Kids Killing Kids; A Different Perspective

A common thread runs through the shootings that have been sensationalized, broadcast and re-broadcast by the major media, depicting crying teenagers and adults, people running and screaming in panic — Moses Lake, Washington; Paducah, Kentucky; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Pearl, Mississippi; Jonesville, Arkansas; Springfield, Oregon; and now Littleton, Colorado. In each case, the perpetrators have been white males, acting alone or in concert with others. And in each case the perpetrators have been portrayed by the media as some monster, seeped in the occult, loners, anti-social, interested in violent videos or video games, etc. But there is something more that the media has tended to downplay, but which seems to be pushing to the surface in the Littleton, Colorado, incident; something that needs to be looked at and examined closely.

In each incident, in which kids have acted alone or in concert with others, in killing fellow classmates and teachers, the perpetrators have been labeled as "outcasts" — ostracized, harassed and picked at and on by other students — usually the "jocks" and/or "popular" crowd. Are our government schools producing a nation of predators, kids whose only way of sustaining and maintaining their sense of self-image and self-importance is by picking on, harassing, and attempting to put down other students? And what affect does this have on those on whom they turn their less than admirable behavior? And what part are our schools playing in the behavior of these "jocks" and "popular" students?

In each of the incidents, there have been those kids close to the perpetrators who have described them as quiet, kind, considerate, sensitive children. Adults have described them as respectful, courteous, and diligent, in some cases, hard workers. Neighbors didn't seem to think they fit the "scenario" of a killer. Yet others — popular kids and jocks — have described them by names generally associated with "outcasts."

Today, in the world of education reform, individuality is out and group thought and action are the focus of classroom instruction. Team work, group work, group grading, collaborative learning are all pushed and utilized in classrooms. In this same vein, what every child is to look like when he or she exits the education system, is defined by the behaviorally oriented and very subjective exit outcomes established by schools and school districts that also must align with the state exit outcomes and with Goals 2000. By their very existence, these exit outcomes demand children to be uniform; and, in achieving uniformity, to conform. Those who achieve uniformity, who conform, are rewarded; they are defined as "normal" — the good kids. Those who do not conform are considered "problem children" … "at risk" of failure and failing … outcasts. And what happens when those labeled normal — the jocks, the popular kids — are allowed to harass and pick on those who are considered outcasts, so labeled by not only kids, but also by teachers and administrators? How better to best the "normal" behavior defined by the harassing, the put downs, the constant picking — then to outdo the "normal" behavior of the tormentors by taking a gun (or bombs, or both) to school and killing those deemed "normal"?

In all of the testimonials below, the names and schools have been withheld for obvious reasons. The quotes here, however, are not relevant to one school, they generally describe the situation in every government school in this nation.

In my school, the 'jocks' made fun of those in the band, saying they played in the band because they weren't good enough to be in athletics; we were called 'nerds' and made fun of …

…it wasn't popular to be smart…

…some of the kids in my school wouldn't use the bathrooms because the popular kids would gather in the bathroom and harass students when they tried to use the bathrooms…

…the popular kids in my school are like … teacher’s pets, they can do no wrong…

…the jocks pick on other kids … even in front of teachers … nothing is ever done…

…the jocks used to pick on this one boy whose parents were poor … he was a nice kid … but his parents could not afford to buy him the name brand clothes … they would pick on him until he cried, then they would laugh … they thought it was funny…

…when I complained to the teacher about one girl in the class who was picking on my daughter … pushing her … calling her names … I was told by the teacher that my daughter needed to adjust … that she didn't have enough friends … the girl doing the picking was the daughter of an affluent family in the community … the mother spent a lot of time volunteering at the school … (a parent)

…when I reported members of the football team dealing dope in the school cafeteria, I was told to put a lid on it … we needed to win our Friday night game … as far as I know, nothing was ever done… (a teacher)

Are we producing a nation of predators — kids who are allowed to get away with behavior that is not in their best interests, kids whose sense of self-image and self-importance can only be maintained by attempting to tear others down? And what of the "jocks" when the "in" thing in athletics these days is to pump their self-esteem — to give them the "winning" attitude? In producing winners, have we also produced predators — kids who can only maintain their winning attitude by feeding off the emotional high they get from denigrating, harassing, and picking on others?

And what of the children these kids are preying on — the quiet, reserved, intelligent, kids who aren't part of the in-crowd? It has long been said that children are the cruelest animals on earth. Children have always picked on others, at others. What makes it so different today? For one thing, while competition was always considered healthy in yesteryear, children were also taught that picking on others, calling others names, and harassing others was not nice, no way to act, and not acceptable conduct in a civilized society. And winning was not the ultimate goal, it was the journey to the win that was important, that built good character and good moral standards. In today's world, achieving the goal, winning is all important, and in achieving that win the end justifies the means. In too many cases, the means is not admirable or indicative of someone of good and honorable character.

For another thing, too often children today who are preyed on, who do go off the deep end, do not have a good support system at home — parents who discuss with them, and model, the finer points of good and honorable character — traits too often lacking in the "jocks" and "popular" crowd.

The counselor told me how horrible things must be at home due to the harassment I had endured … I told her that things at home weren't horrible at all … this wasn't my problem … this did not reflect on me at all … it reflected on the perpetrators…

Too many children are taking the harassment and intimidation to heart, as an indication that there must be something wrong with them, when such is really not the case. Children who prey on other children do so for many reasons that have nothing to do with the child they prey on, it has to do with the perpetrators themselves. Often those that they pick on and at, harass, bully, etc, are those they perceive as different, shy, loners… When the victims of this type of abuse do not have good support systems at home, the result can be devastating. Too often they turn to those who are easily accepting of them, life styles that are less than admirable — Satanism (to which they are introduced in the government school classrooms), drugs, etc. Improperly diffused, their anger builds until they destroy themselves and as is now happening, those whom they see as their tormentors.

While everyone asks the question — "Why did these kids do this?", maybe the better question would be — "What's wrong with kids who prey on other kids?"

© April 1999; Lynn M Stuter

╪