The Indecency of College Administrators
By John Longenecker
October 23, 2007
In previous editions of Good For The Country, I mentioned how wrongful death lawsuits may play an important role in reclaiming the sovereignty of the adult students murdered on a campus which had no power to stop a shooter and which frustrates the target from acting in self-defense. This would serve the sovereignty of all. Yes, adult students submit to the rules of the campus or go elsewhere, I know, but this involves a reasonable expectation of a high degree of trust that the administration not only has student interests at heart, but also knows what in the world they are doing. Ignoring student input on a right is not fulfilling this.
When the students know more about the solution than the administration does, and then an administration won't be reasonable in its public trust, then the entire United States has a problem.Please note that as of this writing, school shootings are on the increase this week alone.
In the case of lawful guns in lawful hands - or, more specifically, of safety or of citizen authority since the nation's very inception - many, many Educators have forgotten what citizen authority is viz-a-viz themselves as public servants. Not impressive.
When any appointed or elected official becomes stubborn and will not hear the obvious because they sense it will undermine one's prestige and control - even a little - one has stopped acting in the interests of the people he/she is sworn to serve and begins to vex them. In the case of Mike Nifong, many were vexed. In the case of campus shootings, many are killed for such very similar vexings.
The cost of this peccadillo of hiding the ball is far too high, and there is positively no difference between school officials' hiding the ball of citizen authority and domestic state law and Mike Nifong's hiding the ball.
This sort of vexing of the people officials are to serve - this bad faith hiding the ball - is on the increase. Official stubbornness and defiance of law is becoming indecent now. Nifong is one example, but when the law is to be shown school administrators - shown adult citizen authority, for instance, or citing and invoking state law - the school policy of banning personal weapons is impeached. ...Or should be, one would think.
Enter the slippery argument of going to court or other corner of bureaucracy for a 'ruling' on the question the administration should already know. Virginia Tech's Report has done this, seeking advice of law enforcement.
This is the indecency. Pretending that one is dealing in good faith with students by seeking a ruling. This is as disingenuous as asking for another toss of the coin, then best three out of five, then best seven out of ten, all while hiding the ball.
A school has no such authority to waive a civil right, especially one which acts in the public interest and which is affirmed by its own state law while the campus ban on personal weapons operates against the public interest. Consulting others for a ruling is a stalling tactic. In a public trust, it is bad faith.
Please see the White Paper issued by the Good For The Country Foundation for an explication for non-gun owners who are most concerned in how best to optimize campus safety and in the safety of their adult children. The Foundation places the emphasis on relating Original Intent citizen authority as the consistent solution to many, many such problems even in 2007 America. On this subject, the Nation's Founders did not need to foresee high-tech weapons or the murderers who used them - what they feared most was the resurgence of abuses of power. Banning self-defense for political purposes is an exquisite example of what the Founders feared. Banning citizen authority of the student body in defiance of state law is adverse to the very concept of the United States.
In the final analysis, a campus Administration is an aggregate of individuals in public trust, and does not get the last word, nor do the bureaucrats they consult and count on for political cover - the people get the last word, even in a private organization where it is their constituents who speak, and the people spoke three centuries ago. Called ratification, it is not something subject to majority rule, opinion, or sway in 2007 - They've already had this debate. No need to seek a ruling for another toss of the coin. It's too late. It is inalienable now. Educators really ought to know better.
Meanwhile, armed self-defense is proven to be a great Safeguard of our Liberty. Why hide the ball on this? The jig is up: armed self defense is a Safeguard for students. As such, it's good for the country.
John Longenecker is President and CEO of Good For The Country Foundation, a patriotic non-profit organization.