TIBETSPACE

WELCOME TO TIBETSPACE

The image above captures the Dalai Lama in March, 1959 as he fled occupied Tibet, heading for northern India. Over the years, the photograph has lingered in my image-bank. For me, it speaks of endurance, clarity of purpose, integrity, and an indomitable willingness to deal productively with life's circumstances, whatever they may be and however they may arise.

In the spirit of that photograph, TIBETSPACE examines an array of topics that bubble up and grab my attention during the course of a networked day: democratic revolution, human rights, guns and gun violence, gender politics, international relations, freedom of expression, social media, eco-criticism, sustainability, spirituality, religion, meditation, even neurology—these are some of the issues that now underpin a responsible life played out within the emerging global community.

But more than any other topic, I am interested in social activism in the 21st century. And the photograph to the left catalogues the tools that power this activism: the very new and the very old, merging in the contemporary classroom where most of my work occurs.

Please follow me on Twitter: I have two accounts, @tibetspace, which focuses on the more spiritual lineages of dissent and justice that come down to us from the Tibetan struggle, and @sidburris, which focuses on secular nonviolence, contemporary politics, and gun-violence prevention.

Sidney Burris

 

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY HHDL CHANGED A COMMUNITY

HHDL, Geshe Thupten Dorjee, Chancellor Dave Gearhart

Five years ago today, the Dalai Lama stood before an audience of over 12,000 at Bud Walton Arena for an afternoon and morning session.  The tickets had sold out in a few hours, and people had arrived from all over the country.  There were four monks from Amdo, Tibet, the province where the Dalai Lama had been born in 1935. The monks were sitting high in the bleacher seats, and when I brought them down to the front row, they laughed, cried, and bowed at the same time, and all in rapid succession. They later received a personal audience with His Holiness.

Tibetan vendors from around the country had gathered south of Bud Walton, and were selling their wares, chanting their chants, and telling their stories.  

The event was broadcast on C-Span, and the online broadcast was viewed by people in both Europe and Asia. Geshe Dorjee and I, along with Melissa Banks, Senior Director of Donor Relations & Special Events, and Matt Mills, a Captain with Arkansas PBSF (Public Safety) worked tirelessly with the State Department, the town of Fayetteville, and a gallery of other organizations and individuals that wanted to help and participate in the event.  

I don't recall asking for assistance one time and being told "no."  I have served on many committees in my 30 years of working for the University of Arkansas, but never have I served on one as well-intentioned, hard-working, and co-operative as the Dalai Lama Steering Committee.  It replenished my faith in the human enterprise.

Which, I guess, is one of the things the Dalai Lama does: he replenishes our faith in our fellow human beings. And that is something that all of us need on a daily basis.

I have never known a single individual to bring together a diverse community so completely, so thoroughly, so peacefully.  He gave our community, I am convinced, a sense of its potential, and Fayetteville, under the leadership of our mayor, Lioneld Jordan, has steadily grown to embrace and develop that potential.

I could list for you the speakers that have come through our town, I could cite such nationally significant developments, like our own Trails and Greenways, our Farmers Market, or the numerous festivals, events, and corporations that attract visitors from around the world (Crystal Bridges, for one); and I could even point to the new generation of eco-conscious, local businesses that practice responsible consumerism—I'm thinking of Fayettechill, or course, one of whose founders, Devin Michael O'Dea, went to India with us on The TEXT Program, and so has been the driving force behind another remarkable project: TibetanTees.  Under Devin's guidance, we will soon be able to add more money to our project to place tutors in the Tibetan schools of south India.

May 11, 2011 was indeed a transformational day for our community, but our community had long been engaged in the communal endeavor of transformation.  His Holiness helped to accelerate that process, and I am grateful that he accepted our invitation.

Fayetteville is a unique and, as the Tibetans say, auspicious place to live.

Two more images from that magical day. 

Sister Helen Prejean & HHDL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vincent Harding, Sister Helen Prejean & HHDL

KARMA SICHOE TO VISIT UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS

 

Photograph by Russell Avery

Karma Sichoe, a Tibetan painter of sacred images (thangka) and a political activist, will visit the University of Arkansas campus from April 11-14.  He will hold two public appearances on April 12 & 13.

