On the inanity of grief counselling

Recently, a 17-year old girl was kidnapped from a street adjacent to Southwestern Law School and subsequently murdered by her assailant in downtown Los Angeles. The apparent motive was robbery, which was botched. The girl, Lily Burk, is the daughter of one of our part-time professors, and she was at Southwestern to pick up final exams for her mother to grade. The suspected killer has been caught, and the story has been covered intensively in the news. Obviously, this is a tragedy for the parents, who have lost their only child through a wanton individual’s horrible deed. In addition, the mother likely will blame herself (undeservedly) for having placed her daughter in harm’s way by sending her to pick up the exams.

Some Southwestern students (most are not on campus due to summer break) held a candlelight vigil for Lily Burk and erected a small shrine with flowers, cards, and gifts. That was a beautiful act. The school had a presentation by LAPD about the safety of the neighborhood (which is much better than in the past) and how to avoid being a victim of a crime. Yet, the very randomness of the crime makes it difficult to guard against. Still, the presentation, not that well attended because of summer break and the likely recognition of the freakish nature of the crime, was a good idea.

Then followed the absurd. An email was sent to all at Southwestern:

“Licensed clinical social workers from Kaiser Permanente will be on campus to lead a structured group discussion to provide post-crisis support and intervention for members of the Southwestern community who may be experiencing symptoms of general anxiety, fear or depression after the tragedy of this past week.”

This is insane. Or at least inane. I know that we have become a culture where everyone “needs” therapy for every bump, bruise, or condition, either physical or emotional. So we hear of hordes of “grief counselors” descending like locusts on public schools whenever someone is a victim of a serious crime at that school. We have a vast epidemic of post-traumatic stress syndrome for soldiers of recent wars, though such conditions were rare in prior, and much bloodier, wars. But, OK. I can understand the need for some treatment in those cases, even though studies have shown that for many, the pressure to relive events by talking about them merely multiplies whatever traumatic effect there was. Same for the very fact of making a big deal of the event. As a father of seven, I can safely declare that children are very resilient, physically and psychologically. Magnifying the matter through excessive attention only causes them disquiet that otherwise would not exist.

Whatever merit there may be to having counselling for children who were present when their teacher or a fellow pupil was killed, is entirely lacking in the situation at Southwestern. These students are not (supposed to be) children. The killing did not take place here. Few, if any, at Southwestern knew the victim. The professor only teaches one class in the summer. The killer is not associated with Southwestern. This is clearly a tragedy for Professor Drooz and her husband. They might decide that they need counselling. Or not.

But for others to appropriate their tragedy in this fashion is not only odd. It is offensive. It reflects a narcissistic streak in people that they have to inject themselves into the business of others and turn attention to themselves. It reminds me of people such as Al Sharpton who manage to appear at every tragedy and jump into the spotlight to promote themselves. Through this charade, people are saying, “Look at me. I am a victim, too. You may have suffered the loss of a loved one, but this is not just about you.”

Worse, Southwestern is training future lawyers. These folks are supposed to be somewhat hardened, not whimpering simps. Is the school next going to provide grief counselling if the student does poorly in constitutional law or his/her moot court problem, flunks the bar exam, or fails to get that desired job? All of those setbacks are more directly related to the student and to Southwestern and may affect the student’s future more concretely than this crime. And, once in practice, are these pampered former students going to get counselling as prosecutors when they find out that the complaining witness was the victim of a crime? Will the personal injury lawyers, plaintiff and defense, go to therapy when they find out that the defective product caused a bloody injury? This is patently absurd.

It is possible, of course, that the school is simply striking a “progressive” pose and has no expectation whatsoever that any students will be so undeserving of being a lawyer as to appear for such counselling. I’m not sure which is the worst, to have the administration fake its concern (unlikely), to have it have so little faith as to believe that the students are such tender shoots (likely), or to have the students actually be so spineless and narcissistic (unlikely, I hope).