This is one you do not see everyday! University professor goes on shooting spree in departmental meeting over tenure. Which theory is the best explanation based on what we know? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100213/ap_on_re_us/us_ala_university_shooting
Amy Bishop opened fire at a faculty meeting because she would not be granted tenure. She has probably been working for the university for a while now, and got upset because she was not going to be granted with the rights she thought she should be granted with. I can see why she became angry, but to act with such manner to start shooting is wrong. Because of her rampage she is now facing the death penalty, if convicted. She has a criminal record now and her life is completely ruined. A part of me believes that maybe Amy and her husband had this all planned out, because her husband is in custody. Why would her husband be at a faculty meeting? They had to have this planned out. Another question I have is that in the report it said she learned during the meeting that she was not going to be granted with tenure. Well then why would she have a gun and again why would her husband be around during the meeting? Something isn’t adding up here!
ReplyDeleteElizabeth De Los Santos
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom top to bottom this is a very unusual case. The first thing i noticed was that this was a Harvard educated teacher. Normally, Harvard doesn't go around handing out degrees. This leads me to believe that Professor Bishop was an intelligent women who showed virtually no noticable signs of deviance or criminal behavior. This reminds us that we cannot always predict who will be pulling the trigger of a gun. More surprises ensue when I learned that she was an accomplished inventor, a wife, and a mother. It is not often you see a person who has a so much to lose give up hope for life and throw everything away. This teaches us that we cannot predict criminals according to whether or not there is something to be losed. The majority of criminals have been brought up in a subculture that goes against the traditional norms and values of their society. This causes a disconnect in what society mandates and the individual's behavior. But in this case, the criminal had not been brought up in the prototypical environment. This shows that we cannot predict criminals based on their surroundings or how they were brought up. The only hint of Professor Bishop's mental instability was the trauma of her killing her brother when she was younger. It is possible that this event was so impactful to Bishop that she never recovered and was not able to learn the norms of her society and adapt to it. "School shooting" is a term that implies images of outcasted students unloading clips of ammunition into their classmates that they were never able to connect with. This, however, is more closely related to a work shooting. This is because there was a work related despute that stayed between colleagues. The initial assumption is that Bishop was upset over being denied tenure. It is quite possible that this was the straw that broke the camel's back, after a life that had been filled with internal turmoil and self loathing. This event created a side issue that is rarely addressed, and that is the tenure problem with teachers. If tenure is something that increases stress and pressure on teachers so much that it cause them to become violent, then, obviously, this system needs to be revaluated. The last unusual aspect about this shooting is the fact that the murderer was a female. Violent crimes are overwhelmingly commited by men. The question we are lefted with now is; is this just a sporadic coincidence or is this a new trend that will occur more and more? Only the future will tell, but regardless, we must begin to increase of focus of criminals to include more that just males. In conclusion, dispite all of the irregularities in this case, (such as the gender, victims, manner within the location, education, and childhood) and all of the statistics that mathimatically prove how unlikely such a thing is, it still happened just the same. Proving, that sometimes life just happens.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, some would find it very hard to believe that a woman could kill and injure her colleagues over being denied tenure, but I personally wouldn't put it past some people to kill or turn to a deviant lifestyle over not getting what they want or feeling as if they've got the short end of the stick. For example, take into consideration other business related incidents where some belligerent man comes in and opens fire because of being fired...supposedly without reason or think of the Virginia Tech school shootings where a tormented student turned to violence in order to rid himself of the trauma of being picked on day after day. For a woman, it may be hard to believe, but it shouldn't be ignored, nor labeled as something uncommon. They mentioned that she has a violent past where she killed her brother. Most psychologists would say that early exposure to violence and violent behavior can matriculate into adulthood, making violent adults. For criminologists and statisticians, how often are crimes that women commit actually recorded, are crimes such as these recorded even though society seems to focus on men? No one can truly be certain of how a person thinks under stress, especially work related stress but I believe that some people, if put under the right stresses can turn to deviant or violent behavior in order to achieve their own happiness. A person will do whatever it takes to ensure their own happiness, even at the expense of others.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading an article called the Metro Desk and that Professor Bishop and her husband have been suspect in the attempted mail bombing of a Harvard Medical School professor in 1993, and given the mood of the country today, I am not surprised at the shooting by Professor Bishop. Many stressors could have pushed her over the edge. The Rationalization Theory seem closely related to Professor Bishop in which increasingly precise calculation of adequate means to reach ultimate goals and then unable to reach them. It appears from this article that Ms. Bishop had a tumultuous past that the police are now trying to put together. After researching theories, I also find that the Cognitive Theory of Anger fits Ms. Bishop too. This theory was interesting. Beck (1999) explains:
ReplyDeleteThe Cognitive Theory of Anger consists of a constellation of core beliefs, automatic interpretations, and feelings that comprise the manifestation of anger experiences. Although the descriptive element of the cognitive theory of anger is well formulated, the causal element of the theory that relates specific disorder components to specific treatment components. The simple becomes difficult when we attempt to break through our own belief systems and deal with the dichotomies of our own internal realities and those of a broader world perspective. This is this fascinating..