WHO IS KARAMA SICHOE?  Karma Sichoe has led an extraordinary life, and his visit here offers our community the opportunity to interact with one of the prominent figures of the Tibetan community in exile. Orphaned early in his life, Sichoe was raised in the Tibetan Children’s Village, a school system founded in India by Jetsun Pema, the sister of the Dalai Lama. Very soon, Sichoe became aware of his artistic inclinations, and ultimately completed his apprenticeship with two highly regarded Tibetan masters of sacred painting (Tibetan, “thangka”): Rinzin Peljor and Tashe Dorjee. Sichoe, who lives in Dharamsala, India, the home of the Dalai Lama, also became active in the Tibetan struggle for independence. He was a founding member of Students for a Free Tibet in India and was one of six participants in the 1998 hunger-strike for Tibetan independence in New Delhi. Sichoe’s hunger strike endured for 47 days, at which time he was finally taken to an Indian hospital where he was fed and ultimately recovered.

 WHERE & WHEN CAN I SEE KARMA SICHOE? He will hold two public events. The first one is a panel discussion with Professor Sidney Burris, Geshe Dorjee, and Craig Pasquinzo, entitled "Art and Literature in Post-Conflict Societies: A Panel Discussion on the Tibetan Community in Exile." It will be held on Tuesday, April 12 in Kimpel Hall 105 at 4:00 pm.

The second event will occur on Wednesday, April 13 in the Honors Student Lounge, 1st floor, Gearhart Hall (formerly Ozark Hall) at 6:00 pm (food and drink available). This event is designed to allow our students and the general public to have an open discussion with Sichoe on the topics of political resistance and Tibetan identity. We will expand the conversation to benefit from Sichoe's experience as we here in America attempt to grow a community based on compassion, diversity, and fairness.

Both events will begin with a beautiful 10-minute documentary that has been done on Karma Sichoe by The International Center for Mental Health and Human Rights.

WHY SHOULD I ATTEND THESE EVENTS? Sichoe's visit to the University of Arkansas is important for a number of reasons.  Northwest Arkansas has had a long history of hosting visits from great Tibetan teachers in the monastic tradition. This began in the early eighties and culminated on May 11, 2011 when His Holiness the Dalai Lama visited our campus.  But while the monastic tradition is very important to Tibetan identity, most Tibetans are neither monks nor nuns, and this broadly diversified group has compelling perspectives to offer both to their own community and to the world at large. Tibetans living in exile are citizens of one of the world's youngest democracies (a modified democracy in exile, set up by the Dalai Lama in conjunction with the Indian government); they belong to one of the few authentically nonviolent cultures left on the planet; and they are looking to the future with both hope and skepticism concerning Western technology and modernism. They are conscious curators of their culture; they represent an array of political opinions about their own country, its future, and its relation to China; and they understand political resistance, the costs that it exacts from the individual, and the sacrifices it requires.

Karma Sichoe is also trained in the classical Tibetan painting tradition called "thangka." (Pictured below.) To learn the art, Sichoe underwent an apprenticeship with two masters of the tradition, becoming familiar not only the painting techniques, but the meditation discipline required as well. Since then, he has also delved into more self-expressive forms of painting, and to develop in this direction, he has turned toward many of the Western masters. His painting is rich with color, dramatic in form, and coherent in its vision of a humanity united in its struggle for well-being and happiness.

Karma Sichoe's life and work represent a unique perspective on the complexity of our modern world. Self-expression, artistic integrity, altruism, identity, nationalism, and protest—these are not uniquely Tibetan concerns, but they are concerns that Sichoe has worked over his lifetime to understand and balance. His visit here to the University of Arkansas will offer our students, faculty, staff, and citizens a rare chance to engage in conversation a man who has thought long and hard about these issues, and worked to build a life that is true to each of them.

His visit here is simply not be missed.

 

GESHE DAMDUL ON HIS HOPES FOR THE FUTURE OF TIBET

Geshe Dorji Damdul

One of the last interviews we did in India for The TEXT Program was with Geshe Dorji Damdul, the Director of Tibet House in New Delhi. He is a deeply intelligent man, with sharp and considered opinions, and well practiced at handling the questions of Westerners. This year, we ended every interview with a simple question: "What are your hopes for the future of Tibet?" Though simple, and even obvious, the question was warmly received and enthusiastically answered by all of the Tibetans we spoke with, but Geshe Damdul's answer was surprising, and delivered with his characteristic wit and panache. We are currently assembling a montage of all the answers we received to our closing question, but I wanted to circulate Geshe la's answer now, before we release the full film. 

