|
||||||||
(Vol 13: #5) February 15, 2008
08.7 SAFETY AND SECURITY
The NIU rampage shootings
Details about the rampage shootings at Northern Illinois University are just beginning to emerge. The Chicago Tribune is providing comprehensive coverage:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-niu-gunman_webfeb15,0,1760508.story?page=1
Please turn to an index of relevant TPR articles at:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfdpvzp9_5734mkdxrgk
Points to remember:
[1] Rampage shootings are almost always suicides. Suicide prevention is violence prevention. See our overview of the United States Air Force Suicide Prevention program at:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfdpvzp9_604fkcb4wgm
[2] The copycat phenomenon is real:
The year 2000 FBI report "The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective" (National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Federal Bureau of Investigation) ("FBI") contains the following observation:See: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfdpvzp9_407cm9zj7School shootings and other violent incidents that receive intense media attention can generate threats or copycat violence elsewhere. Copycat behavior is very common . . . Anecdotal evidence strongly indicates that threats increase in schools nationwide after a shooting has occurred anywhere in the United States. Students, teachers, school administrators and law enforcement officials should be more vigilant in noting disturbing student behavior in the days and weeks or even several months following a heavily publicized incident elsewhere in the country (emphasis supplied).
[3] 'Profiling" is not the answer. The 2003 National Research Council [NRC] report Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence (a project undertaken by the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine) contains the following guidance:
There is no accurate or useful profile of "the school shooter" (Emphasis supplied) . . .
* Attacker ages ranged from 11–21.
* They came from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. In nearly one-quarter of the cases, the attackers were not white.
* They came from a range of family situations, from intact families with numerous ties to the community to foster homes with histories of neglect.
* The academic performance ranged from excellent to failing.
* They had a range of friendship patterns from socially isolated to popular.
* Their behavioral histories varied, from having no observed behavioral problems to multiple behaviors warranting reprimand and/or discipline.
* Few attackers showed any marked change in academic performance, friendship status, interest in school, or disciplinary problems prior to their attack . . .
Attempting to "profile" likely shooters creates a climate of fear and distrust. A climate of fear and distrust discourages students from "breaking the wall of silence" and telling school officials about peers who may be at risk.
[4] A better approach is threat assessment by trained professionals. See:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfdpvzp9_584fpwx97d3
[5] Culture, gender, and self-image matter. See Katherine S. Newman, Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings (New York, 2004):
[6] Consider providing pertinent written guidance to faculty members. See our suggested "Memorandum to the Faculty":
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfdpvzp9_77drxxc7
__________________________________________________
[4] A better approach is threat assessment by trained professionals. See:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfdpvzp9_584fpwx97d3
[5] Culture, gender, and self-image matter. See Katherine S. Newman, Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings (New York, 2004):
The shooters appear to be working from widely available cultural scripts that glorify violent masculinity. Most of the shooters were suicidal, a fact that must be kept in mind when we think of prevention . . .Most expect to die at their own hands or at the hands of others. The shootings solves two problems at once: it provides them the 'exit' they are seeking and it overturns the social hierarchy, establishing once and for all that they . . .are 'gutsy and daring' . . . The problem is that they didn't just fail at popularity--they failed at the very specific task of 'manhood,' or at least they felt that way . . . (p. 269)
[6] Consider providing pertinent written guidance to faculty members. See our suggested "Memorandum to the Faculty":
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfdpvzp9_77drxxc7
__________________________________________________
08.8 ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Editor's note: A small percentage of TPR articles (about i in 5) will appear concurrently in our sister publication The Law and Policy Report. The overlap occurs when the topic pertains primarily to student conduct and ethical development. The following Law and Policy Report article has been expanded for TPR readers.
Academic Integrity and Cultural Diversity
A February 10, 2008 New York Times article reported on the rapid growth in programs conducted by American universities for students overseas ("U.S. Universities Rush to Set Up Outposts Abroad)." The topic brought to mind an article we wrote years ago for Synfax Weekly Report on "Academic Integrity and Cultural Diversity." An expanded version of that article follows--with updated statistics and examples in our "Resources" section.
