The New Witch Hunt for Psycho Children

Future Serial Killers! (Image from Flickr by Ano Lobb@healthryx

Every time there is a new school massacre, school districts across the nation reevaluate, refine and retest their emergency protocols. The emphasis is always on training teachers in security procedures and identifying potential psychos—even though school shootings account for fewer than 10 deaths per year—with little or no emphasis on providing better overall mental health services for all children at school or improving the conditions they face at home and in their communities (e.g., chronic poverty or physical, mental and sexual abuse)—problems that affect thousands of children every year.

Thus it is reassuring to hear that some school districts are now looking into improving overall mental health services in their schools. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Sunday that San Francisco Unified (SFUSD) is promoting a “new nationally recognized program to identify and help at-risk students,” in which teachers use standardized questionnaires to assess their students’ mental health.  For example, teachers are asked to determine whether a student often, occasionally or rarely seems depressed.

There are, however, several significant problems with the program. First, it requires teachers to do the job of mental health experts, something for which they are unqualified and untrained. While it is possible that this is intended to be the most efficient means of evaluating every child (there are far more teachers than mental health professionals in the school systems), it is also a way for districts to continue to underfund mental health services by having relatively inexpensive teachers do the work of comparatively more expensive psychologists and psychiatrists. Thus, while there may be improvement in the identification of children with mental health needs, there will continue to be insufficient resources to help them.

Another problem is that the program is inherently biased. For example, regardless of whether the program was designed in direct response to recent school shootings, its implementation now, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, will no doubt be in the back of teachers’ minds as they complete the surveys, potentially influencing their responses. Likewise, because the surveys are subjective (teachers are asked to rate each student on how often he or she exhibits each behavior), teachers could inadvertently (or deliberately) portray a student as at-risk because he was a disruptive thorn in the teacher’s side.

As a consequence of being so vague and open-ended the questionnaires are likely to lead to many false positives. Some of the questions could be answered affirmatively for large percentages of students who are simply typical teenagers with little to no risk of ever acting violently toward their peers, themselves or teachers (e.g., Is the student defiant or oppositional to adults? Does he get angry easily? Does she disrupt class activities or have difficulty sitting still?) None of these are evidence that a student will become a school shooter or even necessarily in need of mental health intervention.

According to the Chronicle, several teachers have already been disciplined for refusing to complete the surveys.

Misguided Moralism From Both Sides of the Gun Debate

Many have questioned why it took the tragedy at Sandy Hook to jump start the debate on gun control, a massacre so horrific that even some staunchly pro-gun politicians have started to suggest that perhaps some new regulations might be in order.

"The Suicide" Edouard Manet, 

This outpouring of support for tighter gun control was due largely to the fact that the Sandy Hook massacre involved the slaughter of “innocents.” Young school children are seen by many as the most vulnerable, unsullied and worthy members of our society (unless you include unborn fetuses and the rich, whose worth to society is unquestioned).

This distinction between worthy and unworthy victims has permeated the discourse on gun control on both sides of the issue, with the focus being on how to make our schools safer (i.e., protecting the “innocents”) rather than how to make society safer or how to cut the overall social costs associated with gunshot wounds and deaths.

Yet, as tragic as it is for children to be gunned down at school, school shootings make up only a tiny fraction of the total annual gun deaths (less than 300 since 1980, or less than 10 per year). The sad reality is that tens of thousands of Americans die each year from gun violence, primarily due to suicide. In 2010, there were 19,392 gun-related suicides, or 63.6% of the total gun-related deaths, according to Wikipedia. In contrast, there were 11,078 gun-related homicides, or 36.4% of the total. Very few of the homicides occurred at schools or other public settings. Nevertheless, President Obama promised on January 16 to make our schools safer by keeping guns out of the wrong hands and improving mental health surveillance and services. Like his sanctimonious colleagues in Congress and the media, the focus is on the “innocents,” while the bulk of gun victims are ignored.

Biggest Bang for the Buck: Depression or Psychopathy?

In one sense, the discussion of better mental health monitoring and treatment is welcome. For too long mental health services have been inaccessible or unaffordable to many who need them, while prejudice and shame prevent some from attempting to obtain these services even when they are accessible.

The problem is that this aspect of the discourse has focused on almost entirely on psychopathic rampages, which account for very few gun deaths, while virtually ignoring depression, PTSD and other conditions that lead to suicide, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of gun deaths. From the perspective of cost effectiveness, it would make a great deal of sense to improve mental health access and services for everyone who needs it—not just those who are seen as potential homicidal maniacs.

