Yes. Thank you.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/15/paris-you-dont-want-read?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

I teach the first year engineering classes at Virginia Tech, and I have an open social media (or Internet) policy, that means anyone (I guess except me?) in the class can use social media (or Internet) if it does not disturb others or the flow of the class. I do so because I believe that I cannot force students to pay attention in class. A will to pay attention has to come from them. And a lot of times, we need the Internet to look up stuff in class. So, having a no Internet might be a hindrance in the flow of the class.

Thanks for the input, Katie! I agree with you. Mass disarmament in the US would be our freedom death sentence in my view. I agree too that education is key and removing stigma associated with gun ownership (When did that begin? It had to be during the last decade-and-a-half.) Unfortunately, as I’m sure you know, how do we educate the public? This answer becomes less and less clear the more I play the role of educator. For some reason an open mind is a rare bird.

It will be interesting to see how the Texas campus gun allowances play out. I look forward to more of your thoughts on higher education issues!

LikeLike

I forgot to mention, HOPE is also just a merit-based scholarship and does not include various other forms of financial aid available to low-income students in these states that do not consider GPA.

I don’t think “gun free zones” solve any problems at all and they certainly don’t make anyone any safer. People who want to hurt others will not be deterred by a sign. By killing or attempting to kill, they are breaking all laws both legislative and moral, so all a sign will do is let the killer(s) know there are a bunch of unarmed people walking around. Background checks prior to gun purchases are already mandatory, even at gun shows. The only time a background check is not mandatory is through private sale or giving a gun to someone. I agree with your comment that the breakdown of the mental health system may be partially responsible. It does seem that the majority of shootings are by individuals with severe mental illness. Hatred and intolerance also lead to violence as was the case in the Charleston church shooting (maybe also some mental illness as well as racists don’t usually go that far).

Honestly, I don’t think there is much we can do to mitigate this problem. I am absolutely not in favor of civilian disarmament as I believe I do have a right to own a gun for my family’s protection. People can still kill without a gun and if someone armed with say an axe broke into my house, I would want a gun rather than a baseball bat to defend my family. I think additional gun control legislation will only hurt the innocent ones who just want to hunt animals and protect their families. These people will lawfully register, pay taxes on, and do whatever else might be required for legal gun ownership if some of the proposed laws eventually pass. In places where gun registration IS mandatory, convicted criminals are not required to register their firearms (they cannot legally own a firearm and to register one would be self-incriminating which is unconstitutional), only innocent civilians (see Haynes vs. the United States court ruling). What purpose does this serve then? The government would then know of everyone who legally owns a gun. It would make mandatory disarmament of civilians SO easy! Yes, this may be delving a bit into conspiracy theory, but I for one do not place all my trust in the government and I think we should take a look at the history of the world before we let the government take away all our freedoms.

Admittedly, the fear of a school shooting terrifies me also and I am not trying to diminish the horror and pain these events have caused by any means. I just think we need to think about the bigger picture and be wary of anything that could lead us down a path of disarmament by the government. We cannot let fear rule our lives. I think encouraging responsible gun ownership, providing opportunities to learn about gun safety, and removing social stigmas of concealed carry permit holders could go a long way. Rather than teach people to be afraid of guns, we need to educate them. I don’t hear (m)any stories in the news about concealed carry permit holders (educated gun owners) accidentally killing people in public because they have a gun on them. Although of course many people disagree, I think a good guy with a gun is important and the more of them we have, the quicker these shooters will be stopped.

LikeLike

I’m done with the audio book, so if you’re in to that verse a hard copy, I can bring it to class next week. I had several hours of driving over the weekend and it helped it go by a bit better than just the radio!

LikeLike

Great questions, Tanya. I don’t have answers to all of them, but, in the case of Georgia, and I’m pretty sure for South Carolina and Florida too, the HOPE scholarship (or Bright Futures for Florida) is funded by the state lottery, I think with additional support from the state. I don’t really know enough to say whether this is necessarily a sustainable set-up…for example, I think it is currently a struggle to maintain funds for HOPE. Your point about who these scholarships really serve is an important one. Even though HOPE is open to everyone with a 3.0 GPA, students who can maintain this GPA tend to be privileged, attended good high schools, may not need to work jobs outside of school to support themselves, etc. That being said, the vast majority of people at UGA were on HOPE. It is at least a step in the right direction!

Thank you for your response Wei-Ning! And good question. Honestly, I consider myself moderate in the liberal-conservative spectrum and still feel outside popular opinion in academia.

The way I’m wired, I would suggest more social events within individual disciplines and interests that can also serve as discussion forums for issues of relevance. My opinion is that discussions at large become hostile and attendees become non-complacent because we lose all sense of fellowship and camaraderie with total strangers. My most meaningful discussions in life have taken place while hiking, kayaking, horseback riding, roadtrips, or the like. In those situations I am walking with (literally or otherwise) the person or people I am conversing/debating.

So often we have disagreed, but continuing to walk and talk anchors that sense of kindred that is absent in most debate forums. Yes we may be Hokies, but is that enough for large issues? I’m seeing that it’s often not.

In summary, I say we start with commonality and let that bridge our discussions along the greater debate channels at the university and elsewhere. Conceivable, sure. Likely? I can only hope and do my part to create such spaces.

LikeLike

Thanks, Tanya! I just finished writing another entitled “Universities as policing agents?” that I scheduled to post tomorrow. Your feedback would be appreciated there as well.

Btw, “Tipping Point” is popular right now with both VT Library and the Public Library’s copies out currently. I may just have to buy it at B&N.

LikeLike

Cody, you raise great points! Indeed, instructors should have a safe place for students to talk. However, I noticed that when students are more aware of their social issues, they are more likely to be quiet in the class. Some students also consider themselves as conservative, and they may feel they know nothing what to talk. I have some students tell me that they don’t want to offend anyone, that’s why they rather just listen. How would you create a safe space for students with conservative view to engage into racial discussion?

LikeLike