__________________________________________________
A sensitive issue academic administrators occasionally discuss among themselves is the perceived unwillingness of many students from various non-Western cultures to adhere to standards of academic integrity set by most American colleges and universities. One can start with observations made in the 1970s that "Iranian students simply don't think cheating is wrong" and substitute the names of different nationalities, based on international student enrollment patterns. Similar observations are being made today about students from India and China.
Most of us try to avoid stereotypes, but stereotypes often contain a kernel of truth. It may be, for example, that a carefully designed study could demonstrate that students from different cultures are more (or less) willing than American students to engage in academic dishonesty.
Years ago we saw an article related to this topic in the Washington Post ("Indian Children Cheat to Survive," April 17, 1993, p. A14). The author reported that "[I]n India cheating on school exams has become a national epidemic . . . Police are routinely posted in most government schools during examination periods--and schools where cheating is not reported makes newspaper headlines." Circumstances don't seem significantly different in 2008, as seen in a February 2, 2008 article in India eNews titled "Denied 'right' to cheat, students go on rampage:"
After the local administration including police officials deployed at the examination centre did not allow the [law student] examinees to carry books . . . and mobile phones into the exam hall, the students turned violent, shouted slogans and boycotted the exam . . .
Bihar Education Minister Brishen Patel said that the government would not allow the students to cheat in the exams . . . Protesting students justified their action by saying that not a single class had been held during the whole year . . .
In Sasaram, students boycotted the exam for the second consecutive day. Students there had turned violent Friday and some shots were also fired in the air by the mob to terrorise the college staff. Later the mob set ablaze the office and other classrooms in the college.
In Bihar cheating in examinations is rampant and action by authorities to stop this practice has often led to violent protests.
Widespread examination cheating in India, according to the original Washington Post story, was associated with failings in the educational system:
The competition for education to get jobs--and therefore to survive--is elevated to an intensity unmatched in western societies. In even the mediocre colleges, only 2 percent of the applicants are accepted. In the job force competition is even more vicious. Last year, for example, 100,000 aspirants applied to take exams for 820 positions in the Indian government civil service.
'Cheating is just a symptom of all that's wrong with the school system,' said Kanwaldeep Singh, education reporter for the Indian Express, a New Delhi newspaper. . . 'without attempting to justify it, cheating has become a necessity.'
It may be true that many students educated in Indian schools have developed the habit of engaging in academic dishonesty. Nonetheless, American academic administrators need to distinguish between the moral standards affirmed by most societies and social conditions that might induce individuals to violate those standards. Consider again the statement from Indian Express reporter Kanwaldeep Singh: "without attempting to justify it," he said, "cheating has become a necessity."
Mr. Singh would not "justify" cheating on moral grounds. He couldn't, consistent with the values of his own culture.
India has a substantial Hindu population. One of the values of the Hindu faith is summarized by the following statement from a sacred Hindu text (Janet, I. 6.) cited by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man (p. 112):
A sacrifice is obliterated by a lie and the merit of alms by an act of fraudActs of lying and fraud, in other words, are considered just as wrong in India as they are anywhere else.
It's intellectually sloppy to jump to the conclusion that different cultures have fundamentally different definitions of virtue. Consistent with our common human origins, there's substantial agreement among peoples of the world about the basic virtues-- trust, self-restraint, and reciprocity--needed to live in social communities (see, e.g. Steven Pinker, "What Makes Us Want to be Good?: How evolutionary psychology and neurobiology are changing our understanding of what morality is," January 13, 2008 New York Times Magazine, p. 32). What's "relative" are social conditions, including conditions that could tempt even the most honorable individuals to commit acts they know are wrong.
____________________________________________________
08.9 READINGS:
Editor's note: readings in this issue pertain to the theme in our lead article on academic integrity and cultural diversity. We're especially pleased to introduce a blog written by Hunter Pavela (your editor's son) who is in Beijing studying Chinese language and culture on a scholarship awarded by the People's Republic of China.
