DEL. BOB Marshall, R-Prince William, is re-introducing legislation which would allow faculty members to carry concealed weapons at universities throughout Virginia. The bill was originally filed in the wake of 2007's tragic shootings at Virginia Tech, but Marshall's latest push comes on the heels of a new University regulation which forbids students, faculty and even visitors from carrying guns at University events and facilities. While students' safety is certainly the primary concern of all parties involved, state legislators should respect the University's right to set its own policies and regulations in accordance with what it believes is most conducive to creating a safe environment.
The University's current regulation was enacted after an advisory opinion filed by Virginia Attorney General and University alumnus Ken Cuccinelli declared the pre-existing firearms policy to be unenforceable. Marshall's bill, as it stands, would negate the new regulation. This seems particularly strange in light of the Virginia Supreme Court ruling which upheld that George Mason University was allowed to ban firearms from its campus.
The gun control argument, particularly as it pertains to universities, is interesting in that both sides desire the same ultimate goal: a safer space to learn and live. Those in favor and against restrictions both employ arguments that have a special appeal. One can easily imagine why a concealed-carry campus might deter potential attackers. Supporters of relaxed gun control laws note that anti-weapon regulations do not tend to affect criminals, but rather serve to disarm potential victims.
At the same time, one can imagine why having more guns on Grounds might increase the risk of violence. Historically, University students do not have the best track record with responsible gun usage - the honor code, after all, was imposed following the accidental shooting death of a professor who was attempting to break up an argument.
Unfortunately, reasonable progress toward an effective solution is slowed by needlessly divisive discourse, such as when Marshall accused universities with gun regulations of "inviting the wolves to go after the sheep." This attempt to project bad faith onto his opponents only makes the delegate seem like an unreasonable participant in the conversation.
Not only does this reflect poorly on the delegate himself, but it also deprives his allies of legitimacy. If a decision is to be made, it cannot be done through petty name-calling, but by calling upon the available facts.
It is only natural to assume that local decision-makers will know what is the best solution to a given problem in their community. That is, after all, the logic behind federalism as it is enshrined in the Constitution.
I see no reason why we cannot expect this to be the case when asking who, between the Board of Visitors and the state legislature, should be making decisions about the safety of the University community. The Board of Visitors has a greater stake in the University's safety than the state legislature, which nevertheless holds the power to misapply broad, sweeping regulations which may not be adequate for one college's particular situation.
In the University's case, there are a number of questions to be addressed. Do our faculty wish to carry concealed weapons? How do students feel about it? Will this actually reduce the chance of violence? Will potential attackers - some of whom may be mentally unwell - really take the time to reconsider their plans if they know a professor might be packing heat? Surely there are a number of concerns specific to the University, and these are worth the special attention that potentially life-saving measures duly warrant.
It is essential that public institutions such as the University be allowed to set their own policies regarding gun control. In this respect, Gov. Bob McDonnell got it right when he said he would not sign any bill preventing state colleges and universities from setting their own weapons policies.
Without neglecting the importance of school-by-school autonomy, the superiority of evidence-based policymaking cannot be overstated. The Board may be acting correctly by erring on the side of caution, but it is worth serious investigation to discover which universities - concealed-carry or weapons-free - have best minimized violence.
A quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes goes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do...?" Only by finding out which regulations have worked best and are mostly likely to succeed for our University, in particular, can we reach the goals of safety and freedom from fear which we all hope to attain.
Sam Carrigan's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