 

 

 

ON HIS BIRTHDAY: A LITTLE REMINDER FROM HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA ABOUT HIS OWN REINCARNATION

Many Americans are unaware of two documents regarding the Dalai Lama's reincarnation. As he turns 78 today, I thought it might be appropriate to have a look at them.

1. Order Number 5—from China's State Administration of Religious Affairs, this law (announced in August, 2007) covers "the management measures for the reincarnation of living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism." The law stipulates that Buddhist monks cannot reincarnate without prior permission from the Chinese authorities.  O yes—and only monks in monasteries in China can apply for permission to reincarnate. So the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, living in exile in India, need not apply to become the Fifteenth. He's disqualified.  When The New York Times originally covered this story, Slavov Zizek tried heroically to bring that paper's noted sobriety to the law, but most Tibetans in exile, at least, took a different tack to Order Number 5. They laughed out loud, and they laughed long and hard.  So you can laugh too.  Long and hard.
2. Four years later, the Dalai Lama responded officially to this ridiculous development. Here are the last two paragraphs of that response—it's a fascinating text. You can view the entire statement here.

As I mentioned earlier, reincarnation is a phenomenon which should take place either through the voluntary choice of the concerned person or at least on the strength of his or her karma, merit and prayers. Therefore, the person who reincarnates has sole legitimate authority over where and how he or she takes rebirth and how that reincarnation is to be recognized. It is a reality that no one else can force the person concerned, or manipulate him or her. It is particularly inappropriate for Chinese communists, who explicitly reject even the idea of past and future lives, let alone the concept of reincarnate Tulkus, to meddle in the system of reincarnation and especially the reincarnations of the Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas. Such brazen meddling contradicts their own political ideology and reveals their double standards. Should this situation continue in the future, it will be impossible for Tibetans and those who follow the Tibetan Buddhist tradition to acknowledge or accept it.

When I am about ninety I will consult the high Lamas of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Tibetan public, and other concerned people who follow Tibetan Buddhism, and re-evaluate whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not. On that basis we will take a decision. If it is decided that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama should continue and there is a need for the Fifteenth Dalai Lama to be recognized, responsibility for doing so will primarily rest on the concerned officers of the Dalai Lama’s Gaden Phodrang Trust. They should consult the various heads of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions and the reliable oath-bound Dharma Protectors who are linked inseparably to the lineage of the Dalai Lamas. They should seek advice and direction from these concerned beings and carry out the procedures of search and recognition in accordance with past tradition. I shall leave clear written instructions about this. Bear in mind that, apart from the reincarnation recognized through such legitimate methods, no recognition or acceptance should be given to a candidate chosen for political ends by anyone, including those in the People’s Republic of China.

So, the only real question now is this—just how much would you give, and how badly do you want, to be a fly on the wall when His Holiness is "about ninety," and he decides, which he will, that the Tibetan people need a Fifteenth Dalai Lama, and there's a meeting of the Gaden Phodrang Trust to figure out where and when and how and why and in what form and with which parents and in which house the Fifteenth will reincarnate?  Just how much do you want to hear that conversation?

In the meantime, Your Holiness, thanks for these past seventy-plus years.

Had you not lived and worked as tirelessly as you have, and with the spectrum of commitments and values that have distinguished those seventy years, the Tibetan people in exile would be living quite different lives, and the 6 million Tibetans living in Tibet would have less hope than they now have for securing their independence, and all of us would be poorer in the ways that matter: spirit, compassion, and the potential to find the nonviolent solution to problems we'd never assumed were susceptible to such a dangerous idea.

So thanks for this fourteenth appearance. By any estimation—even according to the Chinese—it's changed the world.

BACK FROM INDIA & THE TIBETAN SETTLEMENTS: A FEW THOUGHTS FOR MY STUDENTS

Geshe Dorjee, Buchung Sonam, Sidney Burris in Dharamsala, Hotel Tibet

The TEXT Program just returned from three weeks in India, living in the Tibetan refugee settlement at Majnu-KaTilla in Delhi as well as at Drepung Loseling Monastery in the south. We also spent time in Dharamsala, the home in exile to His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

We got our interviews, we logged our miles, and we are just beginning to put together our thoughts on the journey. This was my fifth trip to India—my fourth with students—and while each trip has been a little different, this one has already given rise to several convictions that I wanted to share with my students and with anyone else who has an interest in the future of Tibet—whatever that future may be.

