First of all, we have to admit that any mass shooting — but especially a school shooting – is a horrific occurrence.  It produces at least the same shock and terror to victims as was experienced by those who suffered through the 9/11 attacks.   Unfortunately, the rapid increase in shooting incidents we have confronted in recent years causes otherwise well-meaning people to focus too much on the latest number and the magnitude of the casualties as much as the human tragedy.  National news reporters read increases in the death toll as if they were announcing a new Olympic record or this week’s football scores.  To be sure, reporters share a recognition of the tragedy, but like most of us, national commentators do not come close to the epicenter of pain associated with school shootings.  

No one questions that school shootings are among the worst things that can happen to a community.  However, as bad as things appear, the likelihood that your community and your school will be attached is extremely low.  Currently, there are nearly 160,000 K thru 12 schools in the United States.  Over the past 10 years, there have be THREE mass shootings at schools, and 102 other gun-related incidents.  That means that – despite the grave wound to our national psych that accompanies each school shooting – there is only about a .01% chance that your school and your children will be directly affected.   Of the 102 nearly all involved guns that somehow made it onto the school yard.  Most of these events involved some sort of grudge match among students.  This of course begs the question:  in 2019, how is it possible that guns find their way on American school grounds?

In assessing potential strategies to protect the US from another terrorist attack in the aftermath of 9/11, the FBI worked within a matrix that classified potential terrorist threats by the likelihood of one occurring and the consequences if it does.  They concluded that society was most vulnerable in those areas in which the likelihood of a terrorist event occurring was extremely low and the consequences if something did occur would be extremely high.  Therefore, the strategy focused priority attention in low probability/high consequence areas by having each FBI office do a thorough assessment of itself to highlight areas that were very important but easily overlooked.  And because no one wants their immediate office to be the source of a tragic attack, almost every office found areas of unaddressed and extreme vulnerability – and initiated their own corrective action.

Despite the vast funds made available for security in recent years, too many schools continue to be vulnerable in such specific areas as (1) uneven or insufficient physical security, (2) a lack of access to and exploitation of intelligence available to authorities, (3) the inability to address violence-producing stressors in troubled children, (4) the mobilization of all teachers and school officials who must see themselves as most able to detect early warning signs, and (5) threatening activities in the surrounding community. 

While this is not new information for the experts, this knowledge has not been transformed into widespread and useful action.  This is due in part to the inability of our communities to develop rigorous standards of oversight responsibility.  Not some responsibility or their share of responsibility, but full responsibility for a process of continual 360-degree self-assessments which identify previously ignored threats and vulnerabilities and begin systematically addressing them. When we speak of ZERO-TOLEERANCE for school shootings, we must mean that NOTHING should EVER be permitted to fall through the cracks.

But here’s the problem:  Addressing low probability issues has always been very difficult for a democratic society. Just think back to the clues suggesting the recession of 2008 or 9/11.  Or way back to Pearl Harbor.  Or any number of national tragedies.   In each instance, clues that could have made a big difference were available but were unable to be acted upon by authorities in time to prevent the unthinkable from occurring.  In large part, this is because of the restrictive and intrusive nature of prevention activities AND the low likelihood of the dreaded act occurring.  How far will a democratic society go to put in place highly restrictive policies and activities – especially when the feared event is considered highly unlikely?   After all, this is not Singapore where merely possessing unauthorized guns or ammunition is a hanging offense.

The threat of school shootings in the United States at this time would be greatly reduced if school districts adopted a process of ongoing, periodic, and rigorous facilitated self- assessments.  A facilitated self-assessment is a process that is led by an individual not part of the school but who is able to draw from all participants their honest feelings about the state of school security.  As important as specific findings are in these processes is the internal dialogue that permits those with real concerns to express them candidly to the school leadership who can then address them in a transparent and collaborative manner.

The value of in-depth and candid self-assessment, in which the results are made known to both the highest authority level in the organization, the parents, and the stakeholder community is that it generally causes an immediate self- correction, if possible.  If not, it generally stimulates an aggressive lobbying campaign to take whatever action is needed to eliminate the vulnerability and leaves an undisputable record of accountability. Vulnerabilities that have been identified but remain uncorrected, either by willful action, ignorance, or neglect bring significant consequences to senior officials. ZERO-TOLERANCE can mean no less.

