Watching our nation’s response to the horrific shootings that are taking place in our public schools leads me to think we are training our children to accept restrictions to their liberty that anyone supporting a free and open democracy would find appalling.
If every school in the nation adopts the recommendations put forth by the politicians and pundits who are bowing to the National Rifle Association, our future citizens will retain the right to acquire and use any weapon they want to have.
However, in exchange for this inalienable right, our uniformed schoolchildren will be required to spend 12 years in institutions where their entry to an enclosed compound requires airport-style security.
Once inside the institution, the students will be monitored by cameras, subjected to random searches, overseen by armed police and armed teachers, and profiled by government officials for mental health issues.
When they return home, the government will monitor their social media for evidence of mental instability that might warrant their exclusion from the institution.
All of these proposals to “improve school safety” are a consequence of how our political leaders frame the problem. Because they see security and people as the problem, they are considering legislation to “harden” schools by securing entries and providing surveillance cameras. They are considering legislation to arm more adults in the school. They are considering extensive mental health screening and monitoring of social media.
The result of our current thinking is that we are raising a generation of students who are comfortable with the government monitoring them 24/7, working in an environment where they are overseen by armed guards, and living in a world where they are protected from those who might “pose a threat” based on government screening.
But creating this “safe” environment is presumably worth it because, when they are old enough, these same schoolchildren will be able to acquire any weapons they wish to purchase — that is, unless they “pose a threat.”
This is not the future I want for my grandchildren.
Wayne Gersen
Etna
At a community meeting hosted by the Upper Valley chapter of Showing Up for Racial Justice on April 25, the 20 or so attendees were tasked with reading and analyzing the news brief published by the Valley News on April 5, “Lebanon Police Probe Distribution of ‘Racially Charged’ Fliers.”
Applying a lens of anti-racism, it was evident that the vague reporting did little to challenge the content of the publications.
The headline and the news brief used the passive voice, helping the individuals responsible evade accountability and responsibility that comes with being a citizen with constitutional rights.
Not only that, but a quarter of the brief was devoted to giving voice to the white supremacist recruitment pamphlets, using direct quotations and aiding the spread of the message.
Racism is not merely the vulgar acts of individuals or groups, but a system that supports the privilege of one race at the expense of others.
The citing of the First Amendment rights in isolation does little in the way of addressing all the other rights each citizen is entitled to.
Those same words and arguments used in the flyer were the same ones used in 1835 to pull Noyes Academy in Canaan off its foundation. Words mean something.
Passive, vague reporting that gives a platform to hateful ideas is both a tool and a symptom of that system of beliefs. The sentiments issued in these pamphlets have no place in civil society, nor should they find soil to germinate here in the Upper Valley. These cancerous thoughts urge us to speak out.
Though no one from the Valley News attended the April 25 meeting, please feel free to contact us with questions on how to more strongly support the work against racism while reporting local events.
Gina Sonne
Norwich
This letter was signed by two other members of the Upper Valley chapter of Showing Up for Racial Justice.