Three observations:

1. The India that our students saw on the drive from Indira Gandhi International Airport to Majnu-Ka-Tilla is, at least, unsettling. Poverty, homelessness, pollution, over-crowding, traffic, the narrow alleyways . . . nothing can prepare them for the tactile experience of this part of India. And yet, what came of this experience, three weeks later, on the way home, was a sense of rare privilege: I believe that most of my students know deeply now how fortunate they are, and they are beginning to understand the responsibilities that come with those fortunes. Such understanding is the work of a lifetime, but the sooner this work begins in each of us, the sooner each of us will understand how very little we can do, but how important it is that each of us do that little bit. After India, apathy would seem impossible.
2. Every piece of paper money in India features the same face, staring resolutely into the Indian future: Mahatma Gandhi. It is significant that these paper bills, and Gandhi's visage, move seamlessly from caste to caste in daily commercial transactions. Gandhi is the ghost of India, often ignored like an old, censorious grandfather, but still acknowledged and respected because he remains the country's most famous citizen and potent cultural export. Nonviolence. How long after you mention that word does it take for Gandhi, gaunt and grinning, to appear? India has its problems with violence, of course, but in any political discussion, whether at the village or national level, nonviolence has a place at the table. Our students have never entered an arena where this is the case. Nonviolence is part of India's cultural inheritance, and our students are left to wonder how this might play out in America. It's not an easy task. But I'm happy that it has now appeared on their radars.
3. At the end of every interview we did with the Tibetans, we asked them to describe their hopes for the future of Tibet. Predictably, the Dalai Lama's return to his home country figured largely in their answers, as did a free and independent Tibet (with one exception). Autonomy or the Middle Way was rarely mentioned. I have nothing profound or insightful to say about this. And I hope my students understand why I don't. Human freedom—not to be confused with political freedom—is life itself, understood innately, naturally, and without circumspection. Whenever our sense of freedom must be justified publicly, artificially, and with paranoia, things have gone badly. And so things have gone badly for the Tibetan people, and my hope is not that our students see themselves as Tibet's saviours—the last thing Tibetans need, in my opinion—but that each of them begin to reconceptualize and exercise the freedoms that they do have now, at this moment, in this country. Perhaps exercising these freedoms will have an impact on their sense of community—we are free in America to define community however we wish—and perhaps this changing sense of community will have a lasting and expanding benefit for many people and for many communities. That, in my opinion, would be a very good thing. And I know my students are up to the task. And that is an even better thing.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ARKANSANS AGAINST GUNS ON CAMPUS—OUR STUDENTS SPEAK OUT

Arkansans Against Guns on Campus are rallying to OPPOSE concealed carry legislation

 

For Immediate Release

February 19, 2013

Under the banner “Arkansans Against Guns on Campus,” Arkansas residents are opposed to efforts by Rep. Charlie Collins (R-84) to pass a HB1243, a bill “To Allow Trained and Licensed Staff and Faculty To Carry A Concealed Handgun On A University, College, Or Community College Campus Under Certain Circumstance.” The bill would allow any campus member of the faculty or staff of that school to carry a concealed weapon. With supporters at universities across the state, Arkansans Against Guns on Campus are rallying for support against allowing concealed carry for teachers and staff.

 

They argue that:

1.)   Gun violence is not a looming threat on Arkansas campuses. Only three people have been killed in 10 years in the state. Statistically, residents are safer on a college campus (in large part because of the prohibition of firearms) than anywhere in the rest of the state.

2.)   If public safety is a priority, allowing permit holders would never be a first step in securing a campus. State funding for more police would be the best practice moving forward since they have training in crowd control, lethal force, and emergency scenarios.

3.)   The bill ignores federal laws that sanction whole swaths of campus as gun-free zones. When the federal and state law conflict, the permit holder is left vulnerable to liability.

4.)   The bill is poorly written and provides no mechanism for university systems to opt out.

5.)   There is no measurable positive impact of concealed carry on actual security across college campuses.

