On May 4, 1970, during a noontime antiwar rally on the campus of Kent
State University, a number of Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on unarmed
students. When the shooting stopped, four students lay dead. A
photographer took a picture of a weeping student cradling the head of her
dying friend. That compelling photograph was carried on the front page of
many of our nation's newspapers and burned into the conscience of America.
It became a symbol of violence and antiwar sentiment. However, that
symbol did not capture the burning of the Kent State ROTC building by
violent antiwar protesters two nights before. The picture also misses the
rioting of campus radicals, such as the members of the Students for a
Democratic Society who may have incited the burning of school property and
other acts of violence against school and state authorities.
Thus, an incomplete picture used as a symbol saddened a war-weary nation
and turned more citizens against the war in Vietnam. Regardless of how it
happened or who was responsible, few can look at that horrifying picture
today and not be swept up in feelings of regret and anger that young lives
were lost in such a tragic manner.
In 1970, Kent State's deadly violence came out the barrel of a National
Guardsman's rifle, and that rifle became a symbol used against war and
perceived government abuse. In 2002, another symbolic rifle at another Ohio
university is causing turmoil of a different kind.
A professor of journalism at the University of Ohio was recently ordered
to remove a Civil War relic from his office wall, but has protested because
he thinks the university's policy is silly and unrealistic. Some school
administrators and liberal professors are upset because he has opinions
different from theirs, and they've found a way to get even with him.
They've set out to "get him," and sadly, it appears they have the power to
do it.
Professor Patrick S. Washburn now awaits his rhetorical hanging – and
perhaps the end of his professional career – simply because he's willing to
stand up for his rights.
His great-grandfather's rifle, long ago rendered inoperable, is
considered to be in violation of a "workplace violence" policy regarding
weapons of any kind on campus, even those used for display. Someone, who
visited his office or heard about his rifle lodged a complaint, and soon,
armed campus police were at his door. They strongly suggested that he
remove the display or face disciplinary actions, including possible
dismissal from employment.
The professor, a practicing conservative, is angry and determined to
exercise his rights to free expression and has decided to fight back. Aware
that the Ohio University football team fires a small cannon at games to
signal a touchdown, he has suggested that this weapon – one that actually
does work – should also be forbidden if campus policy is followed to the
letter.
The cannon is fully operational, and while it's only used to explode
harmless gunpowder, it could be loaded with nails or bolts and shot up into
the crowd. By contrast, Professor Washburn's rifle – also used as a
symbol – is nonfunctional and can never be fired.
What causes some otherwise rational people to go off the deep end with
nonsensical policies that are obviously selectively enforced? Some suggest
that recent school shootings have brought new attention to the age-old
problem of violence, especially when it involves firearms on campus.
But, if they are really concerned about violence, how do gun-control
fundamentalists reconcile the fact that most major university campuses are
rife with violent acts being committed against female students, but so
little is done about it?
Put another way: Do you have to die in order to get any attention from
campus do-gooders?
Why do gun-control fundamentalists use their passion fighting
conservatives who only want to protect their First and Second Amendment
rights, but find little time to make sure coeds are not raped or assaulted
on campus? It's a sad and well-known fact that women make easy targets for
sexual attacks by violent predators simply because they usually cannot
protect themselves.
What does the average sexual predator know about college campuses?
First, there is only a token police presence to protect anybody. Second,
everybody except the police are ordered to keep weapons of all kinds off
campus. And third, the campus is amply stocked with hundreds, if not
thousands, of attractive young females, each one a potential target.
If you were a rapist, where would you go to select your next target?
Willy Sutton, a well-known bank robber was once asked why he robbed banks.
"Because that's where the money is," he said, obviously amused that anybody
would ask such a dumb question. What was not reported was that Sutton, as
well as other violent criminals, always cased a potential target and stayed
away from those situations where it was likely that victims could put up any
fight!
There's no evidence that Professor Washburn is violent. On the contrary,
there's plenty of evidence that he's a caring individual concerned about the
rights of others. He's hardworking and law-abiding, but his sin may be in
attempting to practice his conservative values on a very liberal campus.
Would he chase a would-be rapist away from a victimized coed with his
non-operational rifle? I would be willing to bet he's brave enough to try.
But Ohio University in its wisdom has decided that the mere appearance of
a rifle, even an inoperable one owned by a normal, mature professional man
with a good reputation, poses some threat to the university population.
One can only wonder if the events surrounding that tragic shooting on May
4, 1970, on another Ohio University campus has somehow distorted the
thinking of those in power at the university. Or, maybe a few of those
leftist antiwar protesters have made it to positions of power at OU and now
punish any conservatives they can find in their sights?
It would be a refreshing change to find school administrators who think
critically and logically when it comes to issues of self-protection for the
young people parents entrust to their care.
A question for OU officials: How many students were shot last year with
inoperable Civil War relics? How many female students were mugged,
battered, robbed, or raped? How many of those innocent victims were
allowed, or even encouraged to defend themselves?