I find this article very interesting because of what we discussed in class one morning, if everyone had a gun and react to something in a quick fashion how chaotic it might be. I have a concern now as to what type of security awareness, protection, and safety concern does campus provides their students and faculty members. It is easy for others to point their finger at the Security Staff and say where was security personnel. As a Security Specialist,I hear that everyday whenever something goes wrong but the fact is also that everyone need to realizes security is everyone responsibilities, to be alert, watch for warning signs, don't put yourself in harms way, and report unusual activities, behavior, or mannerism of classmates or faculty members. I know I probably have talked a little out of the norm but this is something I felt strong and emotional attached too. Maybe others could provide an insight of their feeling. I wish not to come up to campus wearing a bullet proof vest and having other means of protection on my possession from being in fear of these type of incident occuring again. Its a part the Social Learning Theory that I take that a behavior is influenced by environmental factors or stimulus of a society fears....what we normally see or hear are what we react too. But I might become a reality.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is interesting because you have a women who seems to be highly intelligent and would know not to respond to a situation in a manner like this. Amy Bishop had never shown any form of deviant behavior. According to one person she was a caring teacher. Amy Bishop opened fire on the faculty and staff members who were in the meeting because she wasn't going to receive her tenure. Her actions was driven by anger. This story is interesting because we talked about how there is a law that is trying to be passed that allows people to carry their guns with them. This woman shot these people because she was angry. If she shot someone because she was angry I wonder how many people would pull their guns on somebody and shoot them because things don't get their way. Since this woman wasn't a criminal and she showed no signs of insanity or any type of deviant behavior no one could predict this would happen. But in all respect its not surprising that she would do this. The strain theory is the idea that the causes of crime can be connected to the pressure on culturally or materially disadvantaged groups or individuals to achieve the goals held by society even if the means to those goals require breaking the law. She was denied her tenure and she believed she was entitled to that. Being a Harvard professor she is a highly educated wealthy person and this is how she should be seen in the eyes of society because this is the view society has shaped for her. Because she was denied that tenure she felt like she was being robbed and this wasn't acceptable and so she took it out on the people around her.People will get what they want how they want it regardless of who gets hurt in the process. In this case she didn't get what she wanted and now she has to deal with the consequences.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to determine what the cause of Mrs. Bishop's rampage other than the fact that she was supposedly upset about the fact that she was not going to be granted tenure. I understand this would cause anger and frustration in Mrs. Bishop, but would it literally drive her to get angry enough to kill three innocent people and wound 3 others? Apparently she has a previous record of violence. 24 years ago she was accused of shooting and killing her brother in 1986, but it was ruled an accident. She pulled a gun on another man at a dealership right after. And her and her husband were also questioned when a pipe bomb was mailed to a coworker that Bishop was having a dispute with. She was never tried in any of these cases. This seems to be how she was able to get the job at the university. It is difficult to tell what drove Bishop to commit these crimes when she seemed to go against the profile of a typical criminal. She had a Harvard degree so she was obviously educated. She is married with children and students say she was a good, nice professor who was even funny at times. Bishop seems as if she has been dealing with issues of violence throughout her life. Maybe there is something she is not saying. Studies show individuals who grow up in a violent home tend to grow up to have violent tendencies. The violent behavior they witnessed growing up is almost what seems normal to them. It is said that Bishop is now on trial for capital murder and could be facing the death penalty. I am very hopeful that this does not turn out to be another "guilty by reason of insanity". The fact that Bishop has committed acts of violence before and went free after the fact really concerns me. It is almost as if she knows what she is doing. She consciously brought a gun to the staff meeting (as well as went a shooting range previous to the meeting). Her moves seem too planned out.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the strangest cases I have read about in some time. The last thing I expected was to come upon a Harvard-educated professor, wife, and mother opening fire on fellow faculty members. I wonder if her husband was involved because he was at the meeting and is now in custody. It makes me wonder whose idea it really was. Bishop may well have mental issues if the death of her brother years ago was not an accident. It appears that the prospect of not having tenure created stress and possibly mental instability for her. It is said that workplace shootings are almost always committed by men, so this rare case leads me to wonder what caused it. It honestly makes me a bit nervous about one of a strange professor on this campus. I believe this fits into a pattern with someone committing a crime due to advancement being denied. It is apparently a case of anomie because Bishop did not know how to cope with the stress. She may have felt that her world was being turned upside down and that she was being treated unfairly. Therefore, she lashed out. Her moves seem planned out, so I imagine she knows what she is doing.