 

Students at the U of A weighed in on the Collins bill last night:

 

"This bill makes a university campus into a confusing patchwork of places that are off-limits to concealed carriers. Whereas it will be legal to have a concealed weapon in a classroom, it will still be illegal to have one in campus churches, transit facilities and police stations, as well as within 1000 feet of any K-12 facility. These 'carve-outs' will make it more difficult for law enforcement to do their job, and ultimately will leave universities vulnerable to lawsuits." – Alex Marino (Student and ASG Senator at U of A, Fayetteville)

 

“If this bill was to become law, I would push that students be notified which of the professors on campus was concealed carry licensed and require that for every class taught by an armed teacher there would be the same class taught by a non-concealed carry professor. If these simple requests could not be met, I would imagine that many others would be with me in moving to a different area with a more logical program to safeguard their citizenry.” – Ezra Smith (Student at U of A, Fayetteville)

 

“Campuses are a place for the free exchange of ideas, not the place for free possession of guns. Allowing guns on college campuses is a horrid solution to a problem that does not exist.” – Aaron Gibson (Student at U of A, Fayetteville)

 

"After reviewing the legislation proposed by Representative Collins, I have found fundamental flaws in the writing of the bill. If I were not opposed to the idea of the bill in general, I would find myself opposed to it for that reason." – Autumn Lewis (Student and ASG Senator at U of A, Fayetteville)

 

CONTACT THE SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE TO STOP GUNS ON AR CAMPUSES

As you know, your support of our petition against HB 1243 forced Representative Collins into an amendment that allows the Board of Trustees of public institutions of higher education in Arkansas to “opt out” of concealed carry every year.  The amended bill passed the House of Representatives last week, and will come up for a vote in the Senate this week.

While we are happy that we forced a modification of the bill, we would be much happier if it were to fail in the Senate. 

If the bill passes through the Senate, then our long-term focus shifts to the Board—the Governor appoints our Board members, and with a gubernatorial election on the horizon in 2014, a Governor who supported concealed carry would have an opportunity to empanel gradually a Board that could ultimately vote to arm our campuses. 

The current bill is riddled with problems, and we would like to see it defeated or tabled for the current session. As the bill is written, the following issues remain dangerously unresolved:

1. Exclusionary Zones—There is no language in this bill that stipulates places on campus where guns, even if concealed carry were allowed, would be prohibited:  dorms, K-12 programs like Upward Bound, infant development centers, medical clinics, and psychological services offices, to name a few.  Policies of this sort must be clarified, or we risk potentially deadly confusion.
2. Students' Rights—If students wished to take a section of a class taught by a non-carrying faculty member, they should have that right.  Our student government has voted against concealed carry on our campus, and this would surely be one of their concerns. The current bill mentions nothing along these lines, and in fact there is sentiment in the legislature for making the concealed-carry licenses private information, even though they are awarded by the state. 
3. Faculty and Staff Classification—A full-time staff member—who could carry a concealed weapon if the Board failed to opt out of the current law as described by this bill—can also be a part-time student—who can't carry under this legislation.  The bill does not address this issue as well, and will only lead to the kind of confusion that potentially ends in tragedy.
4. Concealed Carry Training—While the training required of those that our society has entrusted with the protecting of our lives—firefighters, police, doctors, nurses, EMT personnel—is measured in years, the time required to obtain a concealed-carry license is measured in hours. And the solution offered by several legislators—to engage our universities in remedying this shortfall by teaching classes in marksmanship and security training—points to another weakness of the bill.  Why pass legislation that requires, upon passing, additional expenses to strengthen it?  Besides—does anyone honestly feel that universities and colleges ought to go into the security business?

Conservative Republicans, of course, made historic gains in the General Assembly during the last election, and they will focus their resources on the Governorship  in 2014 as well.

So we are asking that you email the Republicans on the Senate Education Committee that will consider the bill before it goes to the Senate for a final vote.  Follow this action link—it takes only a moment—and make your voice heard.

Thank you for your support.

CONCEALED CARRY ON ARKANSAS CAMPUSES: AN ONGOING DISCUSSION

Now that we've had two legislative forums that were dominated by concerns over concealed carry on college campuses in Arkansas, I have a better sense of the community's goals and the methods suggested to accomplish them.

