The Jamaica College video reveals more than bullying

I have watched the video multiple times, and I will admit that the first attempt was difficult to complete. For any parent, it is not easy to watch a child being humiliated and harmed while others stand around and participate. What is missing from much of the public discussion is any consideration for the parents of every young man in that room. There is a parent whose child is being physically and psychologically harmed, standing there with visible fear, absorbing what is being done to him. There are also parents whose children are participating in the act, inflicting harm, encouraging it, or enabling it through their presence. 

That is not easy for any parent to process, and yet that dimension is largely absent from the conversation.

After stepping away, I returned to the video with intention, watching it repeatedly to ensure that I understood not just what happened, but how it unfolded. At first glance, it appears to be a bullying incident, and there are elements that support that conclusion. The individual delivering the slaps is physically larger than the others, and it is easy to frame him as the dominant aggressor. However, when I paid closer attention, I noticed that the initial slaps appeared measured, almost restrained. Then something changed. At one point, he glanced toward the camera, and from that moment forward, the intensity escalated. The presence of the recording did not simply capture the act; it appears to have influenced it. The behavior became performative, intensifying under the awareness of being seen.

Beyond that, there was another student holding a belt, moving strategically around the space, waiting for an opening to participate. His actions were not random; they were timed. There were also others positioned around the scene in a way that suggested containment, as though their role was to prevent the victim from escaping. What stood out most was the absence of interruption. No one stepped in to de-escalate the situation, no one attempted to create distance, and no one showed visible concern for the victim. This did not feel like a spontaneous act unfolding in chaos. The movement, positioning, and timing suggest a level of coordination that goes beyond a random moment. Whether or not it was formally planned, the incident appears to have been anticipated in some way, with multiple individuals understanding their roles as it unfolded.

What makes this even more troubling is that the recording itself did not appear incidental. This was not a passerby capturing an unexpected moment. The camera was present from the beginning, positioned in a way that suggests the event was meant to be documented. Whether that intent was agreed upon beforehand or developed in the moment, the presence of the recording appears to have influenced the behavior, shifting it from action into performance. 

This is why I struggle with the framing of this incident as isolated. It is not disconnected from the broader environment that produced it. When I listen to public responses and official statements, I hear concern about behavior, discipline, and consequences, but far less about the systems that shape these outcomes. This moment reflects a convergence of issues that extend beyond the walls of that room. It speaks to peer culture, to the way boys are socialized around dominance and humiliation, to the normalization of bystanding, and to gaps in how schools and families respond to behavioral escalation. It also touches early childhood development, where foundational patterns are formed, and the ongoing disengagement of boys within the education system, where structure and support are often misaligned with developmental realities. These are not separate issues. They are interconnected, and when they are not addressed collectively, they surface in moments like this.

What we are seeing is not just misbehavior. It is a breakdown in coordination across the systems responsible for shaping behavior.

One of the most troubling aspects for me was the public handling of the incident once it entered the media space. The uniforms in the video clearly identify the school, and there is no ambiguity about where this occurred. Yet several early reports referred to it as happening at “a prominent high school,” despite what was visibly evident. That inconsistency matters.

Just one day after the national outcry over the gross misconduct involving students at Jamaica College, another serious incident emerged — a student stabbing at Seaforth High in St. Thomas. Two events, back-to-back, forcing us to confront deeper questions about what is happening within our systems.

What becomes difficult to ignore is not only the timing, but the contrast in how these incidents are framed and presented to the public. I have personally experienced situations involving non traditional high schools where requests for discretion were not honored and names were published without hesitation. The difference in treatment raises important questions about equity, about whose reputations are protected and whose are exposed. These disparities reinforce the very inequalities that continue to shape how institutions are perceived and how accountability is applied.

This incident is not distant for me. It is personal, not because of proximity to the individuals involved, but because of what it represents. To watch a young person placed in a position of helplessness, surrounded by peers who contribute to that condition, is deeply unsettling. It becomes even more difficult to accept when the moment does not appear accidental, but structured in a way that allowed it to unfold without interruption. The real concern is not only in what was done, but in what had to exist beforehand for it to happen the way it did.

Dr. Leo Gilling is a criminologist, educator, and diaspora policy advocate. He writes The Gilling Papers, where he examines policing, public safety, governance, and community-based solutions in Jamaica and across the African diaspora. Send feedback to editorial@oldharbournews.com