Letters to the Editor

Firearms jeopardize

learning at University

The following is a copy of a letter sent to Sen. Wes Shoemeyer, D-Clarence. Dear Senator Shoemeyer: I write to ask that you vote against House Bill 668 or any other bill that includes provisions allowing carrying concealed weapons on publicly-funded state institutions of higher education. I am unalterably opposed to this legislation as a Professor of History at Truman State University. Passage of this bill will make Truman less safe than it already is. I wonder how any legislator can think passage of this legislation makes sense just days after the second anniversary of the shooting that took place at Virginia Tech University. The issue is not about Second Amendment rights to carry a weapon. The founding fathers never envisioned an environment where students would carry guns on a college campus where free and unfettered exchange of ideas is cherished. No legislation should ever put that keystone of learning in jeopardy. Weapons in the classroom create a dangerous setting for those who engage in sometimes passionate exchange of ideas about controversial issues that may stir powerful emotions.

As an instructor, I explore and posit alternatives. Sometimes the discussion can become heated, even tense. Two examples from my classroom experience illustrate my concern. The first time I taught the Vietnam War (Washington and Jefferson College, Pennsylvania), the students entered a debate about the war and the morality of combat operations after seeing the film "Hamburger Hill." One of my students had been in that multi-say battle. He became very irate with students who supported the war effort stating that he was mad enough that he would shoot the commanding officer of his battalion if he had a gun and the officer walked into the room at that time. He did not express anger at the students in the class but his comments revealed considerable disgust and disrespect. Later discussions with this student revealed he was under medical care for post-traumatic syndrome.

My second example took place on September 11, 2001, when my Recent U.S. History class met. We devoted much of that session to the terrorist attack. During the discussion I asked, based on what we knew, and my best judgment that al Qaeda was responsible for the loss of life, what should be done. Of the 20 or so students, all but one said we should attack Afghanistan. One student, a pacifist, spoke out against what he termed war mongering. For a time, some of his classmates lost their cool. Calm returned quickly after I reminded them about the value of free and unfettered exchange of ideas, a hallmark of academic inquiry. The dynamic created by the raw feelings caused by the death of so many Americans as a result of an unprecedented attack created so much tension and raw nerves that I am relieved no one was armed that day.

One of my colleagues in history has expressed concern about the chance that a student will someday come into class intending to rectify some grievance with a gun. We have seen that such events occur whether there is carry legislation. That does not mean passage of such a bill will not contribute to the danger of such an event. Legislation legalizing concealment of firearms on a college campus most likely will increase the prevalence of handguns at institutions like Truman State University. Additionally, such legislation will serve as tacit approval for student and faculty to walk into classes or other events armed. Given the stress inherent in an academic setting, and the psychological fragility of some people, anything that encourages the presence of firearms on campus is likely to impair the exchange of ideas that is central to the quest for learning and exploring ways to hone analytical thinking.

Thomas Zoumaras Professor of History

Ashcroft degree applauds aid of University

I am puzzled by what appears to be a slanted negative reaction at the University's decision to award an honorary degree to former Missouri governor and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Rather than focus on his role in the history of the University, which appears to be the intent of these honorary degrees given that the late Mel Carnahan (Ashcroft's successor) and former University president Charles McClain also are slated to receive them, the intellectual community is focused on making Ashcroft's presence a protest of his role in the controversial detainment and rendition of alleged terrorists.

I do not doubt that these interrogation tactics might have bordered on, if not breached, basic human rights and created more extremists, nor do I doubt that such tactics might have produced vital intelligence that might have prevented other terrorist attacks on U.S. interests here or abroad. What I do find troublesome about these objections raised by members of the University community is that these are aimed squarely at further soiling the image of the George W. Bush administration, when other issues fall to the wayside. I point to these:

First and foremost, as governor, Ashcroft signed the bill that changed the University's mission from being a regional university to being the state's public liberal arts and sciences university. Most of the professors and students protesting Ashcroft's even presence on campus next month potentially trace their decision to attend and teach at Truman to Ashcroft's pen meeting his copy of the bill signed outside Kirk Memorial on June 20, 1985.

Second, I must note that Carnahan, who signed a bill 10 years later that changed the University's name to Truman State University, is not without fault in putting a black eye on Missouri and the U.S. before the world community. During his 7 3/4 years as governor, 37 lethal injections occurred in Missouri, surpassed only by Texas and Virginia. That amounts to more than four executions per year during his administration, double that of Ashcroft for the four years of his tenure when the death penalty was reinstated. One of these executions occurred just four weeks after Pope John Paul II, whose papacy discouraged the use of capital punishment, visited St. Louis. I have yet to hear an objection about Carnahan posthumously receiving an honorary degree for allowing to occur what can be called state-sponsored murder. Were there one raised, again I would find issue with the merit of such an objection.