Having attended both of the forums in Fayetteville and at Northwest Arkansas Community College in Bentonville, and having spoken at both of them, I am more convinced than ever that allowing properly licensed faculty and staff to carry concealed weapons on campus will not accomplish our goal of providing a safe campus for all of us.  

Public safety is our main concern, and currently there is no statistical evidence that suggests concealed carry will increase our public safety.  

In fact, it suggests exactly the opposite.  Here's why.

1) The most recent research shows that those who carry concealed weapons, whether legally or not, are far more likely to suffer catastrophic injury or death during an armed assault than those who are not carrying. You can read the results of this study here. 

These are extraordinary results, and they have not been addressed by the supporters of the current version of HB 1243.  

The unavoidable conclusion is that allowing concealed carry on our campuses will increase the likelihood of gun-violence.

2) I also learned at these forums that some of those who support this Bill believe it is simply a matter of choice.  Allow those faculty and staff, the argument goes, who feel threatened, or who want to protect themselves and their students from attack, to carry concealed weapons. If you don't want to carry, then you certainly are not required to do so.  

Simple and fair, right?  

No.  I strongly support the Second Amendment, but I also recognize that all of our Constitutional rights articulated in the Bill of Rights traditionally have had limitations placed on them.  This is a matter of constitutional history.

In the case of concealed carry, the study mentioned above shows that allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons would actually threaten the public safety of those on our campuses.

And our right to public safety trumps our right to carry a concealed weapon, when carrying that weapon can be shown to decrease that public safety.

So, the prohibition of weapons on our campuses is not an infringement of our rights—it is an affirmation of our public safety.

3)  Every law enforcement official that I have asked, as well as the military personnel I've consulted, and who have sought me out, have agreed that the one-day training session (less than a full day, actually) required of those who would apply for a concealed carry license is sadly and tragically insufficient, to say the least.  Time on the target range amounts to a few hours, at most, and the target range is a closed environment with a stationary target positioned a few feet in front of the applicant's face. After completing this session, and passing a background check, applicants will have the ability to carry a deadly weapon and respond to a perceived threat on our campuses by discharging a weapon they have only a minimal proficiency with.  And remember, these are the very campuses that are full of our students, our children, our parents, our faculty, and our staff.  

Conclusion?  Concealed carry licenses, in fact, can be seen to be a direct deterrent to our public safety, and that is our common goal—to achieve public safety.

Some of the Bill's supporters, while recognizing the inadequacy of this training, have suggested that our universities offer further training in weapons and self-defense.   Two questions put this to rest: Who will pay for this? And should universities properly be in the firearms-training business?  The answer to both is no.  

Furthermore:  Why would we support legislation that is admittedly flawed and look to our public institutions to address its problems after it has passed?  It doesn't make sense.

4)  The simple solution to securing our public safety is to hire professionals to do this, and not to trust this job to amatuers:  our very own UAPD has presided over one of the safest campuses in the country, and I would suggest that as our concern grows, so too should our budget for their services. When you look at the numbers regarding college and university violence in Arkansas and the country, it is little short of amazing. Briefly—the observed Arkansas college and university murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate is 56,700 times LOWER than that for the public-at-large and 72 times LOWER than that at other U.S. colleges and universities.



Colleges and universities in the United States are among the SAFEST refuges from murder and non-negligent manslaughter in America, and Arkansas colleges and universities are among the SAFEST in our country! 

 To learn more about these important statistics, click here.

Introducing weapons to this environment stands only to imperil the safety and security that our police and security forces have been so successful in establishing—we now have evidence that show this (see point 1).

If we are concerned about the public safety of our campuses, and I believe that we all are, then it only makes sense to do the research necessary to make a wise decision. The numbers here are, in my opinion, very convincing.  

I believe that HB 1243 will not secure our campus, and will, in fact, ultimately weaken its security.  I have come to this conclusion by listening to those who have worked with firearms for years or who have studied the complicated subject of societal violence in depth, and these are their conclusions.  I fully support them.

For more information and studies related to this subject, please consult our Facebook page, Arkansans against Guns on Campus.

It is still not too late to sign our petition and tell others about it.  I have a Twitter acount now that is dedicated to this and other matters like this.  Follow me here @SidBurris.

The petition is here.

