Take It Back
I recently heard a story on the news about a school in Idaho that was considering teaching its faculty to use and carry guns. The idea was that the teachers, now apparently to all be armed, would be the defenders of the school in the event of some attack. As one administrator said in the interview, "We're taking back our school."
I had to wonder: taking it back from what? Had this school been under siege? Were they oppressed or in grave danger of invasion or of an imminent threat from evildoers? I didn't get to hear the entire story so I don't know if something had happened in Idaho that I missed - with shootings and the like becoming more common we, as a culture, have lost the ability to keep track as well as, it seems, the ability to be shocked or truly outraged.
If there was no direct threat, then the idea of "taking back" sounds more ominous than comforting. Because to take something back means to re-establish control or order onto a situation that was disorder or chaotic. It could also imply that the school had been taken over by hostile forces. I'm not sure that any of these were the case. So perhaps the idea of taking back might be better described as "taking for."
That idea is perhaps as troubling as "taking back" because it implies some group has claimed the school for a particular idea or ideal. Granted it is faculty and staff of the school speaking, but the ideal for which they speak involves arming the teachers. Is the argument to keep violence out by bringing weapons in? Wouldn't that mean that a gun - actually multiple guns - would be accessible by everyone in the school? One careless teacher and a curious or clever student has a firearm at their disposal.
Let me say that this isn't about gun rights or the need for secure schools. What I am concerned about is the statement of an administrator who believes the school needs to be taken back with a policy that requires guns. There seems to be some ideological disconnect that believes this school in Idaho has to be reclaimed.
The issue is perhaps the bigger concern because it seems to me that this language is just a step away from an ideological coup. "Reclaiming" an institution for an outside ideal is revolution and revolutionary. Arming the teachers physically and ideologically with the rhetoric of taking the school back implies an adversarial atmosphere - perhaps even among the teachers. What if a teacher decides to "protect" their class from some other teacher's opinions and pulls the gun to do just that?
It is an atmospheric concern I have regarding this story. It is making an "us and them" argument within a community that may have been a "we and us" before the need to be "taken back" existed. Perhaps this merely points to a larger ideological shift in the overall country that comes from an increased sense of the adversarial idea of our communities over against the diminishing ideal of neighborhood.
I had to wonder: taking it back from what? Had this school been under siege? Were they oppressed or in grave danger of invasion or of an imminent threat from evildoers? I didn't get to hear the entire story so I don't know if something had happened in Idaho that I missed - with shootings and the like becoming more common we, as a culture, have lost the ability to keep track as well as, it seems, the ability to be shocked or truly outraged.
If there was no direct threat, then the idea of "taking back" sounds more ominous than comforting. Because to take something back means to re-establish control or order onto a situation that was disorder or chaotic. It could also imply that the school had been taken over by hostile forces. I'm not sure that any of these were the case. So perhaps the idea of taking back might be better described as "taking for."
That idea is perhaps as troubling as "taking back" because it implies some group has claimed the school for a particular idea or ideal. Granted it is faculty and staff of the school speaking, but the ideal for which they speak involves arming the teachers. Is the argument to keep violence out by bringing weapons in? Wouldn't that mean that a gun - actually multiple guns - would be accessible by everyone in the school? One careless teacher and a curious or clever student has a firearm at their disposal.
Let me say that this isn't about gun rights or the need for secure schools. What I am concerned about is the statement of an administrator who believes the school needs to be taken back with a policy that requires guns. There seems to be some ideological disconnect that believes this school in Idaho has to be reclaimed.
The issue is perhaps the bigger concern because it seems to me that this language is just a step away from an ideological coup. "Reclaiming" an institution for an outside ideal is revolution and revolutionary. Arming the teachers physically and ideologically with the rhetoric of taking the school back implies an adversarial atmosphere - perhaps even among the teachers. What if a teacher decides to "protect" their class from some other teacher's opinions and pulls the gun to do just that?
It is an atmospheric concern I have regarding this story. It is making an "us and them" argument within a community that may have been a "we and us" before the need to be "taken back" existed. Perhaps this merely points to a larger ideological shift in the overall country that comes from an increased sense of the adversarial idea of our communities over against the diminishing ideal of neighborhood.
Comments
Post a Comment