Allowing students, even staff, to carry concealed handguns on college campuses is an issue of considerable controversy these days. After all, the contemporary American university is one of the most fierce, and increasingly violent, bastions of progressivism, and professors, in the growing number of states that have adopted campus concealed carry have loudly protested, and some have actually retired or resigned.
In October of 2015, I wrote No Good-Guy Guns On Campus: How’s That Workin’ Out For Ya? I wrote:
A professor emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin very publicly quit this week in response to a new state law that allows students to bring their handguns into all classrooms and offices — including his 500-person introductory economics lectures. The professor, Daniel Hamermesh, has become a symbol for frustrated faculty nervous over the spreading of campus concealed-carry laws.
I also noted:
Hamermesh makes a second, exceedingly common, progressive argument, an article of faith, really: guns have a magical ability to compel people to violence. If guns are at hand, any disagreement, any flare of temper, will result in gunfire. For a Texan, this is the epitome of denial of data and experience.
Texas was a pioneer in the national concealed carry experiment, and the resulting long years of experience reveal Hamermesh’s fears to be unfounded. In Texas and elsewhere, citizens willing to go through the time and expense of obtaining a concealed carry permit—whether such a thing is reasonable or even constitutional is a topic for another article—are uncommonly law-abiding and emotionally stable, as logic could easily predict.
About a week later, in response to Prof. Emeritus Hamermesh’s protest, a student protest suddenly sprung up (heh-heh). I “stimulated” discussion about that in Guns and Dildos. That’s right, gentle readers, UT at A students were protesting concealed carry on campus by affixing colorful dildos to their backpacks. I had a bit of fun with that one:
I recently wrote about Prof. Hamermesh’s fear of the law-abiding and inanimate objects. And speaking of inanimate objects, I get Jin’s point (get it), and the thrust (snicker) of her general argument, but the argument that a firearm would be no more effective than a dildo in stopping an attack in a school puts me in a state of logical dysfunction (LD), for which there is no Viagra equivalent. That being the case, why not signs proclaiming “No Dildo” zones? They’d certainly be more amusing and might momentarily confuse a potential shooter. I’d also like to know the name of a single student ever punished by the university or arrested and prosecuted for the possession and/or use of a sex toy on campus. I strongly suspect that this is a violation of the penile code (heheheheheheheeeee!) that is never enforced.
In any case, I’m looking forward to August in Austin when lissome young women affix colorful dildos to their backpacks and get the college mating season off to a bang. The photos should be grand. Perhaps a new song for the occasion? ‘Love is a many dildoed thing…’
I’m soooo ashamed of myself—heheheheheeeee!
That was followed in August of 2016, the beginning of the Fall semester, with The Great University of Texas Dildo Protest. I had a great deal of fun with that one too:
Snicker, snicker, heh-heh-heh! ‘Area dildo stores?!’ Austin has stores specializing in, perhaps exclusively selling, dildos? ‘A run on area dildo stores…’ Just envision that, gentle readers, but not while you’re drinking anything lest it explode from your nose. And 4500 dildos?! I don’t know…isn’t that awfully male and patriarchal and all? I’m feeling a macro aggression coming on… In any case, it must have been like flowers covering a pristine alpine meadow. The color! The natural splendor of it all!
I wasn’t the only person with a sense of humor about the proliferation of dildos:
A pro-gun group that advocates for the concealed carry of handguns by Texas college students says that it approves of recent protests involving sex toys.
Students for Concealed Carry released a statement early Wednesday saying they embraced dildo use by University of Texas at Austin students this week, who are protesting the controversial campus carry law. The regulation took effect Aug. 1, 2016, and allows students and staff with concealed carry licenses to bring firearms to campus.
Brian Bensimon, Texas state director of Students for Concealed Carry, said in a statement, ‘If carrying a phallus to class helps you express yourself, go for it. We welcome this demonstration that freedom of speech and concealed carry of handguns can coexist on the same campus.’ [skip]
But Bensimon did say that the dildos should only be used for recreational or political purposes while on campus, lest the group get into hot water with school officials. The sex toys violate the school’s obscenity clause, to boot.
‘Using a dildo as a defensive weapon could classify it as a ‘club,’ which, under Texas law, is illegal to carry in public and constitutes a felony if carried into a building on campus,’ the group’s statement says.
I ended—nearly—with this:
Thanks Brian. That’s an important safety tip. You just know with all those dildos being carried around, somebody is going to use one!
Tragically, the horror has spread, this time to the University of Kansas, where Inside Higher Ed reports:
Jacob Dorman isn’t going quietly.
After 10 years (and earning tenure) in the history department at the University of Kansas, he’s leaving in large part because of a state law that, as of this summer, will allow guns on campus. That includes academic buildings. When faculty groups oppose campus carry laws, as they did in Kansas, supporters of the legislation frequently voice the view that no one will leave as a result of such laws. Dorman’s resignation is evidence that some will leave.
Dorman is leaving for a comparable job (also with tenure) in another state, one without campus carry. The Lawrence Journal-World published his resignation letter Friday.
He starts off by writing about how much he has come to love Kansas, including ‘getting to know Kansans from rural communities where gun ownership and hard work are equally a way of life.
