I laughed out loud, quite literally, when I read this story. And then I nearly cried.
If you missed the fleeting attention it received in the national news media, let me recap it for you. Bill Crozier, a candidate for Oklahoma’s State Superintendent of Education, has done the unthinkable in a race for a position where he (one can only presume) would seek to take on responsibility for the future of Oklahoma’s children. He’s declared that, were he to be elected to the state’s highest education office, his recommended policy response to the recent flurry of school shootings in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Colorado wouldn’t be to partake in sensible conversation about gun control. It wouldn’t be to create a statewide program to assist schools in funding and maintaining stronger security measures. And neither would it be to take the shootings as a sign to invest in improving the state’s early and primary education with the goal of stamping out the cause of these school violence incidents at their root. No, Mr. Crozier’s policy response would be to arm Oklahoma’s children with thick, outdated textbooks and teach them how to use the books to defend themselves against bullets fired by intruders.
I’m not making this up.
There are bell-weather moments in a nation’s history when critical events occur and compel us, clearly, towards major action to ensure the wellbeing of our people: Pearl Harbor, the Russian Sputnik launch, Bull Connor’s beat-down tactics against non-violent Civil Rights protestors in Alabama, and 9-11 each sparked dramatic political and social responses.
To be sure, the recent run of school shootings doesn’t rise quite to the same volume of importance as these moments in our history. But the fact that a candidate can run for State Superintendent of Education and issue this proposal with a straight-face just might.
Do we need any better symbol for the way that our politicians have unabashedly, undeniably, and unbelievably placed children on the back-burner of political priorities than Mr. Crozier? At a time when a US teenager drops out of high school every 30 seconds and where US children lag further and further behind our international counterparts in key subjects (24th out of 29 developed nations in math and problem solving in 2003 – chapeau, Poland and Iceland, you’ve bested us yet again), Mr. Crozier’s taken the time to submit a video of tests he’s performed personally for how old science textbooks are better than math textbooks at stopping ammunition fired from a handgun.
What, specifically is wrong with this picture? Aside from everything in your gut instinct, let me make a few observations:
1.) The idea that thousands of Oklahoma voters will support this kind of person to make key decisions affecting their own children is absolutely disconcerting.
2.) The day when Mr. Crozier or any other candidate suggests that US soldiers be issued old textbooks to defend themselves will never occur. But if there is one thing that is as important as our armed forces, it is our children… and yet we consistently pay them short shrift. Believe me, our nation is wealthy enough to make both our servicemen & women AND our children the best-prepared and highly-trained in the world.
3.) The clear inference to be drawn by Mr. Crozier’s position is that it is more important to protect the rights of gun owners to assault rifles than it is to offer that degree of increased security for the lives of our children. If you think that’s disturbing, you might also support change to this document, which holds the same priority to be true (hint: how many times is the phrase “right to bear arms” mentioned in it, compared to the word “education”).
I’ll stop there – but encourage you to add your thoughts on why Mr. Crozier’s proposal is a perfect symbol of everything wrong with our nation’s priorities. And I hope you join us in the fight to demand much, much better.