The Kids Are Alright: Debating #WalkOutWednesday
There are about 2,500 students at South Brunswick High School, my hometown high school and Alma mater. On Wednesday, about 2,000 walked out…
There are about 2,500 students at South Brunswick High School, my hometown high school and Alma mater. On Wednesday, about 2,000 walked out of class, joining thousands across New Jersey and millions of students nationwide.
For most of the kids around the country, at least according to press reports, the walkout was a direct political statement. The New York Times described the nationwide walkout as the “first major coordinated action of the student-led movement for gun control,” adding that it “marshaled the same elements that had defined it ever since the Parkland shooting: eloquent young voices, equipped with symbolism and social media savvy, riding a resolve as yet untouched by cynicism.”
What we have witnessed from students over the last month is a very real grassroots response by students who were both horrified and angered over the February school shooting in Florida. As Kaylee Tyner, a student at Columbine High School in Colorado, said in The New York Times:
“We have grown up watching more tragedies occur and continuously asking: Why? Why does this keep happening?”
This question is at the center of the discussion now, with the focus squarely on guns, and it is only being discussed and debated because of the students. We know this because other mass shootings have failed to garner much response. Outrage? Yes. Action? No.
This student activism has conservatives running scared. In response, they are seeking to dismiss the debate by calling into question the students’ motives, their knowledge, and their very rights to speak up and be heard.
They will tell you otherwise, but they have put on a full-court press that seeks to shut down the most effective spokespeople we’ve had for gun reforms in many generations. I wrote about this in regard to Republican House candidate Daryl Kipnis recently, when his campaign team unleashed a press release that delved into conspiratorial accusations.
But I think debate I had today on Twitter with the conservative blogger Matt Rooney underscores this attitude in a more nuanced manner. (See my Twitter account.) Rooney, a lawyer who runs the Save Jersey blog, is an intelligent and generally forthright conservative. He doesn’t generally traffic in the conspiracies one sees on Fox News or Breitbart. He is an ideologue — which is fine. Being an ideologue just means you have strong convictions that you defend just as strongly.
The debate started when I responded to this tweet from Rooney:
“Anyone who believes most of these #WalkoutWednesday kids actually care about gun control has clearly forgotten what it’s like to be 16. At that age? I would’ve rallied for broccoli to score a half day!”
My response was simple, if a bit reductive:
“Conservative response is 2 disparage the kids. Got it. #gundebate #nationalwalkoutday”
Our back and forth hen went like his (I’ve cleaned up the spelling errors and Twitterisms):
Rooney: So let’s get this straight: 16-year-old teens can dictate which parts of the Bill of Rights should go? But they aren’t old enough to bear arms, if at all, until 21*? Which part of all that are you not recognizing as contradictory and illogical? (Nickolas Cruz was. 19 when he legally purchased an AR-15.)
Me: Not what I said. But yeah. They can advocate just like the rest of us and we can engage with their arguments. That’s not what you’re doing. You’re being dismissive so you don’t have to engage, which is BS.
Even if we assume Second Amendment creates right to own guns unrelated to militias — which is debatable — nothing in its language prohibits us from regulating arms, including drawing lines defining which arms are allowable.
You don’t appear interested in that discussion, and. prefer to disparage these students or change subject.
Rooney: Check out Federalist No. 46. Wonder how many high school seniors have? Or even know what the Federalist Papers are?* (A non sequiter — 46 is about (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp) he relationship among state, federal governments and citizens and their right to form local governments to act as another level of defense and representation, which tangentially leads to a discussion of militias and arms — only further muddying the debate over the language of the amendment.)
Me: That’s worthy of discussion. But why the constant disparagement of these kids? Stand on YOUR arguments and let them make theirs.
Rooney: No one’s disparaging kids. What we are saying: kids’ lives matter, but their opinions aren’t informed/well-formed enough to dictate the fate of fundamental liberties. Media/outside groups want us to forget all of this; they’re turning our kids into props for partisan aims. Sick.
Me: You keep robbing these kids of their agency, saying they are “props” and uninformed, which should preclude them from speaking. If kids’ lives truly mattered, their opinions would matter to us, whether they’ve done the specific readings on your list. Their activism should be taken seriously.
Rooney: I can’t “rob” someone of something which doesn’t exist. School is for learning. There’s a reason why high school ends around the time voting begins; 16-year-olds aren’t ready to run anything.* They should be learning about the Second Amendment, not being coached to destroy it! (This is not about them “running” anything or anyone “destroying” the Second Amendment, which says nothing about regulation.)
Me: At least you’re being honest in your dismissal of these kids now — they can be seen, praised, protected, but what they have to say is irrelevant. We’ll listen when they turn 18, as though that is some sacrosanct age of adulthood and understanding.
Voting age used to be 21. Vote — which in this context you conflate with political agency — used to be granted only to male whites, and to property owners. It was only in 1971 that the age was officially lowered and there are efforts ongoing to lower the voting age to as young as 16.
We have fluid definitions for the notion of adult agency* — vote and join military at 18; drink at 21; have legal sex at 14 (in some jurisdictions, 16 in N.J.); be tried as an adult for crimes at 14; work at 14, drive at 17 (16 in many states). What makes 18 the magic number for political engagement? (By this I mean the age at which we legally assume people are allowed to make and be responsible for their own decisions.)
This attitude about protesters is ingrained in our politics — from the accusations of outside agitators stirring up black in the South in the 1950s and 1960s, to charges of communist infiltration into all manner of revolts to the false notion that the Tea Party was created by conservative founders and had no grassroots elements.
It is a version of the ad hominem attack — attack the messenger so you don’t have to address the message — and it is bad for democracy.