ARKANSANS AGAINST GUNS ON CAMPUS RALLY TO OPPOSE CONCEAL & CARRY LEGISLATION

Arkansans Against Guns on Campus are rallying to OPPOSE conceal and carry legislation

 

For Immediate Release:                               February 7, 2013

Under the banner “Arkansans Against Guns on Campus,” Arkansas residents are working against efforts by Representative Charlie Collins (R-84) to pass HB1243, a bill “To Allow Trained and Licensed Staff and Faculty To Carry A Concealed Handgun On A University, College, Or Community College Campus Under Certain Circumstance.” The bill would allow any campus member of the faculty of staff of that school to carry a concealed weapon. With supporters at the University of Arkansas, Northwest Arkansas Community College, the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith, Hendrix College, the University of Central Arkansas, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and other state universities, Arkansans Against Guns on Campus are rallying for support against allowing teachers and staff to conceal and carry. They cite recent support for gun-free campuses from over 300 college and university presidents and chancellors as evidence that conceal and carry is the wrong policy for Arkansas. More information here.

Arkansans Against Guns on Campus issued a SignOn petition calling for community support against conceal/carry legislation that to date has reached over 1400 signatures, many of whom express outrage over the Collins bill. That petition can be found here.

Their Facebook page can be found here.

Bentonville resident Lisa Turner Duncan, parent of a University of Arkansas student, supports Arkansans Against Guns on Campus because she worries that: “legislators may hastily pass a law that allows inexperienced and only minimally trained individuals to possess firearms on campuses. The presence of firearms has been proven to promote more aggressive behavior and in the hands of an untrained individual allegedly posed to “defend” others in an explosive situation, would possibly create a “false sense of security” promoting risky behavior.” She adds, “I strongly do NOT believe that this law will be any deterrent to those violent and psychotic assailants determined to carry out carnage. In a large percentage of cases involving mass shootings, the majority of the bloodshed has occurred within minutes and sometimes seconds due to the use of automatic assault weapons. In most of these cases, the assailants had no fear of consequences including death.”

Zachary Pharr, an NWACC staff member and supporter of Arkansans against Guns on Campus explains his opposition to conceal and carry, arguing, “Liability insurance for schools would skyrocket. Education is already expensive. That increase in cost has to go somewhere, and it would be passed on in the form of tuition increases most likely (or budget cuts, staff cuts, etc.).”

Likewise, Jared LaReau, a UCA student and supporter of Arkansans Against Guns on Campus explains, “I know that I would not be comfortable in the classroom knowing that the person next to me probably has a gun. Look at the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy findings that expanding our conceal carry laws results in more aggravated assault. They also found that the South was the most violent region in the country. With these facts, I could not feel comfortable if UCA allowed guns on campus." LaReau cited a 2009 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, which demonstrated that gun possession alone increased the likelihood of being shot by almost 4.5 times.

The link is here.

Stephen K. Boss, University of Arkansas Professor of Geosciences opposes conceal and carry on campuses in Arkansas, as well, saying: “Since opening its doors to students and citizens of Arkansas on January 22, 1872, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville has been a place of enlightened thought, tranquil study, and advanced learning. The peace and tranquility pervading our institution is proved by the fact that a classroom has NEVER been disrupted by gunfire in our 141-year history. Today, I join with thousands of Arkansans in absolute opposition to proposed legislation introducing concealed weapons in our classrooms, our campus offices, administrative buildings, and at our other scholarly activities. Permitting weapons of any kind on any state campus for any reason whatsoever does not create a safer community of learners but instead invites tragedy. It is reckless, it is irresponsible, and I oppose it.”

Finally, University of Arkansas English Professor Sidney Burris, organizer of the SignOn petition adds that the Collins bill itself has several problems: “First, the prohibition of civilian guns from our campuses doesn’t tamper with the Second Amendment—Justice Scalia settled that issue in Columbia v. Heller (2008) when he wrote that the Supreme Court’s majority decision should not cast doubt “on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. . . .” Second, it’s illogical that a novice handgun owner could spend a single day in a training session spent mostly behind a desk, and become licensed to discharge a weapon in a crowded student union or classroom, endangering those present. And finally, guns and the free exchange of challenging ideas—the very lifeblood of our community—simply do not mix. Introduce the one, and the other inevitably cowers, while honest inquiry gradually disappears in an atmosphere of retaliation and intimidation. Coercive legislation of this sort arises from a politics of fear, and Arkansans deserve more from their elected officials.”

