The children and parents of our country need to take the summer to organize locally, build a set of national demands, and then refuse to go back to school in the fall until Congress does something.
I like the structure of this argument, starting with her use of the "magic of three" examples or items. Organize. Build. Refuse. A professional writer won't make errors in parallel structure, I suppose, but it's still nice to see the verbs in the same tense.
At its heart, the proposal is a cause and effect argument, with built-in assumptions (or warrants, in rhetoric) that readers are expected to understand. The key warrant is in the reader realizing that if enough students refuse to take part in something, there is very little a school can do... and if their parents support them, there is nothing that can be done.
I used to point out to my own high school students that if they wanted to see if they could really make a difference, or if they simply wanted to confirm that they possess SOME power, they could organize a school-wide walkout.
Imagine everyone simply standing up and leaving classrooms and heading out into some beautiful sunshine behind the school, and students refusing to return to the classroom. Yes, teachers and administrators might holler and threaten, but if everyone stands strong, what can school authorities do?
I used this as a way to discuss how important the "consent of the governed" concept is in how a society works. A good example is how most Americans have abandoned wearing masks, even in tight spaces, and have simply declared the pandemic an endemic... and are moving on. Hospitalizations are going up, but no one cares. Deaths continue but no one cares.
I see all sorts of polls and surveys indicating that large majorities of Americans favor all sorts of gun safety laws and regulations, but our political gridlock and lack of leadership have prevented those sentiments from becoming law.
Ms. Fattel's proposal is the sort of dramatic action that might move the needle, however unlikely it is that a nationwide walkout by students might be.
But when a silly Tik-Tok challenge went viral, every high school kid in the country at least knew about it, and many blockheads decided to vandalize school property. It didn't last long, but every adult in the country was suddenly talking about this newish social media platform and bemoaning the immaturity of our children.
If enough people decide to avoid some particular store or brand due to policies they disagree with, we would guess that the boycotted stores and brands would soon find some new policies.
Of course, the problem in organizing and motivating common citizens to do anything in a large group and over time is that we are so fragmented... and one strategy of politicians and the government and business in general is to minimize the chances that large numbers of citizens will work in concert for change.
BTW, I do recognize the weakness at the end of Fattal's proposal: "something" is quite vague and sounds more desperate than strong.
But what if that "something" were to raise the age for gun purchases nationally to 21 (I would prefer 25)? We "pick on" young people all the time, with legislators having little problem with tobacco being limited to over 21, for instance, or marijuana and liquor being the same.
We used to argue that if an 18-year-old could be drafted and fight in Vietnam, certainly he should be able to buy a beer. But the draft is old news.
Time to pick on 18-21 year olds once again, for their own good and for ours. Will it end America's idolization of guns? No. \
But it would be "something."
No comments:
Post a Comment