Ah, so Dorman loves rural Kansans and their gun ownership and hard work—just not any of them and not anywhere near him:
In practical terms, concealed carry has proved to be a failure,’ Dorman writes. ‘Campus shootings have become all too frequent, and arming students has done nothing to quell active-shooter situations, because students do not have the training to effectively combat shooters and rightly fear becoming identified as a suspect themselves. But beyond the fact that concealed carry does not deter gun violence, the citizens and elected representatives of Kansas must recognize that Kansas is a small state, and in order to run a premier university, which is necessary for the health and wealth of the state, it must recruit professors from out of state. Recruiting the best trained professors necessarily means recruiting from coastal areas and progressive college towns, where most people do not believe that randomly arming untrained students is a proper exercise of the Second Amendment’s protection of a well-regulated militia.
Let us put aside, for the moment, Dorman’s provably false assertion that concealed carry is a failure and that it does not deter “gun violence.” The mere fact that virtually every mass shooting has taken place in a gun-free zone stands in stark contrast to Dorman’s progressive orthodoxy. Several examples of how guns actually stopped school attacks, and of course, their absence enabled them, is available here.
Notable, however, is Dorman’s contempt for the very people he claims to appreciate. Obviously, Kansans and the other denizens of flyover country aren’t nearly smart enough to be college teachers. Such people must, inevitably be imported from the only portions of America where such enlightened, superior beings can be found: “…coastal areas and progressive college towns…” where people with the right thinking about the Second Amendment reside. Dorman’s own classes are so advanced, his theories so trendy and contemporary, they will inevitably provoke gunplay:
‘we discuss sensitive and highly charged topics in my classroom, concerning anti-religious bias, racism, sexism, classism and many other indexes of oppression and discrimination. Students need to be able to express themselves respectfully and freely, and they cannot do so about heated topics if they know that fellow students are armed and that a disagreement or argument could easily be lethal.
This is merely another way of expressing the worn out progressive argument that allowing the great unwashed to carry concealed weapons anywhere will result in gunplay at the slightest provocation. Traffic accident? They’ll whip out machineguns and shoot up the town! Argument over the last pair of jeans in a store? Shootout! Blood will run in the streets!
None of this has come to pass. People willing to go to all the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry permit have universally proved to be far more law-abiding than the general public, and only a tiny portion of permits, across the nation, have been suspended, almost always for inadvertent violations such as carrying a handgun into a prohibited zone, such as a college campus. The same has, thus far, been true on college campuses, and there is no reason to think colleges will be different in this than the states that surround them.
He adds, ‘Let us not let the NRA destroy the future of the state of Kansas with a specious argument about the Second Amendment. Guns do not belong in classrooms any more than they belong in courtrooms, but a university simply cannot afford metal detectors at every entrance. Kansas faces a very clear choice: Does it want excellent universities, with world-class faculty, or does it want to create an exodus of faculty like myself who have options to teach in states that ban weapons in classrooms?
Somehow, I think the University of Kansas will somehow limp along without Professor’s Dorman’s services. The NRA, of course, has no stake in such things, other than to support the Second Amendment, and every university will benefit by having people, unlike Dorman, who support the Constitution, and who teach their disciplines without a grotesque and militant progressive slant. One hopes he will not allow the screen door to whack him in the posterior on the way out the door.
The article notes more college teachers “leaving faculty jobs,” or knowing of colleagues thinking of leaving or leaving, because of concealed carry, but the numbers are, as one might imagine, uncertain, even ephemeral, and seem to revolve, mainly, around gaseous social media threats.
Alice Lieberman, a professor of social welfare who has won several awards for her teaching at Kansas, said that campus carry wasn’t the sole reason for her plan to retire, but it was a ‘tipping point’ in her planning.
‘I teach classes that are inherently political,’ she said. ‘And it only takes one disgruntled person.
How noble. Lieberman, of course, does not explain—one would think “a professor of social welfare” would know such things, why law-abiding people carrying concealed weapons are more inherently dangerous than people who illegally carry such weapons. Criminals, who one would think have substantially less impulse control than the law-abiding, don’t obey the law, and carry weapons when and wherever they please. Presumably, they have always populated her classes, and none of them have attacked her. Why would much more rational, law-abiding people wish to harm her?
And Maryemma Graham, a University Distinguished Professor of English, said she plans to look for jobs elsewhere if the university does not find a way to hold off campus carry. ‘For those who come to KU, we must put learning and respect for the safety of all first and not use the Second Amendment as a bullet and an unqualified right,’ she said via email. ‘I will pursue employment elsewhere if implementation goes through — despite my great love for my colleagues, students and the wonderful work I have been able to do here. That work is highly dependent upon a culture of respect for difference and not fear of it.
And here we have another glimpse into the mindset of progressives. They do, of course, hate and fear the Second Amendment and those who revere it, but they equally hate and fear anyone that does not think exactly as they do. They respect “difference” only when such difference refers to their favored victim groups and political philosophies. Difference outside those boundaries, which includes the God and gun clingers of flyover country in progressive-forsaken places like Kansas, is outside their “culture of respect.” The sacrifice, the soul-destroying anguish these intellectual and sensitive beings must endure every day, for the sake of bestowing their brilliance on lesser life forms living in places like Kansas, is unimaginable.
And these, gentle readers, are the people, who, should they ever manage to disarm the law-abiding, would rule us.