All our readings focus on the common observation that people from China are more "collective-minded" than people living in Western societies. The observation seems apt, but can be mistakenly and simplistically applied as a universal moral ideal. But what are the social implications in any society if "collective thinking" is limited to small affiliated groups? Government officials in China (like their counterparts in other parts of the world) seem understandably concerned.
Our final reading questions the stereotype of Americans as feckless individualists. A defining characteristic of American society is the capacity for voluntary association.
________________________________________________________________________
[a] Peter Hessler: Collectivism in China is limited to small groups
____________________________________________________
From Peter Hessler, River Town:Two Years on the Yangtze (Harper, 2006). River Town--an account of Mr. Hessler's experience as a Peace Corps volunteer in China-- is a New York Times "Notable Book."
My students often wrote about how the Chinese were collective-minded, which inspired them to help each other through Socialism, while the individualistic Americans followed the selfish road of Capitalism.
I didn't agree that our countries' political differences were so neatly (and morally) explained by these contrasting attitudes toward the individual and the group. But I felt that the stereotype was more accurate with regard to close social networks of families and friends. The families I knew in Fuling were arguably closer than the average in America, because individual members were less self-centered. They were remarkably generous with each other and often this selflessness extended to good friends, who were also drawn into tight social circles. Collective thought was particularly good for the elderly, who were much better cared for than in America. In Fuling I never saw older people abandoned in retirement homes . . .
But such collectivism was limited to small groups, to families and close friends and danwei or work units, and these tight social circles also acted as boundaries: they were exclusive as well as inclusive, and the average Fuling resident appeared to feel little identification with people outside of his well-known groups. In daily life I saw countless examples of this sort of thought. The most common was the hassle of ticket lines, which weren't lines as much as piles, great pushing mobs in which every person fought forward with no concern for anybody else. It was a good example of collective thought, but not in the way my students said. Collectively the mobs had one single idea--that tickets must be purchased--but nothing else held them together, and so each individual made every effort to fulfill his personal goal as quickly as possible. p. 111.
_____________________________________________________
[B] Hunter Pavela: "Individual, 'me first' ideas . . .make it more likely I’ll receive help on the street in America than in China."
_____________________________________________________
From Hunter Pavela's blog "The Beijing Factor"
From The Holiday Express
While most Chinese people at the [train] station lined up in a relatively orderly fashion, there were always thirty or forty people, who upon entering the station and seeing the line, decided their time was too valuable to waste. As such, they would run up to the window and literally try to squeeze themselves in front of the sales window. What surprised me wasn’t that fights broke out because of this behavior. That seems perfectly natural to me. . . What surprised me were the reactions of bystanders and security guards, who would rather blithely watch the proceedings as one or two men or women exchanged blows, [no one] deigning to interfere or offer help . . .
This state of affairs was a stark contrast with my experiences in the United States. I doubt there would be nearly as many people attempting to cut in line in a crowded train station back home, thus reducing the number of fights. Moreover, if a fight did break out, I would be reasonably confident that nearby security guards or bystanders would intervene. It’s in our nature as Americans, after all, to intervene in other people’s business.
However, the differences in my experiences of the two countries left me a small philosophical dilemma that I mulled over as I stood in line. I had some Chinese friends who told me that China was different from America in that its culture valued collectivism over individualism, and that people in China put the value of the society over the value of the individual. They said such beliefs were rooted in the Confucian underpinnings of Chinese society.
How then, could they explain the difference in behavior? In an ironic twist, it seems to me that it is exactly those individual, "me first" ideas that make it more likely I’ll receive help on the street in America than in China. As someone who upholds the right of individuals and sees them as crucial to the functioning of society, I can put myself in that hurt man's position. If I had been attacked by someone who had cut me in line, I would want to be helped. Therefore I’d like to think I’m much more likely to offer that help. In fact, I would be outraged to see someone unaided in a similar situation in America. In the Chinese mindset, if you’re not friend or family, then why should help be offered? You have no connection to them personally, and so your suffering is of no real importance.
http://www.bjfactor.blogspot.com/
_____________________________________________________
[c] Edward Cody: "Eight-Step Program For What Ails China."