Another problem with the mental health “solution” is that it tends to be discussed in essentially moralistic and prejudicial rather than rational terms. For example, Obama’s call for schools to become “more nurturing” implies that mean teachers or impersonal schools are somehow responsible for school shootings. His call for more mental health workers in the schools to curb “student-on-student violence” (rather than to treat all student mental health conditions) suggests a distinction between the worthy but rare victims of school rampages, and the less worthy but abundant victims of depression, anxiety, and stress (conditions which, if left untreated, could lead to suicide). His call for more police on campuses sends the message that school shooters are bad guys who must be punished or killed, rather than troubled youth in need of help. Yet there is no clear evidence that school safety officers have any effect on reducing crime or violence at school.

Moralism is also behind the lynch mob demanding a national registry for the mentally ill and the denial of their second amendment rights. The assumption is that because some crazy people have committed shooting rampages, that all crazy people are untrustworthy and violent and therefore need to be carefully monitored and controlled. Yet statistically, crazy people are no more likely than anyone else to commit acts of violence. Thus, identifying them and preventing them from buying guns should have only a nominal effect on the total number of annual gun deaths. On the other hand, the implementation of a national registry could scare away many people who need mental health services from seeking help, thus putting themselves (and possibly the public) at greater risk.  

A Rational Person in the Asylum? (Or Not)

One would think that mental health practitioners would take this unique opportunity to talk about depression, PTSD, and other problems that can lead to suicidal thoughts, now that the media has latched onto the idea that the government might do something to improve access and affordability of mental health services. Yet when the media interview mental health experts about the role of mental health in reducing gun violence, the experts rarely mention suicide. They, too, seem to be caught up in the moralism and hysteria (or perhaps they were told in advance to avoid mentioning suicide since it is a downer, far less titillating than massacres and therefore bad for advertising). 

Of course those who commit suicide rarely take out large numbers of “innocents” in the process. They simply shoot themselves, often when no one is watching. Furthermore, they have made their own decision when and how to die, in contrast to the “innocents,” whose choice was made for them by their murderer.

Yet suicide, like school violence, has significant social costs, including the loss of income and the emotional trauma for surviving family members (including the “innocents” they leave behind). Suicide can require emergency services, often at the taxpayers’ expense. It is disruptive to colleagues who must pick up the slack at work as they mourn the loss of their workmate and friend; and to their bosses, who must suddenly find a replacement; and to landlords, who lose rental income while their bloodied apartment is being cleaned.  

What About Gun Control?

Gun enthusiasts like to point out that during the 10-years assault rifle ban, there was no reduction in gun fatalities in the U.S. However, the ban was pretty leaky, with loopholes that allowed the purchase of numerous high powered weapons. It also did nothing to reduce the 270 million guns circulating in the U.S. (close to nine guns per every 10 people).

However, it is hard to imagine how a total reduction in circulating guns (rather than temporary bans on the sale of certain types of guns) could not reduce gun fatalities. Consider that slightly more than 50% of suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms. When guns already exist in the household, they provide a quick and highly efficient means of killing oneself. Since other methods are less reliable, more painful, or more difficult to plan and carry out, reducing access to guns should reduce the number of suicide attempts, as well as the success rate. 

A reduction in the number of guns in circulation also ought to reduce accidental gun deaths (which average around 600 per year). Though statistically rare compared with suicides and homicides, slightly more than half of the accidental gun deaths involve children, and thus account for far more deaths of “innocents” than do school rampages. However, the otherwise upstanding adults whose negligence or irresponsibility contributed to these accidents are far more sympathetic (and formidable, when it comes to threatening their right to bear arms) than are crazies like Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook killer).

Poverty is Violence

Since the pundits and politicians have taken suicide off the table, let’s talk about homicide, because even here there is a lot of moralism and prejudice in the public discourse. Certainly it is scary to imagine oneself or one’s child the victim of an armed robbery, rape, terrorist attack or school massacre. But for most Americans this fear is exaggerated. In the majority of homicides, the victim is poor, with a prior criminal record.

One might justly wonder why the left isn’t calling for “economic justice” or programs to help ex-cons integrate back into society, in addition to gun control and improved mental health access, since this could help reduce the number of gun deaths. But then again, ex-cons and the poor, in general, are not considered worthy victims. If we really wanted to reduce their unnecessary deaths, we would have to provide housing to the homeless so they didn't die of exposure. Employers would have to slow down the factories and provide sufficient safety equipment so their low income employees would stop dying on the job. They'd have to provide healthcare so they could keep their employees' diabetes and hypertension under control, and increase their pay so they had less stress and material insecurity (which contribute to their elevated rates of hypertension, diabetes, cancer and heart disease).

