lists." Media
commentators and politicians talk glibly about eliminating foreign
foes of the US government.)
One thing is certain: great numbers of young people are deeply
unhappy in the US. Figures on teenage suicide are one indicator.
Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people,
after motor vehicle accidents and unintentional injury. From 1952
to 1992 the incidence of suicide among adolescents and young adults
tripled. In 1995, 337 youngsters 10 to 14 killed
themselves, and the rate of suicide for those under fourteen is
increasing. One young person (primarily white males) killed himself
every hour and 42 minutes in 1995. Among the young there are an
estimated 100-200 attempts for every successful suicide.
An alarming number of adolescents find life so bleak in America
that they seriously consider taking their own lives or the lives
of others. A youth who goes on a killing rampage--like the student
in Springfield, Oregon who told his captors, "Kill me! Just
kill me now!"--is, in effect, murdering himself. These mass
shootings are all "suicide missions" in one way or another.
Only a relatively small number of the most psychologically
vulnerable explode into violence, but they must emerge from a
far larger body of youth who can make no sense of themselves and
the world around them, who feel they have nothing to look forward
to. The emptiness of life when it is simply directed to the accumulation
of wealth may make itself felt more deeply, in a certain sense,
in communities that are not the most impoverished.
The political establishment cannot admit the widespread existence
of these sentiments within the younger generation. It is too much
of an indictment. Unable and unwilling to respond in a sympathetic
manner to the cries for help coming from the youth, the politicians
and self-ordained moralists reply with laws and police and prisons.
Whether or not the teenagers in Burlington were fantasizing or
not, apparently no one involved has suggested that, above all,
they need psychiatric help. No, a hearing next month will determine
whether they are to be tried as adults, as the prosecution is
requesting, thereby empowering the courts to impose far lengthier
sentences.
The trial of Luke Woodham, the Mississippi teenager who shot
and killed the two girls in Pearl, was a fairly barbaric spectacle.
On June 12 of this year a jury in Hattiesburg rejected an insanity
defense for Woodham, who is obviously disturbed, after only five
hours deliberation, and found him guilty of two counts of murder
and seven counts of aggravated assault. The judge immediately
sentenced the 17-year-old to two consecutive life sentences and
seven 20-year sentences.
As a final note. CNN did a piece on a working class high school
in Reading, Pennsylvania at which a variety of security measures
were imposed following the Edinboro shooting. The report notes
that violent incidents are down, but then adds: "The more
secure surroundings please Reading High School Principal Donald
Anticoli. Still, his wish list is different than the state's.
'If we could have smaller class sizes, more computers, more extracurricular
activities, then [students] would feel more a part of the school
and have greater success,' he told CNN."
See Also:
The shooting in Oregon
Alienation, adolescence and violence
[23 May 1998]
Twelve-year-old faces murder
charges in the US:
The system puts one of its victims on trial
[7 May 1998]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |