Two weeks after a mentally ill Nikolas Cruz killed 17 classmates and teachers, numerous efforts have been made by those in the media and in the education system to assert claims that the issue of “whiteness” somehow attaches to this tragic event.

Within hours after the shootings, several media sources – in a rush to be first to publish the story without first verifying accuracy with law enforcement – claimed Cruz was a member of the white supremacist hate group “Republic of Florida.”

Unsurprisingly, that claim was totally wrong. It was quickly dismissed by authorities who indicated they found no evidence to support the allegation. Further investigation by the media would have revealed the supremacist hate group meme was also not supported by the racial makeup of those students and faculty members who were killed.

With the white supremacist hate group angle no longer viable, some members of the media tried another approach to argue there was still a “whiteness” issue attached to the shootings. Thus, MSNBC analyst Nicolle Wallace jumped into the discussion with both feet, claiming the only reason the Florida high school shooting was getting so much publicity was because several of those shot and killed were white.

This is ridiculous. It is outrageous for one to suggest the first thought of anyone learning about this shooting, or any mass shooting for that matter, was to reflect, either consciously or subconsciously, upon the race of the victims involved. As the death toll was reported, all thoughts were simply of compassion for the victims’ families.

Meanwhile, as the debate continues over how best to prevent future school shootings, one Parkland educator, opposed to arming teachers, made an outrageous racial claim as well.

Diane Wolk-Rogers told CNN that President Donald Trump’s suggestion teachers be armed “horrifies” her. Referencing the four officers who waited outside the school as Cruz was on his killing spree, she said, “If what you’re telling me is that we have trained professionals who weren’t able to follow protocol, then I can’t imagine my teachers – overworked, underpaid, exhausted – carrying a sidearm, and then being able to perform that protocol.”

Wolk-Rogers added she wanted to “talk about the white elephant in the room. Because what we know is that students of color get suspended and get expelled at a higher rate than white kids. So, now, what are we going to say, Mr. Trump? We’re going to say that now students of color are going to be shot at by teachers at a higher rate? It’s absolutely ludicrous. It horrifies me.”

But Wolk-Rogers ignores two important issues by taking such a position. First, if students of color are getting suspended and expelled at a higher rate, who is to blame for that? Clearly, such a trend should be addressed at home. Second, she assumes if more students of color are getting suspended and expelled, they, therefore, are more likely to return to the school with guns blazing. If so, the last line of defense – particularly for schools without an armed security officer – would be armed teachers. But Wolk-Rogers apparently would rather not see such a massacre brought to an abrupt end by an armed teacher but rather have it play out until the attacker runs out of ammunition.

Additionally, Wolk-Rogers’ statement fails to recognize what FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt reported a few years ago. The term “mass shooting” is applied to incidents in which four or more people are killed by a shooter. The percentage of such mass killings by both black and white assailants is fairly closely represented by the percentage of both population bases.

Despite shooters well representing their pro rata share of the population base, liberals insist on playing the race card. Harvard graduate and lawyer Elie Mystal, who writes a legal blog, makes the claim arming teachers will lead to black students being murdered as teachers are inherently racially prejudiced.

Even if such an outlandish statement were true, Mystal too seeks to deny innocent student victims protection for something for which they are not responsible – alleged teacher prejudices. If such racial prejudice exists among teachers, who again is responsible for allowing it? And, because the issue was not addressed before teachers accepted their teaching responsibilities, are we to deny their students protection?

These race-baiters seem to want to promote the image of armed teachers actually hesitating to engage a shooter, first studying his/her skin color before deciding whether or not to take aim. In the heat of battle, it is kill or be killed, and whoever is doing the killing, regardless of skin color, will suffer the consequences of so acting lest the armed teacher fall prey to the shooter first.

But the story all the race-baiters fail to report is the role the NAACP actually played in the high death count Cruz tallied. The reason the four police officers held back, failing immediately to neutralize an active shooter in the school, was due to law enforcement’s adoption of the NAACP’s ill-advised, social-justice “PROMISE” program – a product of then-President Barack Obama’s politically motivated, race-based safer school policy. The policy sought to statistically demonstrate safer schools existed simply by police ignoring crimes committed by students, thus resulting in reports of reduced arrests. One would have thought an active-shooter scenario would have overridden such a policy. It did not; ironically, white students died due to an NAACP policy encouraging police to ignore criminal acts.

There is something liberals could learn from the Israelis. The last mass student shooting occurred in 1974. This photo demonstrates why. Arming teachers, at least in Israel, has put wannabe mass killers on notice they stand little chance of success.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.