Who Will Be a Violent White Supremacist? We Cannot Predict.

It may come as unexpected bad news to many readers, but even the experts who propose what seem like logical programs to predict who will engage in violence against civilians for a political cause cannot do that. The idea has its appeal--predict who will become violent and intervene to prevent it before they get too close to acting. But, in fact, no one can predict, on an individual level, who will become violent in the future. That is not to say that we don’t know anything—we know, for example, that men are more likely to engage in physical violence than women. But nothing we know can be relied upon to predict whether a specific individual—male or female⁠—will act violently in the future. [1]

Paper after paper advocating programs to identify youth who are apt to become terrorists (almost all of these programs reflect implicit or explicit bias against Muslim youth) include a disclaimer saying that, actually, there’s no consistent pattern that would help us predict who might become a terrorist. No one knows what the path to terrorism might look like, and it is impossible to predict, for any individual, whether they will engage in violence against civilians for a political purpose. For example, here’s a quote from a 2017 article in the American Psychologist, by terrorism researcher John Horgan, “Though terrorist profiles exist in a broad sense, no meaningful (i.e., having predictive validity)psychological profile has been found either within or across groups.”

Many scientific and professional papers on this topic then go on to suggest more research; others recommend programs and interventions based on conjectures, hypotheses, and theories about what or who might be helpful in prediction, and how we might get them to inform the authorities of their suspicions about their friends, neighbors, and/or family members. In short they make the outrageous assertion that, since neither researchers nor clinicians know who will become violent, we should get members of the community to inform on other members of the community, and assume that they are correct. These papers suggest getting family, friends, and community members to inform police if they think someone may be on the path to committing terrorist acts. Some suggest that teachers and/or care providers should report if they have some reason to think someone is on a path towards terrorism. Some even have lists of risk factors. But the lists do not stand up to scientific inquiry. It’s a House of Cards, and an expensive one at that.

Why do so many resources go into programs that are bound to fail? Here it is important to make a distinction between research programs and programs that are implemented in communities. While I think it is unlikely, for many reasons, that researchers will be able to identify future terrorists anytime soon, I think that well-intentioned people can reasonably disagree on that point. I think that research that can be done ethically and openly (without deceit) may be justifiably funded. But when it comes to implementing programs, such as the DHS sponsored Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs that are funded throughout the US and overseas, they are not only based on deceit and junk science, they are actually apt to be harmful in several ways. First, they increase bias. Second, they cause disruption and harm in communities. Third, they blatantly encourage providers such as teachers, doctors, and mental health professionals to violate their professional ethics by spying on their students, patients, and/or clients. Fourth, they target specific communities based on demographic factors. Fifth, they deceive the participants and the public. Sixth, they criminalize normal adolescent development. Seventh, they criminalize thought. Eighth, they encourage a colonialist attitude, assuming that communities cannot help themselves, but need mainstream professionals and authorities to design ways to assist them.

After reflecting on events in Charlottesville, Christchurch, El Paso, Pittsburgh and others, Americans are starting to wonder why the government is spending so much of its resources on spying on Muslim communities. They wonder if it would be better to apply these programs to counter the rise of alt-right extremists. The answer is a loud, “No” for all the reasons above. The programs are in violation of science, human rights, understanding of adolescent development, and of the right to explore thoughts and conversation without being criminalized.

Alternatives

If communities want to help youth to evolve into responsible, self-sufficient, and non-violent adults, they have a variety of scientifically supported programs to draw from. These do not have to be fancy, expensive programs. Big Brother/Big Sister programs have been shown to be effective. And various programs and approaches oriented toward youth development and critical thinking are well-supported ways to assist youth in the transition to responsible adulthood. But they must be available universally, not targeted to some community chosen because of demographic, cultural, or religious grounds.

And the application of these scientifically supported models must be education-based, not enforcement-based. Law enforcement at all levels has potential to help communities (although, the record of law enforcement in relation to communities of color is abysmal.) But even the best law enforcement professionals have only a few options at their disposal—all of them involving accusation, criminalization and punishment, and thus all of them useless for this purpose.

Students must have the opportunity to think a wide variety of thoughts—none can be criminalized—while coming to their own commitment to a point of view. Criticism of the status quo—long encouraged in adolescents, must not be criminalized or reported to the police. Rather, kids who make intelligent critiques of the status quo must be helped to find active, non-violent ways to effectively create change.

We cannot predict who will become a violent white supremacist, but we can, and should, help all kids to transition successfully to becoming thoughtful, responsible, effective, and non-violent adults.