On Wednesday, March 18, I saw firsthand again the
smugness of legislators who have no idea what life is like to teach on college
and university campuses dismiss our concerns and vote against the interests of
so many who do: university presidents, university police chiefs, faculty
organizations, and student organizations as well as the university system
itself. Now, I would never proclaim to represent all faculty. Indeed, there are
faculty members who think having guns on campus is a good idea, and I respect
their opinion even though I don’t agree. But the resolutions passed by the
United Faculty of Florida (UFF) and the FSU Faculty Senate showed that a large
majority do not want guns in their classrooms. As the President of the FSU Chapter
of UFF, as a professor, and as a citizen of Florida, it is my right—and obligation—to
represent my colleagues who agree that guns on campus is a bad idea for so many
reasons, including, as I argued, that firearms on campus will have a chilling
effect on recruitment and retention of faculty and that many view the presence
of guns on campus as a challenge to academic freedom and the very mission of
our colleges and universities. We were told by one of the Representatives on
the Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee that our perceptions do not
matter (you can watch the meeting here). That smacks of arrogance and ignorance.
I don’t see those same folks arguing for guns in the rooms where legislators
meet. But they’ll force guns on me and my students who do not want them and who
fear the consequences of guns in the classroom so that the gun lobby can
continue to scare and harass people into buying more guns.
I am so disturbed by the gun lobby and legislators’ primary
argument that guns are necessary on campus so that women can protect themselves
from rapists. Sexual violence is a very serious issue that must be addressed by
universities and colleges as well as the community at large, but the very real
consequences of sexual violence must not be used to further a political agenda
for guns everywhere all the time. I cannot find any evidence that guns on
campus reduce sexual assaults. And many who have experienced sexual assault do not want guns on campus. Further, the argument is problematized by the fact that most women on campus
are 17-20 years old and would not have that presumed protection, that
statistics show that in 90% of sexual assault cases, the perpetrator is someone
the victim knew, and that
arming 21-year-olds means arming the perpetrators as well (the bill does not
specify that only women can carry concealed firearms). But one of the most
compelling arguments against this notion is one that was brought up by one of
the speakers: the argument that women must have guns to protect themselves
perpetuates the culture of rape that blames the victim: She shouldn’t have been
wearing those clothes; she shouldn’t have been drinking; she shouldn’t have
been out that late; and now add, she should have had a gun.
If these legislators and gun lobbyists really care
about sexual assault, they would be pounding their chests to make sure that the
state government provides the necessary funds for prevention programs, not
force guns on a community that does not need them and does not want them. Representative Kerner said it well: "I
refuse to believe that the policy answer, the legislative answer to the culture
of sexual assault, the culture of mental health and mass shootings on our
campus is arming our students with weapons.”
I am also disturbed by the fact that the bill
sponsor continues to say that guns on campus will not cost anything. According
to the Associated Press, in Idaho, the costs of guns on campus are staggering: “Five
of Idaho's universities and community colleges say they've spent more than $1.5
million for additional security since lawmakers approved a law allowing
concealed guns on campus. The Idaho Statesman reports the schools sought $1.55
million this winter plus another $2.17 million for the rest of the budget year
to help with expenses. But Boise State University, Idaho State University, the
University of Idaho, the College of Western Idaho and North Idaho College will likely
have to absorb the costs. Gov. C.L. ‘Butch’ Otter didn't include the money in
budget planning and state lawmakers are not likely to add the money. The law
went into effect July 1. It allows retired law enforcement officers and holders
of enhanced concealed-carry permits to bring firearms onto campus.” Since guns would
still not be allowed in sporting events, will we need to install metal
detectors like the ones they have on the way into the Capitol? That costs
money. Additional security costs money. Ensuring that those carrying weapons
have a license costs money. To hear the sponsor insist that there will
be no costs is mind-blowing.
The gun lobby and guns on campus sponsor also
continuously say, “I can take my guns anywhere else so I should be able to take
them on to campus, too.” But then they are forced to acknowledge that they can’t
take their guns everywhere. There’s a very clear list in the statute:
bars, sporting events, rooms where legislators meet, courtrooms, police
stations, airports, polling places, etc. So no, you can’t take your gun
anywhere, and for good reason. Those are
places where emotions can run high, where people may be intoxicated and make
bad decisions when under the influence, where people are angry or desperate or
both, and so on. Hey, that happens on campus, too, unfortunately, which is why
campuses were excluded in the first place.
I also have to point out that in all these other
states that some of the representatives referenced that allow guns on campus, 23
of them leave the decision up to the institution, and most of the seven states
that allow guns on campus have limitations, like the Idaho bill. So it’s not that the case that anyone
with a concealed weapons license can carry firearms anywhere on campus. But in
the Florida bill, there are no limits regarding gun security measures, enhanced
concealed weapons license requirements, etc., and I’ve heard that the bill
sponsors will not consider any limitations. I would venture to guess that even some of those faculty members and students who
support guns on campus would want some limitations—at the least, provisions
about gun security. So again, this is not about making campus safe—it’s about
selling more guns.
I know this sounds so bleak, but we can’t give up.
We simply can’t. I’ve been hearing that people who have testified against the
bill are not coming back because they feel they are not being heard, so why
bother. That’s how the gun lobby wins! That and intimidation tactics.
