The murder of seven students at Oikos University in Oakland by a disgruntled former student triggered pontificating that masked the value of some responses that saved lives and kept the body count from multiplying.
A good representation of the pontificating appeared in the Christian Science Monitor’s article of April 3, 2012, “Oakland school shooting: Is there a lesson to be learned from the tragedy?”
(Available at
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0403/Oakland-school-shooting-Is-there-a-lesson-to-be-learned-from-the-tragedy ).
Mention of the useful responses made a cameo appearance in earlier news, as in the Associated Press’s straight reporting on the preceding day, April 2, 2012, in “Cops: 7 dead, 3 hurt in Christian school shooting”
(Available at
http://news.yahoo.com/cops-7-dead-3-hurt-christian-school-shooting-214742437.html ).
Afterwards, however, when the media made its usual calls to self-styled experts on workplace violence to hold forth on the Oakland shootings, the focus shifted to more speculative waxing on themes like school bullying and pre-termination counseling for malcontents, on the unvalidated theory that counselors would (a) soften any harsh blow of bad news that would otherwise send the recipient to his sidearm and thoughts of carnage or (b) magically detect the nefarious intent of such shooters in time to prevent rampage killings. Sadly, there is no proof that the average school or workplace counselor can consistently deliver on either (a) or (b). So, if the speculations of experts appear suspiciously like sales pitches promoting expert wares, it should come as no surprise. What is a little surprising – and disappointing – is the myopic focus on expert offerings and comfort zones at the expense of some timely, life-saving actions that deserve to be celebrated instead of ignored.
These actions epitomize what has become a reflexive response in emergency management: In times of danger, saving lives often comes down to a decision to either evacuate or shelter-in-place. And sometimes, the same event requires opposite decisions, depending on immediate circumstances. So it was with the Oakland school shooting. This was captured vividly in the earlier, AP story, before the expert, Monday morning quarterbacks had their chance to weigh in the next day.
As the AP story revealed, one teacher saved lives by locking her classroom door and having her students shelter in place. The gunman shot out some classroom windows but did not injure any of those students. Another student reported that her English teacher, on hearing the commotion, told students to run, and they did, escaping a chance to expand the casualty count.
What the speculating experts missed in the subsequent article was that some people in the school itself did indeed react well under fire, saving lives by resorting to traditional options to hunker down (shelter-in-place) or flee (evacuate). The old lessons still apply. Extra counseling, while potentially useful, is not nearly so important to saving lives when bullets are flying and the situation calls for action rather than reflection. Before finding fault with school administrators for not instituting a major counseling initiative to observe and mollify dysfunctional students or to overtrain victims about when to rush the shooter instead of standing still while he shoots them one at a time (as the Christian Science Monitor’s article had one expert saying), school leadership would be wise to acknowledge the foregoing life-saving responses that kept the body count from rivaling that of Virginia Tech only a few years ago. There is always room for improvement, but we should not diminish the positive responses in a theoretical search for perfect solutions.
– Nick Catrantzos
Subscribe Now
AddThis
Nick Catrantzos + Tom Goff
- All Secure
- NICK CATRANTZOS is the lead author of the All Secure website and is the emeritus security director for a large public organization. He has also managed security aspects of corporate takeovers, response to international hostage situations, and finding and keeping secrets. He has been board certified in security management, licensed as a private investigator, and certified as an incident commander. He worked as a case officer for a discreet branch of public service. He protected stealth technology at Lockheed and, later, as a consulting security director for both Kroll and Control Risks, he assisted executives with workplace violence cases and with protecting VIPs and critical assets globally in volatile areas. Nick's partner, TOM GOFF, was a captain in the Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve and has a law degree from the University of California at Davis. He is a former reporter for Fortune Magazine, was senior editor at New York Magazine and Esquire, and has provided crisis and communications counsel to senior executives at Fortune 500 companies, including Lockheed, ARCO, Microsoft, Nissan, and Sony Pictures.