_____________________________________________________
From Edward Cody, "Eight-Step Program For What Ails China," Washington Post, March 23, 2006; A16:
BEIJING -- On bus-stop billboards, newspaper front pages and television news broadcasts, in school classrooms, factory study groups and student counseling sessions, at forums and meetings all across China, the Communist Party propaganda apparatus has been spreading the word from President Hu Jintao: Do good and avoid evil.
Hu's fatherly advice, in the form of eight do's and don'ts, was issued two weeks ago as an antidote to the corruption and cynicism spreading across China, a result of the often raw capitalism that has emerged during 25 years of dramatic economic change. Although his aphorisms may sound simplistic to Western ears -- "Work hard, don't be lazy" and "Be honest, not profit-mongering" -- Chinese analysts said they are a response to a deep-seated desire among people here for a moral compass to guide them through the unsettling transformation.
8 Do's and Don'ts
- Love the motherland, do not harm it.
- Serve, don't disserve the people.
- Uphold science, don't be ignorant and unenlightened.
- Work hard, don't be lazy.
- Be united and help each other, don't benefit at the expense of others.
- Be honest, not profit-mongering.
- Be disciplined and law-abiding, not chaotic and lawless.
- Know plain living and hard struggle, do not wallow in luxuries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202042.html
_____________________________________________________
[d] Core ethical principles in traditional China
_____________________________________________________
"The ancients who wished to manifest their clear character to the world would first bring order to their states. Those who wished to bring order to their states would first regulate their families. Those who wished to regulate their families would first regulate their personal lives. Those who wished to cultivate their personal lives would first rectify their minds. Those who wished to rectify their minds would first make their wills sincere. Those who wished to make their wills sincere would first extend their knowledge. The extension of knowledge consists in the investigation of things. When things are investigated, knowledge is extended; when knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere; when the will is sincere, the mind is rectified; when the mind is rectified, the personal life is cultivated; when the personal life is cultivated, the family will be regulated; when the family is regulated, the state will be in order; when the state is in order there will be peace throughout the world. From the son of heaven down to the common people, all must regard cultivation of the personal life as the root or foundation. There is never a case when the root is in disorder and yet the branches are in order."
Confucius , "The Great Learning" in Wing-Tsit Chan, A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, 1963) p.86-87.]
_____________________________________________________
[e] The American capacity for association
_____________________________________________________
Americans can also be "collective-minded" as the need arises. Indeed, Tocqueville saw "voluntary association" as a defining American characteristic.
The results can be prodigious, especially in a crisis. Consider this account in Evan Thomas' book Sea of Thunder: Four Commanders and the Last Great Naval Campaign 1941-1945 (Simon and Schuster, 2006):
In the panicky hours after Peal Harbor [in 1941] Admiral [William] Halsey had sullied forth in a task force that consisted of one carrier, three cruisers, and nine destroyers.This fleet was created in the Pacific while America was also engaged in a war in Europe. Production and military coordination on such a scale require cultural traits emphasizing cooperation and teamwork as well as individual initiative and creativity.
Now, two years and nine months later, he commanded the largest, most powerful fleet of warships ever assembled: eighteen carriers, six battleships, seventeen cruisers, and sixty four destroyers. The only limit on the reach and endurance of the Big Blue Fleet [Third Fleet] was human exhaustion. By a miracle of ingenuity the At-Sea Logistics Services Group--some thirty four fleet oilers, protected by eleven small escort carriers, nineteen destroyers, and twenty-six smaller destroyer escorts--a giant floating Texas oilfield--accompanied the Third Fleet, delivering the two to three million barrels of oil and three to four million barrels of aviation gasoline it needed every month . . .
Halsey's fleet was so vast that he could not see it all. Stretched out across the Pacific in regular cruising formation, the 200-odd ships of the Third Fleet occupied an area forty miles long and nine miles wide . . . (pp. 151-152)
|
|
||||
|
||||