The facilitated self-assessment also provides an opportunity for the real stakeholders to participate in a “reality check”, in which they ask themselves if they are being true to their own vison, if they are dealing with reality, and if what they are observing is different from what they are being told.  A careful review of the data reveals THREE things common to nearly all school shootings.  First, as noted above, the overwhelming majority shooting involve guns.  Second, most of the shootings are the result of a grudge or slight between two or more students. Finally, it is also true that the shooter is almost always a troubled child who often leaves a clear trail of evidence for investigators together after the tragedy.  The sad reality is that the evidence that explains the motivation of the troubled child after the event is also available before the event.

The development of a replicable process that will ensure an honest and complete assessment is critically important and is likely to identify each of these circumstances.   Engaged school officials will know whether or not it is easy to stuff a gun in a backpack or hide it in a locker or car trunk.   They are also aware of the amount and intensity of conflicts among students.  And most have direct experiences with troubled students that have caused elevated concerns. There are many ways to proceed in such an effort, but among the most successful have been the notion of a facilitated self- assessment jointly conducted by those with primary responsibility to prevent the dreaded incident from occurring. The assumption here – borne out by recent experience, is that the people with the most to lose are the ones most capable of identifying and monitoring the self-assessment project. However, precisely because of the cultural attributes listed above, particularly the need for a full and candid assessment, the process should include a strong facilitator who can encourage the sharing of candid opinions, no matter how sensitive the subject may be. If a current process that is intended to encourage the reporting of unusual behavior is not working – it must be identified as needing corrective action. This often requires the services of trained facilitators’ collective judgment.

I call on school districts to accept this challenge, the first step of which is to accept full responsibility for the safety of our children and for putting in place a candid process

of self-assessments that will be at least as effective as the systems for preventing terrorism and coal mine disasters. This is a big step, but an essential one.  Without a person ultimately responsible for school security – and it is not the local sheriff – things will continue to fall through the cracks.  The key factor that differentiates the approach we are proposing and the approaches put forth in those glossy documents that sit on coffee tables in school districts throughout the country is that the facilitated self-assessment provides a real plan with real priorities that drive changes in behavior that transforms organizations.  If school districts took responsibility for self-assessments, they would need to be led by officials who are fully engaged and who would clearly inform all around them that failure is not an option.  Moreover, fully engaged school officials would not rest until they have personally reviewed all aspects of school security and can personally attest to their belief that the children in their care are protected to the maximum feasible extent. 

This suggestion is certain to be met with strong resistance from those who feel defensive about their level of preparedness and are not constitutionally able to admit to vulnerably. That is perhaps understandable in some situations, but looks quite feeble and self-serving when juxtaposed against the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary who reportedly told 10 people of his intention to murder 27 grammar school children at their desks, or the Parkland shooter, where official warnings were provided but not followed up on, or the Santa Fe shooter, who indicated that he had “thought” about the shooting long before actually carrying it out.   Against this backdrop, the reluctance of school officials and police to engage in the self-critique that generally results from a facilitated self-assessment reflects significant lack of moral courage among those we have asked to protect our children.

School districts:  this is your time to rise to the challenge.

At CSUSB, we are initiating a new program – modeled on other successful prevention and deterrent programs that provides another tool in our collective took box and just might save some lives.

Key factors: Candid self-assessments that identify real problems, devices like electronic blackboards and AI, agenda of corrective action to be regularly monitored and reported, dialogue within school and with others, among the topics might be guns in schools the fix is your responsibility – not a budget officer or district manager.

It will – and it has been met with resistance.  Mainly of the bureaucratic type, but we think good people will engage. The task is simple, let us help.

