The national student walkout to protest gun violence is wrong

Leave it to Byrne, I can hear some people saying, to come up with such a crazy post. But hear me out please.

I admire the spunk, energy, determination and organizational ability of the students in their National Student Walkout. I agree with restrictions on gun purchases that include a  ban bump stocks, a longer wait to buy semi-automatic rifles and a minimum age of 21 for guns purchases. Some disagree, fine. But limited sales of firearms is reasonable and constitutional otherwise  bazookas and howitzers would be legal.

My problem isn’t the students, but with the thousands of schools that obviously see no problem with using minors as pawns in a political dispute. Some will argue that it’s not political at all, as if calling for stricter gun laws is politically neutral speech. Organizers of the #Enough walkouts are the Women’s March Youth Empower, according to its website, in coalition with “PeaceFirst, Rise To Run, The Gathering For Justice, Rock the Vote and Teen Vogue. Women’s March Empower  upholds the Unity Principles of the Women’s March platform.” Those principles are loaded with hot political positions, among them “reproductive rights” and “LGBTQIA rights.” They are clearly no friends of conservative positions.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with students supporting either side of those  positions and vowing to get their platform enacted into law. The problem is public schools that rally behind those causes by devoting a part of the learning day to what amounts to a political rally.

Under the Constitution, students have a right to protest and speak their minds–a position that seemingly is getting more support from conservatives than liberals when it comes to free speech issues on college campuses. But the government sponsorship of political activities is, correctly, strictly forbidden.

Instead of plunging deep into legal and constitutional arguments, perhaps an illustration will best explain. Suppose your public school participated in organizing a student protest during school hours in support of President Donald Trumps wall? Or working with the Pro-Life Action League to stage a school-hour protest against abortion?

Well, you’d respond, those are ridiculous examples because who supports those issues? (Never mind that the answer is plenty of people do.) The response would be, “What public school would ever sponsor a pro-life or pro-wall march?”

Which is exactly the point. Minority voices have free speech protections. They should not be required to participate in speech they don’t agree with. They are not required to lend their physical presence to any political position if they don’t choose to. The response is that students were given an opportunity to not participate in the walkout, by among other things staying behind in the classroom or being sent to a classroom set aside for objectors. In other words, objectors will feel pressured to participate, to suffer embarrassment and ridicule. And that’s not allowed either.

Another analogy, although not perfect, might help explain. Some of my older readers will remember the political squabbles and court battles over school prayer. Advocates of praying in school said that students weren’t required to pray. They could stand or sit silently. The courts ruled against that option because even that was considered to be compelled speech.

How about the teachers? Are there strong Second Amendment supporters among the faculty who have objections to participating in a pro-gun control rally? Can they be ordered as part of their job to walk out with the students as supervisors? What are their job protections?

In short, students can walk out on their own if they choose, but they can be punished for it because the law says they are required to attend school. They can protest after school; they can had hand out posters and wear clothing to state their political positions. Also, private schools are free to do what they want because they are not public/government agencies.

In any case, another civil rights hornets nest has been opened. If, of course, the media choose to even discuss the complicated issues involved.



Leave a comment
  • Seems to me I heard the same thing about civil rights and anti-war demonstrations. In fact, one can argue that the student walk outs represent a form of civil disobedience.

    Unlike some liberals, I understand that when you engage in civil disobedience, you expect to take the punishment that goes with it. I feel the same way about this walk out. If students are suspended for their actions, it will only serve to further publicize their cause, a fair trade-off.

    My view is that this country is much better off with involved and engaged young people than with apathetic mopes who are more concerned with how many "likes" they have on social media.

  • A sane person would argue that there is no meaningful hazard to students from the lack of a border wall with Mexico.

    A sane person would likewise argue that there is no meaningful hazard to students from the lack of forced birth legislation* nationwide, disingenuous counterclaims notwithstanding.

    *When those on that side of the question begin caring as much about the already living, I will take them seriously. Then and only then.

  • Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, zealots often disregard what's best for the children in an effort to support their cause.

  • It's very simple, Dennis. The government schools are almost monolithically left-wing. They'll gladly ignore law if it helps push a left wing position, but they will NEVER allow the same for right-wing causes. They are nothing more than appendages of the Democrat party.
    Since Trump's election, the left has been having a collective fit and, besides eating themselves, are going full throttle on all fronts. We're pretty close to Soviet-style oppression.

  • I support students in their right to freedom of choice. I don't blame the state, but I am totally against the state administration, which is in charge of the state's school curriculum. The new distance learning plan is too difficult for the school. They also prevent us from using European services like to order essays and so on. They think that if we study at home, we will now have a lot of time. But in practice, we were faced with a task for two years ahead. This is normal?

Leave a comment