Verified by 
“Goths;” “Loners;” “Goth obsessed loners;” “misfits” “social outcasts;” “troubled” “disengaged;” “delinquent;” “bullied;” “secretive;” “disturbed;” “narcissist;” or, as CNN opened its story on the latest tragedy in Florida, “weird.”
Adjectives used again and again when the media is pressed to explain to the public why another tragedy has occurred.
News stories that feature these descriptors-cum-causal identifiers are backed by numerous websites that purport to list “warning signs” for school shooters / gun violence.
Instead of reinforcing these characterizations (where has that gotten us?), it may be more productive to understand their limitations. Characterizations arose in the wake of Columbine, as additional tragedies pressured us to do something to prevent another massacre. In our rush to keep children safe we refined stereotypes into ‘warning signs,’ while simultaneously operationalizing our ability to identify threats. “Zero-tolerance” policies, which were implemented nationwide, became a laughing-stock when their dragnets captured a six-year old with a Cub-Scout camping utensil, and a young speech-impaired student ‘signing’ his name with a gesture that looked like a gun. Alongside the metal detectors that enforced zero-tolerance were countless anti-bullying initiatives. While they did raise awareness, they had students rolling their eyes and laughingly creating cyber ‘go-arounds’ in record time.
Even though we clung to goth-themed stereotypes and tried to identify students who might fit them, scholars like Katherine Newman, who was commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences (by way of Congressional and Dep’t. of Education requests) to study the social roots of school shootings, warned that bullies, like terrorists, are often at pains to blend into the culture, to operate under the radar, undetected. Victims often desperately try to assimilate as well, craving social affirmation, unwilling to admit rejection or abuse.
Dave Cullen, who studied Columbine at length (taking 10 years to access records, interview survivors, scholars, teachers, parents, and law officials) told CNN that "the killers weren't part of the Trench Coat Mafia, that they weren't bullied by other students and that they didn't target popular jocks, African-Americans or any other group. A school shooting wasn't their initial intent…They wanted to bomb their school in an attack they hoped would make them more infamous than Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.”
Why scrutinize stereotypes and revisit Columbine instead of focusing on the latest developments at MSD High School in Florida? Because in understanding how and why we come to remember tragedies in the way that we do, we can pre-empt similar oversimplifications (and less-than-productive responses) around this latest shooting. Cullen, the original Columbine debunker, theorizes that the public was afraid to believe Harris and Klebold weren't total outcasts (Jefferson County Sheriff's office records show that the perpetrators had a circle of friends, and that just days before the shooting, Klebold had taken a date to the prom, riding with numerous friends in a limo.) However, by identifying them as goth loners who were "weird" or "oddballs," it was easier to set them apart from other students and for schools to distinguish future potential shooters. The bombs were inconsistent with what we remember,Cullen said. "We dropped the one that was true and kept the myth."
In order that we not risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it seems important to understand the genesis and staying-power of these 'myths.' Myths are very much in keeping with stereotyping. And, our tendency to stereotype is directly related to how information is processed, how memories are constructed / recalled, and how social 'knowledge' is formed and circulated. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a scholar at the University of California-Irvine, specializes in memory--and in particular, in the calcification of false memories. She told CNN that "myths continue to be validated when people start talking with others about an event. Once memories are embedded, people resist changing their minds." (This may, in part, be because memories become linked to larger narratives, and narratives help integrate and regulate our brains--see an earlier blog on this topic.)
The Atlantic echoed concerns about myths and their narratives in a more recent piece that addressed the problem with profiles.
These articles, written during periods not heightened by outrage and fear, must be cited now, in order to prevent us from further reinforcing and refining our mass-shooting myths. Psychological profiles risk more than pointing us in the wrong direction—they simultaneously risk ushering in a socially repressive society; a culture in which signaling one's disenfranchisement is all but tantamount to signaling one's intent to take depraved, anti-social actions.
CNN is taking its own advice by handling the recent tragedy in a pro-active way. Despite leading off coverage with the word ‘weird,’ they have actively resisted reductionist profiling. Instead of merely contributing to character-myths, they are publicizing the names of politicians who refused to consider more stringent background checks for the purchasing of guns (let alone gun control).
At the same time, Florida state has already begun to address the larger picture, mandating Social Emotional Learning Programs in at least one county—Sarasota’s “Social Blackbelt initiative.” This initiative begins to fill in the ever-widening gap left as we cut coverage for mental health care in this country—something just as crucial to add to the conversations over the next weeks as gun control.
These are the stances/initiatives that need to be pursued, rather than stories that, in their characterization/analyzation of this or any other shooter, inadvertently fear-monger. By identifying 'stranger-danger' (or, in this instance, 'goth-danger') we simplistically 'other' without taking productive measures that will change culture, while providing support for those who struggle with mental health issues.
