High schoolers are leading the charge in America’s gun reform movement. But should they be so active, so early? (Originally printed March 29, 2018)
The recent gun-related tragedies in our nation are giving birth to a new wave of activists. Across the nation, the survivors of the Parkland high school shooting appealed to their fellow high schoolers in a call to arms against guns—and the response from their peers was overwhelmingly supportive.
Between the high school walkouts earlier this month and last week’s March for Our Lives, many socially conscious, politically active teens are leading the charge in crusades against gun violence and calling for stricter regulations.
These high school students are more engaged in society than their recent predecessors. Millennials were criticized for not showing up to the polls and not being as engaged as they should have been. This next generation, however, is a different breed entirely.
Not all were supportive of the high schoolers’ activism, however. A New Jersey school placed students who participated in the walkout on a two-day suspension for leaving campus without authorization. The school district’s Board of Education president, Kevin Ciak, called the walkouts “willful disobedience” and “failure to follow administrative direction.”
However, a precedent set by a 1934 case established that students had First Amendment rights. In 1969, high school students protested the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands to school. In the ensuing lawsuit, which turned out in the students’ favor, Justice Abe Fortas wrote, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate … School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students…In the absence of specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.”
Jeremiah Harris, junior communication major, said he thought that if they’re old enough to to be aware of the immediacy of the issue, then they’re probably old enough to have an opinion.
“Our elders see us as too young to understand. They think that we can’t understand the importance or the complexities of gun control, but if you’re old enough to be shot, you’re old enough to have an opinion on [gun control],” Harris said.
On the flip side, there were also reports of an Ohio school suspended a student who made a statement of his own by remaining in his classroom. He refused join the protest, but he also refused to go to the area in the school designated for non-protesting students, making a statement of neutrality. That sounds like a pretty nuanced decision to me.
Melanie Joyce, junior communication major, said she thought schools should address the root and the heart of the issue: students.
“I think [schools] should…make time to get to know [their] students and find out what’s really going on in their home lives,” Joyce said in regards to past student shooters.
Harris agreed about getting to the root cause of the problem.
“Have a conversation and recognize the human error in these things,” Harris said.
“It’s like with medicine. You can treat the symptoms, but you want to find the root cause, so focus more on that instead of the quick fix.”
As for the other students, schools shouldn’t punish them for standing up for their beliefs, or for having an opinion that disagrees with the majority. Instead, schools should make time for teachers to have conversations with students about current issues. Teachers should educate students on both sides of the issue, so that students can make informed decisions.
California high school teacher Julianne Benzel made a valid point while discussing the walkout with her students. She said that if the school allows students to walk out in protest of gun reform, they should allow students to walk out in protest of other causes, too. However, Benzel was placed on leave by her administration in response to her conversation.
“If you’re going to allow students to walk up and get out of class without penalty, then you have to allow any group of students that wants to protest,” Benzel told CBS13. “I didn’t get any backlash from my students. All my students totally understood that there could not be a double standard.”
Benzel is right about the double standard set by her administration, and the fact that they put her on leave for saying so actually proves her point.
In each of these cases, people chose to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech and to peaceful assembly. People are allowed to exercise these right in public forums as long as it does not interfere with or obstruct the typical workflow—but in order for it to be constitutional, it has to be allowed for everybody.
Public high schools are typically off-limits for demonstrations during school hours, so the fact that the walk outs were even allowed by so many schools is actually somewhat surprising, but it speaks to the passion and the spirit of the next generation.
It’s admirable that the schools recognized that spirit in their students and gave them an opportunity to stand up for what they believe. But if schools are going to do that, then they should allow both sides equal opportunity for demonstration.
Schools should also do their part to educate students on both sides of the issue, and educate them on how to discuss issues with each other respectfully. If students understand the complexities of the issue, and if they’re exposed to demonstrations on both sides, they are more likely to respect opposing views.
The fact that the next generation is so politically active should not be cause for skepticism or rebuke, but celebration and encouragement. Students on all points of the political spectrum are engaged and vocal about their beliefs, and that’s a good thing. But let’s teach our kids not only how to stand up and fight, but also to sit down and listen. And if we sit down and listen ourselves, we just might learn a thing or two.