Lastly, a significant fraction of the homicide victims are women who were killed by their partners. In 2000, according to the Violence Policy Center, 1,342 women were shot to death by their partners (about 50% of the total domestic violence deaths). But why worry about a thousand dead women (some of whom left behind orphaned “innocents”) when there are ten innocent school children who need protecting? 

Teachers are Terrorists and Corporate Shills

Politicians are notorious for saying stupid, embarrassing and downright insulting and hurtful things in the quest to promote their political agendas. Michael Bloomberg’s recent comparison of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) to the National Rifle Association (NRA) ranks right up there with some of the stupidest—but here are a few other ditties (just in case you missed them):

Teachers Unions are Terrorist Organizations

In 2004, Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA), a "terrorist organization" during a White House meeting with state governors.

Schools and Universities Should Be Blown Up

Since the teachers are a bunch of terrorists, it is justifiable to blow up the places where they hang. In line with this sort of thinking, right-wing education privatization cheerleader and Fordham Foundation President Chester E. Finn Jr. said that the best way to reform public education is to “Blow it up and start over,” while his counterpart, Reid Lyon, former Chief of Child Development and Behavior Branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, suggested we blow up the teachers’ colleges.

Deadly Disasters are Great for Capitalism (Er, Children)

Current Education Secretary Arne Duncan said that Katrina was the best thing that could have happened to the New Orleans schools. What he meant was that disasters are fantastic ways to rally popular support for otherwise unpopular ideas, in this case, a massive scheme to convert the entire district to charter schools and destroy the unions.71% of New Orleans children are now attending charter schools, the highest rate in the nation. All employees, including teachers and custodians, were fired and forced to reapply, and all union contracts were canceled. Many of the unionized teachers were replaced by Teach For America interns.

Michael Bloomberg: Teachers Unions are Like the NRA

“It’s typical of Congress, it’s typical of unions, it’s typical of companies, I guess, where a small group is really carrying the ball and the others aren’t necessarily in agreement. . . The N.R.A. is another place where the membership, if you do the polling, doesn’t agree with the leadership.” (NY Times)

The comparison is grotesque and offensive because it likens teachers—who see themselves as defenders of childhood innocence and purity (e.g., Sandy Hook) to gun nuts and corporate shills—who are seen by many as the defenders of psychotic, murderous rampages (e.g., Sandy Hook). Yet if we ignore the offensiveness of Bloomberg’s statement, perhaps substitute AMA or Bar Association for NRA, one can see that there is some truth to Bloomberg’s comments. Most unions are like these organizations in that they invest heavily in lobbying, buying politicians and attempting to buy legislation. It is true that rank and file union members are often alienated from and disagree with their leadership. And it is true that the leadership of unions often put their own needs, interests and agenda above those of their members.

CalSTRS Forces Sale of Bushmaster Investment—Retains Other Death Holdings

 Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

Less than one day after the California teachers’ pension fund, CalSTRS, threatened to cut ties with the private equity firm  Cerberus Capital Management, the company sold off its stake in Freedom Group (see Edsource), which includes Bushmaster, manufacturer of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used by Adam Lanza to massacre 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

Cerberus is owned by the billionaire financier Stephen A. Feinberg, who is a gun enthusiast. His father, Martin Feinberg, lives in Newtown, CT. Despite this connection to the tragedy, the firm’s decision to jettison Freedom Group probably has much more to do with profits than either ethics or pressure from CalSTRS. Weapons stocks have been on the decline since the shooting in anticipation of new gun control legislation, while cutting ties with Bushmaster will no doubt improve public perception of Cerberus and make them appear like a good corporate citizen.

CalSTRS has $600 million invested in the Cerberus fund, according to the New York Times, while the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, has roughly  $400 million invested in the company. Edsource quoted California Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who sits on the boards of both pension funds: “Our objective is to make sure that both CalPERS and CalSTRS are scrubbed clean of any investment in any company that makes guns that are illegal in this state and expose our communities to violence and death.”

In reality, Lockyer and the CalPERS and CalSTRS boards are only interested in scrubbing their own images clean. They have merely chosen the lowest hanging fruit—the company that manufactured one of the guns used by one psychopath in just the most recent deadly school rampage. CalSTRS continues to maintain holdings in numerous other “merchants of death,” including Smith and Wesson. Indeed, their holdings are a veritable rogues gallery of companies involved in everything from warfare to union busting to ecological destruction. Here are just a few:

Image by Donkey Hotey

• Bain Capital’s role in liquidating businesses and laying off workers was heavily covered by the press during the recent presidential elections. What received much less coverage was the fact that Mitt Romney helped found the company with investments from Salvadoran elites who had ties to their country’s death squads.
• The Carlyle Group is sometimes called the “Ex-Presidents Club” for all the ex-politicians that have served on its board or as company advisors (George Bush Sr., John Major, James Baker, Frank Carlucci). It is the 3^rd largest equity firm in the world and a major player in the military-industrial complex, reaping huge profits from the war on terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. California attempted to ban CalPERS from investing in companies like Carlyle that are partly owned by countries with poor human rights records, but the legislation was withdrawn (probably due to influence peddling by Carlyle lobbyists).—(Sources: SF Chronicle, The Guardian)
• Chevron is responsible for regular explosions and fires at its Richmond, California plant, sickening thousands of local residents and polluting the air and water, as well as far more extensive and devastating pollution in the Niger Delta and Ecuador. However, Chevron has also been complicit in outright murder in Nigeria and elsewhere. In 1998 Chevron recruited and supplied the Nigerian military in its assault on activists in the Niger Delta that killed 2 protesters and injured several others. (Sources: Democracy Now, SF Chronicle, the Huffinton Post)
• Coca Cola has been accused of contracting and directing the paramilitaries in Columbia in assassinations of union members, as well as the rape and murder of unionists and their families in Guatemala. It has also been accused of pollution in many countries and depleting their water supplies. (Sources: KillerCoke, PBS Frontline, Common Dreams)
• Dow Chemical has a long and sordid history of producing deadly and environmentally destructive products. It was the producer of Agent Orange, which is estimated to have killed 400,000 Vietnamese and maimed another 500,000 during its use by the U.S. military in the 1960s. In 2001, Dow merged with Union Carbide, which was responsible for the 1984 Bhopal gas explosion, which killed as many as 8,000 people within the first 2 weeks and another 8,000 or more since. It was the largest industrial accident ever, exposing over 500,000 people to methyl isocyanate and other toxic chemicals. The ground water is still contaminated and people continue to be born with deformities and suffer illness and debilitation so severe they cannot work or support themselves. Dow refuses to pay compensation to the victims or to clean up the local environment.
• DuPont has a 200-year history of producing weapons and toxic chemicals that are responsible for thousands of deaths world-wide. DuPont began as a gun-powder manufacturer, but has also contributed to the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. The company has been implicated in union busting, environmental pollution and numerous instances of workplace injury and death. (Sources: Corp Watch)
• General Electric is most notorious for its role in manufacturing nuclear weapons. However, the company is also responsible for massive environmental contamination and numerous corporate crimes. Its nuclear waste facility in Hanford, WA, has released more radiation into the environment than the 3 Mile Island disaster. GE was also responsible for the release of 138 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River. As of 2001, GE had 78 Super Fund sites and had paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements. GE was also involved in gruesome experiments in which U.S. prisoners and other civilians were deliberately exposed to radiation without warning them about the cancer risks. (Sources: Clean Up GE, Multinational Monitor)
• Halliburton is one of the world’s largest oilfield service companies and one of the most viciously anti-union. They have a history of partnering with repressive dictators and complicity in human rights violations, including in Burma, Libya, Iraq, Iran and Indonesia. They were partly responsible for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, the largest in U.S. history and they profited handsomely from the war in Iraq. (Sources: Wikipedia, Corp Watch)
• Lockheed Martin is America’s largest defense contractor, receiving over $29 billion per year in Pentagon contracts. It has produced spy satellites and helped the Pentagon spy on U.S. citizens, provided interrogators (i.e., torturers) for Guantanamo Bay, built military aircraft, and helped shape U.S. foreign policy for decades. Lockheed Martin produces Hellfire missiles, which are the most common missile fired from U.S. drones and which are responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths. (Sources: Prophets of War, Alternet, Salon)
• Nike is guilty of gross labor violations in Latin America and Asia, including the exploitation of children. (Sources: Counter Punch)
• Occidental Petroleum has been accused of funding death squads and a Columbian military unit that assassinated unionists. (Sources: Courthouse News)
• Raytheon is the world’s largest producer of guided missiles. Its missiles were used in several civilian massacres by Israel in Lebanon. In the 1990s, its Patriot missiles were used by the U.S. to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq. (They also produce Tomahawk missiles and “bunker buster” bombs). Raytheon admitted using prisoners in California to test a “nonlethal” pain weapon and they have contaminated many of the areas in which their production plants are located with deadly carcinogens. (Sources: Raytheon-Wikipedia, Raytheon 9-Wikipedia, Corp Watch)

CalSTRS is also invested in Bank of America, Walmart, Microsoft, Waste Management Inc., Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Honeywell, Taser, Monsanto, Morgan Stanly, Green Dot.