The deliberations that took place in Philadelphia during the Summer of 1787 involved the most esteemed delegates to the Constitutional Convention (aka founding fathers) – Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Elbridge Gerry, James Wilson, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason.  They worked hard to craft an impeachment provision (high crimes and misdemeanors) that would collectively reflect an abuse of power (“misuse of official powers”; “neglect of duty”; “maladministration or corruption”; “malpractice or neglect of duty”.  The Founders saw to it that such abuses of power would be labeled as high crimes and misdemeanors, which was consistent with traditional terminology in English law and were included in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment.  But they also included as impeachable offenses two wrongdoings had traditionally been considered crimes against the state: treason and bribery.  

The handful of successful impeachment cases against Federal judges suggests that impeachment has been most often directed against individuals whose behavior was considered contrary to generally accepted public values and expectations, including using their position for financial gain, showing overt favoritism to litigants, income tax evasion, disclosing confidential information, unlawfully charging people with contempt of court, filing false expense reports, and habitual drunkenness.   With the exception of the latter, a national consensus is now emerging that the current President has committed acts for which others before him (federal judges) have been impeached and removed from office.     

Many who are offended by the current president’s action are concerned that his transgressions do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.  In their continuing search for legal sufficiency, they would do well to reflect on the words of Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist 65 that:

“…impeachable offenses were “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men; they are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.”

Impeachable offenses cause no legal sanctions to be administered to those that commit them.  Nor do they confer any legal remedies to those who may have been wronged.  However, if a president is believed by the people’s representatives in Congress to have committed any offense that was thought to betray the public trust, the Congress must be empowered to take corrective political action.  Thus, impeachment as a political act must be so determinative as to require both a majority of the people’s representatives in the House to officially accuse the President of betraying the public trust and 2/3rds of those present in the Senate (which officially represented the states) to convict.   

While the country has struggled to precisely define the nature of an impeachable act, President Trump has perhaps unwittingly solved this problem by “running the table”.  After the first round of the Impeachment hearings, it is quite plausible the President may be guilty of Treason, Bribery and Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Witnesses testifying at the recent hearings of the House Impeachment Committee made it clear that President Trump conditioned the release of congressionally approved funding for Ukraine security (a public act) on the initiation of a corruption investigation against his chief political rival (a private benefit).  The net result of all this was to threaten to deprive  the Ukraine (a US ally) of weapons urgently needed for its ongoing military defense against an aggressive Russia (a US adversary),  and to make it clear that funding for the needed military assistance (the quid) would be made available only if Ukrainian President Zelensky complied with the President’s request for a “favor” (the quo).   At the end of those hearings, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, leading Democrats, most of the media appear, and at least half of the country appear to have deemed it legitimate to describe the President’s efforts to persuade President Zelensky as bribery.

What should give the Congress pause and what should concern the country is not whether the President has crossed the technical/legal threshold of bribery.  What should concern the nation is whether his actions provide aid and comfort to an adversarial nation.  If so, it comes very close to treason.  This should be our collective concern.

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and both the definition of and conditions for finding a person guilty are set forth in the Article III provisions of judicial power.   While case law and precedent in the area of treason is very limited and very old (most cases occurred in the 19^th Century and earlier, and all occur in an environment of military hostility) the Constitutional criteria for treason includes giving aid and comfort to the adversary.  Current US policy clearly considers Russia an adversary and the Ukraine an ally.

If it is found that the President engaged in bribery through policy and practices that provided an advantage to our adversary (Russia) and a clear disadvantage to our ally (The Ukraine),   then the President must provide a compelling explanation of why his policy, is not,  ipso facto, an act of treason.

For the past three years, the country has engaged the President in a political dance of the seven veils.  What is behind the veil? The washingoto  post recently editorialized on how difficult it was to contemplate a charge oof bribery – and yet, here we are.  Contemplating treason is certain to be equally difficult.   But I afraid it will be just as certain.

Merely to reflect on treason and bribery should give us pause.  No president has ever been even accused of these heinous offences against the public trust.  However, that is not a reason to shirk from our responsibility.  It should serve to unite all Americans in an effort to fulfil the Founders intention to provide the new nation with the tools to purge injuries to the public trust from our national consciousness.  This ability to self-correct, after all, is the very essence of American Exceptionalism. So, it is really not that complicated, but may be very hard to accept.