“We recoil in horror and search for explanations,” Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center said, in a 1999 New York Times editorial on shootings in Seattle and Honolulu. “But we never face up to the obvious preventative measure: a ban on the handy killing machines that make crimes so easy.”
This is the first thing one would read on the University of Idaho’s dissertation “Bullets and Books by Legislative Fiat: Why Academic Freedom and Public Policy Permit Higher Education Institutions to Say No to Guns.” The title sums up UI’s position very well.
Though I respect UI’s position and understand their stance, I must disagree with their argument. While it sounds nice, banning guns from campus is constitutionally unsound and not a proper preventative measure.
In the dissertation, UI uses the argument that through constitutional academic freedom is defined by UI as the freedom of the institution to pursue its mission without outside government interference so the school can create the atmosphere they deem most suited for a learning environment.
UI argues that such ability falls under the institution’s freedom to determine how the materials may be taught.
“As one leading scholar on academic freedom explained, the essential freedom of ‘how it shall be taught’ recognizes that the educational institution’s right to academic freedom goes beyond the freedom of ideological speech and encompasses a duty to create an ‘atmosphere which is most conductive to speculation, experiment, and creation,'” Lewis said. “Obviously, to create this atmosphere requires security.”
There are several problems with this statement, not the least of which is the notion that no guns equals security. Consider how far the university seems to be taking their apparent academic freedom. Your freedom and mine under the First Amendment only extends to free expression. Apparently, UI isn’t constrained by this and can dictate our constitutionally-protected rights.
Former Justice Abe Fortas – assistant justice to the Supreme Court – wrote in the court’s opinion of the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
“In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism.” Fortas said.
School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are ‘persons’ under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.”
The case in Tinker v. Des Moines revolved around the freedom of speech and involved high school students, but what the court stated is especially important for college students. We are adults and American citizens working for our education – yet, we aren’t allowed to exercise all of our rights?
Lewis ends the dissertation by saying that protecting students is the job of campus security or the police. But, what happens when the police are not around or you cannot call for them?
UI needs to reconsider its ban on guns.
Andrew Jenson can be reached at [email protected]