If Sylvester Anderson is correct about the inability of school administrators to search students for weapons, then, as he proposes, the policy ought to be changed.

In fact, we would insist on far more robust arrangements for security at schools, including having students in at-risk institutions checked with metal detectors and having their bags searched for weapons on entering and leaving their campuses.

We, of course, expect there will be howls of protest from civil libertarians, and while we largely empathise with their concerns, Jamaica faces a crisis of security that has raced pell-mell into our schools. So, while we respect the right of students to privacy, we respect more their right to life, and are clear about the responsibility of adults for the safety and security, physical and otherwise, of children.

Indeed, the risks faced by children broadly, and students in particular, and the attendant responsibility of adults for their safety at all spheres of national life, were highlighted again this week at Jamaica College (J.C.). One student died from knife wounds inflicted, allegedly, by another.

We do not presume to know the circumstances of the incident and, therefore, do not presume to pronounce on the guilt or innocence in what is now a criminal matter. But this case of student violence and violence on school compounds is neither new nor unique. There has been much hand-wringing in recent years about this serious and, apparently, worsening problem.

We understand that the causes for the dysfunctional behaviour in our society that have led to more than 1,200 homicides so far this year are myriad and complex. Therefore, the interventions to change attitudes and behaviour must be many and varied.

In this regard, all possible solutions to ensure the safety of Jamaican citizens, and in this case children, must be explored and, where practicable, tried. An atmosphere of tension and fear cannot be the best environment for learning.

Clearly, searching children will not, by or of itself, eliminate classroom violence, but it can be a deterrent. If students believe that they have a good chance of being caught with offensive weapons, they will be less likely to have them on their persons or pack them in their kits. And if they are not available, they cannot be used.

We agree with Mr. Ruel Reid, the principal of J.C., that schools are unlikely to be able to search all students. But in the circumstances, searching should be mandatory and routine on entering the institutions. Those who have the responsibility for the job, working with security experts, can determine the ratio of persons to be searched against the number of people going on to and off the campuses.

Such a process may not be easy or cheap, but it can't be too difficult or too expensive to be afforded. We can start, as Mr. Anderson suggests, by expanding the scope of those with the authority to search. We should quickly, thereafter, put in place the rest of infrastructure for the system to operate.

It is a matter of will, rather than resources, we believe, that is likely to be the major impediment to implementation.