ReplyDeleteThis story caught me off guard because when I first heard about this shooting I did not get the complete scoop, but now that I read it comprehensively I see how sickening this really is. Amy Bishop does not fit the typical structure of a cold blood killer. First off, she received her degree from Harvard which is staggering to say the least and on top of that she was a very accomplished teacher. Her pulling out a gun in a room full of colleagues was most likely a real shock to the students and other faculty members that had known her because they had never seen such a vicious side of Amy. I believe that there was a lot more that built up and lead to this event happening. The only reasonable conclusion that I came up with is that her not being granted tenure at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was the law straw and when that happened she just lost it. The one sole reason that makes me unsure about the whole situation is the reason why she had a handgun present in the meeting in the first place. Obviously she went in there with the sole intent of taking some of her colleague’s lives and hopefully was not carrying this gun around at all times or this was just bound to happen sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteA degree from Harvard, and an inventor of a portable cell incubator. You have to be really smart to have done those things. What shocks me the most is that nobody ever thought of her as a criminal, yeah they said she was somewhat strange but strange in what ways? What made me wonder was why she shot her brother, maybe he just made her mad because she didn't get what she wanted because that is why she killed several of her colleagues because she didn't get what she wanted which was to get tenured to the university. Not that this theory is used today but when I saw her face it reminded me of the theory of atavisms. Any who what I don’t understand why a year later she decides to do this when she had been appealing the decision of being tenured for a year, if she saw that it wasn’t going to happen why wait? I think she planned it out for this exact meeting that they were in, maybe she was just trying to scare them and she “accidently” shot them like she did her brother. I think maybe she thought she was going to get away with it, which doesn’t make her as smart as she seemed to be.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Bishop was described as a mother, inventor, wife, and Harvard educated who opened fire during a faculty meeting regarding tenure had one last description left off her….criminal. She had “accidentally” killer her younger brother an accomplished musician and who’s certain records of this crime had been lost was never given a criminal background check. The theories that I feel applies to Professor Bishop are Robert Merton’s strain theory that explains the unequal access to norms. Failure of attaining goals and means. Tied to this theory is Emile Durkheim’s theory of anomie
ReplyDeleteAs more and more women enter the work-place we will see stress and work-related violence increase by a large margin. Historically, violent reaction to the stresses of work have been perceived as strictly masculine, however this is only true because the work force still is predominantly male. Academic Positions, places of prestige and popularity such that tenure provides, is difficult for any academic to achieve and even more so for females in the workplace. In lieu of possibly losing her job, Bishop reacted to the stress of the situation violently. This sort of violent behavior is characteristic of someone who is not entirely in the right mind, the question lies in what exactly went wrong with Bishop causing her to respond so violently during her faculty meeting. In 1986, Bishop killed her brother in what police called “an accident”. However, 3 shots fired and a fatal wound sounds like murder to me. It is possible that Bishop’s wealth or future prospects, as a student of Harvard, may have influenced the decisions made regarding her first crime. When dealing with a person who cannot adequately deal with workplace stress, there is no proper manner in which to appease them. If Bishop had gotten her tenure, how would she have reacted then? In the face of denial, she sought to kill those who had no control over her tenure prospects, thus condemning herself and ruining all the work she had done to get as far as she had. This kind of irrational thinking is the basis for most crime; its reactionary, spur of the moment, and sometimes fatal. You can never expect criminals to behave rationally, male or female, ignorant or academic.
ReplyDeleteProfessor bishop has issues, she's a crazy lady. She had already been charged with murdering her brother, or "accidently" killing him. This is BS. Now she kills and wounds faculty members. Yea, not right huh.?..?. To decide to committ a shooting just because you are not granted tenure. I understand frustration, but to kill and wound others; nug ugh.!..!.
ReplyDeleteThe weird things is we are talking about a Harvard professor here. Like really; a Harvard professor committing a shooting while a faculty meeting, it's just not expected, get me.?..?. In the last, certainty theories determined that "certain" people show up to be a criminal, wither physically or mentally. But here we see that you just can't determine what KIND of a person would commit a crime.
Professor Bishops' husband was at the meeting. Is this some kind of plan they had going on or is she just undergoing such a psychopathy theory.?..?. I mean it's a plan or she's just a psycho.!..!. Not caring if her husband dies, which in this case, he didn't, pattern.?..?. He wasn't a chosen one to die, he WAS at this meeting where she decided to persue the shooting; something's just not clicking.
I think that there were signs in the past when Amy Bishop shot her brother in the chest. I feel that Amy was just a pop bottle ready to sxplode. I think that this shooting would have occurred eventially and that the tenure was just an immediate reasoning. Who normally go to work carrying a gun unless that is your profession. There has been many situations at my job that I fealt I was dealt an unfair hand, however, I would never go in shooting. But again as I say, the presidence had already been set. There was something inside of her that does not allow her to fully conceive the notion you cannot shoot your problems.
ReplyDeleteMakes me wonder who really is teaching me and what they are going through. This shooting is meant to occur if not this shooting another incident would have occured. Like rained5 says she was "just a pop bottle ready to explode". There's really nothing we can do with these school shootings. We do not have any ideas on what kind of patterns or trends exist.
ReplyDelete