When today's baby boomers went to school, things were a lot different than they are in present times. In the elementary and middle school years, as well as through high school, students were able to attend classes and feel relatively safe with few worries other than to attend classes, attempt to gain knowledge, and leave with satisfactory grades. They tried to enjoy scholastic activities, connect with others who may have become lasting friends, and have some fun along the way. For the most part, their lives were carefree, and their main preoccupation was getting through high school with a diploma that would enable them to either continue on to college or venture out into the working world to obtain their first real job. If they did pursue a college education, they were serious about their studies but also enjoyed their new found freedom. Preoccupation with their personal safety was not an issue of paramount concern.
Today, however, the scenario is quite different. In the aftermath of the Columbine attack, the Virginia Tech shooting rampage and other school violence across the nation, safety on school grounds and college campuses has become an issue of vital importance. Today's baby boomers worry about the safety of their children and grandchildren who are attending schools and colleges in various localities.
School administrators, students, parents, law enforcement officials, community leaders, and government representatives - among others - all share interest and concern in their focus on prevention of criminal activity on school and campus grounds. Their attention is also directed to discovering solutions to the problems of violence that threaten schools and colleges as well as delineating appropriate and timely response strategies when disturbances and violent disruptions do occur.
The evolution of zero tolerance policies have emanated as a result of historical events that left vivid memories in the minds of the nation and local communities that have been affected by violence. In some instances, the violent outcomes resulted in serious injuries to students and faculty members and, in others, tragic fatalities left scarring memories.
As a consequence of historical events, the planning, development, and implementation of safety plans and response strategies have ensued. However, considerable debate has evolved in both the discussion and initiation of these varied plans and programs that frequently evolve around the zero tolerance policies that have become predominant in the aftermath of violent episodes. Amidst the campus security debate, a number of law enforcement professionals advocate that the term "lockdown" should not be used in a campus context. They also believe that students and faculty carrying guns will not make campuses safer and also argue that the 30-minute notification requirement that is proposed in the Virginia Tech Victims Campus Emergency Response Policy and Notification Act (H.R. 5735) is unwise.
"We are nearly unanimous in our belief that allowing students, professors, and visitors to carry guns on campus will not make them safer," says Chief Michael F. Lynch of the George Mason University Police Department in Fairfax, Virginia and a former Lieutenant in the Baltimore County Maryland Police Department. Lynch, with 30 years of experience in law enforcement, explains that many law enforcement officials are of the opinion that guns make individuals on campuses less safe because a number of things could happen. He cites examples in which a gun could be used in Russian roulette; it could accidently discharge when being cleaned and handled or it could be used for a suicide.
Though law enforcement officials are in predominant agreement that guns should not be allowed on college campuses, there are other professionals who advocate that this mentality leads to a culture of "willing victims." Dr. Anthony Semone, a clinical psychologist and family therapist, who has been in the business for many years and is well versed on issues surrounding school violence, believes this is an area where there is "utter massive denial." Dr. Semone is of the opinion that police chiefs have a vested interest in zero tolerance policies. "Law enforcement, at the supervisory level, does not like the idea of non-sworn persons carrying handguns," says Semone. "If we got really good at taking care of ourselves, there would be no need for cops, and cops don't like this," he says.
He maintains that safety becomes the responsibility of someone else. "Everyone becomes a willing victim because they have bought into the idea that 'it is someone else's job to protect me.' In any defensive situation, I cannot depend on anyone else for my life but myself. When push comes to shove, the responsibility for my life and my loved ones falls on me. If I'm not responsible for my own safety, then I have no alternative but to go belly-up," says Semone. He explains that kids today cannot stand up for themselves, and they have been taught to be passive. "In the old days, defense of self was taken seriously," says Semone. He maintains that when kids become old enough, they should have choices in how to protect themselves and should be able to take responsibility for their own defense.
Inspector Michael Reese, Director of the School Security Division of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D. C., believes that personal security starts with the family and that parental involvement, combined with good citizenship, plays an active role. "Get all the stakeholders involved - police, fire, all public safety people, and have a round table discussion about safety issues. Take a proactive look at some guidelines and make people aware. Good citizenship goes a long way," says Reese.
In the aftermath of disturbing violent episodes and increased violence on school grounds and campuses throughout the country, it is apparent that the result has sparked a great deal of debate and varied opinions concerning strategies to deal with future events. Some professionals, such as Dr. Semone, contend that the result has led to a culture of "willing victims." Others scoff at that idea and believe that rigid gun control measures and zero tolerance policies are logical and common sense solutions to prevent future victimization.
In either scenario, the goal is to focus on the safety of all individuals involved and to ensure that the best possible plans are developed and implemented nationwide. There must be broad-based and open communication - as well as constant collaboration among jurisdictions throughout the country - to ensure that professionals maintain their objectivity and that no stone is left unturned to ensure that public safety prevails.
