THE deadly school shootings in Tacloban City and Zamboanga City — both occurred within less than two months — have profoundly shocked a nation already in mourning. Such violence has been largely unheard of in Filipino culture. The factors that may drive an adolescent to secure firearms and shoot others have been closely studied in the United States. This may be triggered by bullying, social pressures, exposure to violent online content, suicidal behavior, family problems, and other psychological difficulties. But we never imagined that such gun violence in schools would reach our own shores.
The pressing concern is not only with the need to find out the shooters’ motivations, but also how could school officials and the community have prevented these tragedies from happening? Filipinos are now coming to terms with the possibility that this could become their new normal, with schools facing the threat of active shooters.
Yet, you cannot fault Philippine schools for the lack of armed security personnel, single-access entry, or even metal detectors. Schools are not military garrisons, but safe havens for learning and exchanges of ideas. When the threat of an active shooter emerges, the focus of our students and teachers will be consumed by how to escape such violence, not education.
Yet, the challenge lies not only in school admission screening but also in the early identification of students exhibiting violent behavior. This can be done through psychological and counseling intervention. There was a time when students who exhibited severe psychological difficulties, such as bipolar depression, isolation, fascination with guns and violence, and schizophrenia, were referred to specialists with the required expertise to handle them properly.
However, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and amid rising competition among private schools, students afflicted with mental illness are admitted despite the danger they pose to other students. It appears now that many schools are not adequately equipped to identify and manage students who may pose a danger to themselves or others. In fact, our school systems do not have anonymous reporting or whistleblower channels for students to report their classmates who may be planning a violent attack on campus. In the US, Colorado’s Safe2Tell hotlines allow people to anonymously report perceived threats to school safety.
Studies in the US showed that many active shooters exhibited abnormal behaviors, violent aggression, suicidal tendencies or warning signs before their attacks. Yet, they were either ignored or tolerated in the name of promoting care, compassion and an inclusive environment in schools. But this naive approach resulted in many deaths in high school shootings in the US, from Columbine and Sandy Hook to Uvalde. Each tragedy had traumatized both students and teachers on these campuses. They are the real victims here!
So, these uncomfortable questions confront us: Why do our schools struggle to identify and address students exhibiting warning signals of potential violence? Why have schools not confronted parents on the safe storage of their firearms at home? And why do schools continue to keep students with mental disorders without ensuring that adequately trained psychologists and counselors are available?
These are questions I hope we all answer as a nation. By the looks of it, we are fussing too much over the active shooter, his triggers and sob story while glossing over how to really protect the majority of the school population through difficult choices. No teacher or student will find peace if they fear that one troubled individual in school could start a shooting spree.
The shootings in Tacloban City and Zamboanga City could have been prevented if only the warning signs the assailants exhibited were identified and reported. If the schools had stringent measures in detecting students exhibiting troubled behavior, they would have been immediately separated from their classmates. But sadly, there are no existing policies to expel a small minority of students who endanger the entire school community. Instead, students with mental disorders are tolerated, pitied and accepted despite their threat to that community.
The real victims here are the bereaved students and their parents who have to suffer through the tragic and unexplainable loss. This is what makes such school shootings so sickening when, in reality, they could have been averted if schools and communities were more discerning and vigilant about mentally afflicted students, especially on online platforms. With misplaced empathy and tolerance, young lives were lost and public trust in school safety was severely eroded.
This might be politically incorrect to say in today’s so-called DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) culture: school shooters have mental disorders and could have been rooted out earlier by looking out for warning signs, and with psychological testing and behavioral assessment. Allowing students with mental illness to stay in school is a clear and imminent danger to the lives of teachers and students, no matter how you look at it.
