Editorial from Women and Guns March 01, 1997
by Peggy Tartaro
Executive Editor
From The Editor...
Unless the weather is very, very bad, or I am in some backward
outpost of civilization, one of my Sunday rituals is to pick up a copy of
The New York Times.
The Times and I do not agree editorially on lots of
things (which causes neither of us to lose much sleep), but the perusing
of the Sunday papers (in addition to my local one, which I am almost as
often in conflict with), is a third generation rite in my family and one
which serves several purposes.
I look at a number of the "softer" sections before getting down to
business.
Refreshed, I plow into the Week in Review, where one can
generally get a sense of the editorial pages around the country for a
week or two to come, since as a "national" paper the Times' opinions and
assessments of trends often trickle down to other editorial writers. I
also stop in at the Metro section, since residents of the entire states
of New York, Connecticut and New Jersey are often similarly trickled down
to by mighty Gotham.
Last stop is the first section of the paper, known as the
"National" section. Since Saturday is traditionally a "slow" news day,
this section is also full of longer pieces delineating trends and
allowing Timesmen the room to explore stories that are a bit off the
beaten track.
The Dec. 29, 1996 issue carried such a story on Page 23, in a six
column, top-of-the-page feature, whose headline was, "Idaho School
Officials Reject Proposal for Rifle Teams."
According to the story, datelined in Boise, a plan by the
superintendent of public instruction of public instruction (an elected
position in the state), Dr. Anne Fox, proposed including the shooting
sports in state junior and high schools. The proposal was rejected by
the 14-member board of the Idaho School Activities Association, who cited
concerns about liability and safety.
The story is interesting on two fronts.
Firstly, it touches on, but does not fully explore, the profound
gap on the firearms safety issue between gunowners and non-gunowners,
and, indirectly, a gulf that exists in the media's perception of
gunowners. What made the story newsworthy, in the Times' view, I suspect,
was that it happened in Idaho--a past president of the Idaho Rifle &
Pistol Association was quoted as being surprised the measure was rejected
and saying, "I mean, wait a minute, this is Idaho." Had the New York
City school board rejected the similar proposal, it would have been
covered in the paper, but not given the same. treatment.
I am willing to believe that everybody concerned with children's
education, from parents to teachers to elected officials, has the best
interests of students at heart, but that does not mean that I think both
sides of a question can be right.
Dr. Fox, who was a post graduate student at Syracuse University
(in New York State) learned that it was common for eastern high schools
to have rifle teams. "A lot of people are afraid to educate kids about
guns, but Fox believes if kids knew how to handle guns, they're more apt
to be safe with them," the Times quoted her spokeswoman, Rhonda
Edminston, as saying. Fox also said she thought such a program would
"instill self-confidence in student and teach them about firearms
safety," the paper said.
On the other side of the question, the Times quoted Association
president Don Armstrong pronouncing Fox's proposal "strange." he
commented, "I know there are groups that would offer classes in shooting,
but it's hard for me to imagine how this would fit into Idaho
schools...we're just not interested in putting rifles in schools." Other
Association officials told the Times they thought such a program would
violate federal law regarding students and firearms possession in school.
It is interesting to note that the conflict here appears to be
over two different things. Fox proposed adding an extracurricular
pastime to a presumably long list of other extracurricular activities,
one that would by definition seem to be voluntary on the part of
individual schools and students. In Erie County, New York, where I live,
for example, the City of Buffalo does not have any shooting sports; many
of our suburban school districts do. A friend, whose daughter is on such
a team, confirms that it is--as you might expect--and activity students
chose to become involved in, not one which is mandated for everyone in
the school district.
Armstrong, and others who rejected the idea, seem to have not
only forgotten what "extracurricular" means, but spun this issue out,
making it appear that students would be roaming school corridors armed
with rifles.
Enter yet another view, that expressed by the president of the
Idaho Parent-Teacher Association (PTA). "If Fox had built a groundswell
of political support for the idea, it would have had a better chance,"
said Terry Anderson in the same story. "I really believe she means
well, but sometimes I'm not sure that she [Fox] thinks ideas through far
enough and long enough before she goes public with them," Anderson continued.
Mr. Anderson's comments seem to indicate a willingness to listen
to ideas before jumping to conclusions. He apparently doesn't always
agree with Dr. Fox, nor does he indicate in the story whether he is in
favor of shooting programs in the schools, but he also doesn't seem to
have the knee-jerk reactions of the School Activities Association.
His observations about Fox are followed by what appears to be THE
NEW YORK TIMES' other agenda in giving this story the exposure it did.
"Dr. Fox is no stranger to dispute," the Times says, recounting how "she
rocked the education establishment" with proposals rejecting federal
financing for two programs on which she was overruled by the state
school board, and controversy on her views on AIDS education.
The Times concludes suavely, "Dr. Fox reminds some people of
another Idaho Republican, Rep. Helen Chenoweth, who has had national
media attention for her outspoken conservatism. Like Rep. Chenoweth, Dr.
Fox counts conservative Republicans, militia groups and Christian groups
as her core supporters."
Lest the reader feel that this is a bit much in the journalistic
piling on vein, in kind with someone writing a story that shays,
"so-and-so reminds some people of New York Rep. Charles Schumer, a
liberal Democrat who counts anti-gun lobbyists and left-wing extremeists
as his core supporters...", the last work on Fox is given by Boise State
University political scientist John Freemuth. "She sounds real
ideological, almost like she's catering to a particular clientele," Prof.
Freemuth is quoted as saying.
This takes us rather far afield from whether or not a sports
program should be added to a state's extracurricular menu, as the story's
headline indicates.
Note that "militia groups" are sandwiched like a piece of
poisoned ham between the somewhat suspected, but not nearly as awful
"Conservative Republicans" and "Christian groups" in the ingredients of
Fox's (and Chenoweth's) "core supporters."
The implications are pretty obvious. Elected officials who are
"ideological" are somehow suspect, the story implies, as if voters would
prefer legislative plumbers who come in, unclog the drain and leave
without annoying their constituents with "idealogy."
The other is the because she is "idealogical" her advocating a
program which is first and foremost a sport, and secondarily has safety
benefits to students is also suspicious.
The real losers in all this are people like the PTA president who
indicated a willingness to learn more about something hew was unfamiliar
with--in this case a rifle shooting program, and, of course, the students
who might have been interested in such the opportunity to learn about
shooting.
Peggy Tartaro,
Executive Editor