Boss and Burris also cite a report from the Violence Policy Center demonstrating that handguns are a horrible choice for self-defense, particularly on a college campus.

Arkansans Against Guns on Campus sees the Collins bill as a reckless intervention into campus safety and supports the decisions of university and college administrations to monitor safety of their campuses as they see fit. They will be attending the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce legislative forum on Friday, February 8 at 4:00 at 123 W Mountain St in  Fayetteville, AR to voice their concerns about the bill to Collins and other legislators.

 

Contact: Sidney Burris, Professor of English at: sjburris@gmail.com/(c) : 479-283-4601

 

*Disclaimer: The views expressed above represent the individuals’ opinions and not those of the institutions at which they are employed. 

WHY I AM AGAINST CONCEALED CARRY ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES: A TEACHER'S PERSPECTIVE

I am opposed to the current bill—House Bill 1243—that would allow licensed faculty and staff to carry a concealed weapon on college and university campuses in Arkansas.

 Here’s why.

I speak from the perspective of a university professor.  I am neither a criminologist nor a police officer; nor do I have special expertise in the statistical analysis of violence.

 So I will avoid dealing in numbers and statistics. 

 I will simply tell you my story, the story of an American professor who has spent over 25 years of his life reading, writing, and teaching at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.  My experience here has been wonderful, and I would like to tell you why.

College campuses are unique environments in many ways, and that is part of their special appeal and their essential value.  Students arrive here in pursuit of their lives, in effect, at an age when many of them have only the haziest notions of where those lives will lead them.  Our faculty thrives on introducing these students to their own talents and potential, an odd job that requires, by turns, skepticism, patience, tolerance, exploration, backward steps, and new beginnings—over and over again.  

American campuses have traditionally provided the last safe haven where our students can undertake this kind of self-exploration and discovery without penalty or embarrassment—and it’s an educational process that thrives, like an orchid, in a very specific climate. 

For our students and our faculty this climate has always been one of trust and tranquility. 

If we introduce guns to this environment, then our educational system, like the orchid, withers and dies. 

The fact is that guns and their constant companion, violence, have an impact on the free expression of ideas, and wherever guns are accepted as the normal accompaniment to books, laptops, backpacks, and iPhones, the strength of our ideas will wane, and higher education will respond in the only way that it can—by condoning those ideas that are the least likely to excite controversy or to spawn disagreement and free inquiry. 

In this environment, we will begin to mistake frightened agreement for vigorous examination, acceptance for investigation.  This will happen by degrees, unnoticeably at first, but it will happen.  And slowly our ideas—and the values that accompany them—will conform to the environment that has nourished them: an environment of hostility, aggression, threat, and retaliation.

This is not the kind of education that has distinguished this country for the last 250 years.  This is not the American educational system that encouraged me to devote my life to it.

Good teaching, of course, like any profession, is an activity that requires an array of techniques and strategies.  Therefore, much of our teaching occurs by example, by the policies that we enact and support, and by the lives that we lead—policies and lives that our students watch unfolding day by day.

We also teach our students, then, by putting our lives on display, by showing our students that the most powerful ideas of our culture, the ones that we meet in our books and discuss in our classrooms, can also structure our lives and our society.

To allow faculty, staff, and eventually students to carry concealed handguns only strengthens the feelings of degradation, fear, and paranoia that give rise to the very culture of violence that we all work to dismantle in our classrooms every day. And it quietly sanctions the notion that we are now authorized by the laws of the land, no less, to respond to violence with violence—a notion that, on a college campus, can only lead us to an unspeakable tragedy.

We do not create a peaceful campus, one that encourages the very specific pursuits that distinguish higher education, by allowing those who live, work, and learn together to carry into the classroom the weapons that can destroy that peace in a few seconds. 

The most powerful weapons in our book-bags, the real tools we use to dismantle hatred and violence, have always been our books and the education they bring.  If this were to change, our mission would be irretrievably compromised.

The Presidents and Chancellors of the colleges and universities of Arkansas have voted unanimously against this bill. 

If you would like to sign a petition against HB 1243, it is a very simple and quick process, and it requires only a moment to do so.

Click here to help us stop this legislation.