Root Cause?

Root cause analysis is a tool used in manufacturing to get beyond the superficial causes of an undesired outcome. It uses rigorous methodologies to get to the originating causes of a defect or problem. We use this systemic approach, because too often we humans tend to jump to the easily derived conclusions and only attempt to address those in our proposed solutions. One of the techniques we use is a 5 why. It is simple: Ask why? When you have an answer ask why? again. Repeat this 5 times and you are often close of one of the true root causes of the problem.

Why? Is a question we have been hearing a lot this week. I have found myself asking the same question, but because of my funny hat, I have found myself on a slightly different path:

The first why(1) is obvious. Cho was antisocial and mentally ill, resulting in anger or rage, which he acted upon with tragic results. Killing and maiming completely innocent people. Cho was angry at society in general which is what lead to him attacking a group/community rather than specific individuals.

Why?(2) I doubt it was for fame and glory as is the popular assumption in some circles. The people who want fame attack celebrities, John Lennon, Reagan, etc. Instead I would speculate that his anger at society was the result of his poor socialization and his inability to interact with others in what we would consider a normal modality. This inability to interact lead to increasing isolation, frustration and anger which must have been extremely painful. So, Cho was antisocial to the point of pain and blamed society at large for his pain.

Why?(3) There seems to be a parallel with Columbine here, in that while attending High School in Circleville Virginia, Cho was ostracized and bullied. Not only by his classmates, but from what I heard, also by his teachers, threatening him with an F if he did not read aloud etc. This is not a cause but a contributing factor. One that our culture does not seem to want to get into. When we are dealing with socially dysfunctional individuals it seems to be human nature to take the approach of isolating those individuals who do not fit in. These individuals disrupt the general harmony of the group, and require lots of additional resources to get them to make a positive contribution. While we cannot blame general human behavior for Cho’s inability to interact socially, we do need to recognize the importance of it in setting this individual on a path toward extreme action. What may have been a small problem early, snowballed into one that ended in Cho’s murderous rampage.

Why(4) was Cho unable to socialize in a more normal manner? We may never know for certain. He was obviously intelligent in the sense that he was able to learn and score well on tests. Did Cho have Asberger’s syndrome, a form or autism? Since his sister does not have obvious social development issues we cannot say it was the result of his disciplined upbringing (perhaps driven by his blue collar, immigrant parent’s, desire for a greater success for their children). It is apparent that Cho had a problem that went untreated for many years.

Why?(5) Did Cho’s school district have the resources to recognize and deal with social dysfunctional disorders? Did his parents have medical insurance that would cover his treatment? At this level there are only questions. Delving this deep we start to understand what may be one of the true root causes of what happened Monday in Virginia.

If we truly want to prevent this from happening in the future, we have to start here. As a society we cannot call ourselves civilized or compassionate if we choose to use peer pressure and ostracization to deal with social dysfunction. Outcasts sometimes form their own tribes where a wider degree non conformity is accepted. ( The presence and continued need for the word “outcast” in our language should signal that we as a society have a problem. ) Instead we tend to think of the problem being with individuals. In less contemporary times, individuals like Cho would have likely found themselves either dead at an early age, driven from the group into the wilderness to survive on his own, or if his parents were of sufficient power and stature, carefully protected.

If Cho had not taken his own life, he would have undoubtedly faced the death penalty in spite of his mental illness. Our ultimate solution to the problem is essentially the same as used by our ancestors. I guess the only difference is they were perhaps a little better at addressing the problem earlier rather than after the fact. Is this really the way we want to behave as a society? Or are these questions and the preventive actions too difficult for us?

I predict we will choose to ignore the root causes and concentrate on the superficial ones. Availability of guns, failings of the database integration that allowed Cho to easily get through the background check, the failure of the treatment process once his problem as a young adult was recognized. We will not go back to when Cho was 8 or 12 years old. We will not ask how we can help these individuals early and avoid the snowballing of poor social behavior, isolation, and increasing anger that can erupt into tragedy.

In the end we will choose to say this just happens sometimes and leave it at that. I predict this because of a commentary I heard on Wednesday. It was by a “friend” of the Columbine shooters. A fellow who was warned to leave school that fateful day 8 years ago. Already an outcast, after the killings he was further ostracized by his classmates for being a “friend”. It seems some lessons are very hard for us to learn. Especially when we don’t want to learn them.